How I view California's ballot choices:
With only three hours to go before the polls close:
President: Joseph Biden
Because Donald Trump must be defeated. If he returns to the presidency, the earth will have to absorb a possibly fatal dose of greenhouse gas, environmental poisons and generally an evil one-party government led by a narcissistic bully.
As for vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris, she’s good for identity politics and would step into the presidency if needed with knowledge as a senator.
Propositions:
14: Bonds for stem cell research program
No, the previous bonds really haven’t produced much, and there simply are more desperate health issues at the present including protecting workers from COVID and the populace from homelessness. Hopefully the U.S. government and private industry will fund this work.
15: YES! Splitting proposition 13 properties to allow current assessments of commercial property:
Commercial properties are subject to numerous ways of evading a sale that would permit reassessment. Commercial properties should pay for themselves including a reasonable level of taxation.
16: Allows some degree of affirmative action for minorities.
YES, the need for remediation of the harm from a history of prejudice is still needed.
17: Restores right to vote for felons who may be on parole.
No, but a tossup. I generally do not feel released felons to be either likely to be thoughtful voters, or society to owe them back full citizenship until their terms are completed. The outcome either way is unlikely to affect the outcome of any election.
18: Permits 17 year olds to vote in primary elections.
No. Among other reasons, primary elections may also address many other matters, while the rationale is that 17 year olds should help pick the candidates they can vote in or out when they are 18. Probably a level of maturity and responsibility theoretically reached at 18 years is not a bad requirement for the right to vote.
19: Revises Proposition 13 to exempt from reassessment more property if seniors and some others move to equal or cheaper homes. It also allows reassessment for property tax purposes of property (worth over $1 million) inherited by children, or grandchildren, who do not live in the property and merely rent it out.
YES. The transferability of the reduced assessment for long-term residents would probably result in more “right-sizing” of dwelling units as people age, and the reassessment of rental property upon the death of the owner would be a step toward progressive taxation of families to reduce unearned accumulation of wealth.
20: Restriction of early parole release of certain convicts.
No: Generally, this seems to be yet another full employment for correctional officers effort. There is also no particular reason to ask the electorate exactly how particular offenses should be treated. That’s why we hire politicians and have courts and parole boards.
21: Expand various opportunities for rent control.
No. Living in the Bay Area, Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, Richmond, and other communities have passed strict rent control. We have homelessness, a politics that is all about how much tenants may take advantage of landlords, and no one in their right mind would want to build rental housing or go into the business if they could be prohibited from ever making money. We need higher wages, more market rate housing, and a lot more highly subsidized housing, paid for by progressive taxation, not more imposition of restrictions on the people willing to provide or invest in housing for others.
22: Exemption of certain delivery and ride share drivers from wage and hour provisions.
Yes. These are not jobs for which the precise, inflexible, wage and hour rules and draconian and one-sided means of enforcement in California labor laws are appropriate. Laws should be designed to appropriately protect people who choose flexible hours. not force every type of employment into one size fits all box.
23: Rules re kidney dialysis:
No. This is a medical issue it is a mistake to ask the general public to decide. We are likely to either get it wrong or make it vastly more expensive.
24: Data privacy:
No. This may (or may not) be a good law, though it is very similar to what is already on the books. The on-line descriptions indicate it is extremely detailed, but rules in the initiative may not work as technology changes. The California ACLU opposes it but apparently only because they think it does not go far enough. The industry has been on the sidelines which probably means they want it to pass.
25: Replacement of money bail system
YES!. Although there probably will be flaws in the new system, the existing bail system simply benefits the wealthier and connected (and the bail bond industry) and damages the poor and isolated regardless of their ultimate guilt or innocence.
