Our picks for 2010

For the record, how we went in 2010:

CA Props:

Prop 19: Marijuana Legalization YES
Not gonna pass, but I continue to believe that the only way to get drug trade under control is to legalize and perhaps even tax the bejeezus out of it.

Prop 20: Redistricting Congressional Districts NO
Same as Prop 11 two years ago -- anything that has the veneer of gerrymandering really sticks in my craw.

Prop 21: State Park and Wildlife surcharge on vehicles YES
I hate seeing those #$! fees racked up every time you renew vehicle registration, but the truth is I think we have to put money into the state park system.

Prop 22: Borrowing Funds from Transportation and Redevelopment NO
I don't have a strong opinion on this one.

Prop 23: Suspends Air Pollution Controls NO NO NO, ICK. Ptooey.
Are you kidding me? Sure, let's just pump up those greenhouse gas emissions and see how we do.

Prop 24: Repeals Law to Allow Businesses to Lower Tax Liability. YES.
Why am I needed to vote on this. Jeez louise. Now I have to be a corporate tax law specialist too just to vote? Fine. Yes, tax the corporations.

Prop 25: Changes from a 2/3 majority to a simple majority for budget legislation requirements. YES.
See California: past summer with no budget. Can't even get people to agree on whether the sky is blue. I want that process to be faster and easier.

Prop 26: Requires 2/3 vote for state and local fees to be approved. NO
See above. Plus it's backed by Chevron and Occidental Petroleum.

Prop 27: Eliminates the Commission on Redistricting. YES.
See above, Prop 20.

San Francisco Bonus:

AA: Vehicle Registration Fee: NO
Have I mentioned that I'm tired of fees? And do I honestly think my extra $10 will actually GO to fixing potholes and improving MUNI? No.

A: Earthquake Retrofit bond. Yes.
Sure, don't want things falling about our ears as I walk through the Polk Gulch.

B: City Retirement and Health Plans. No.
It's a plan benefit cut that doesn't hit all economic levels equally. I don't like our budget, but I don't think the folks at a low salary level should have to take the same kind of big hit that will mean nothing to people at a higher salary level.

C: Mayor appears at Board Meetings. Leaning No.
I'm divided on this one because I'm very entertained by the "Prime Minister's questions" on the BBC but I also have to admit that I don't think a lot of actual compromise gets done, just a lot of grandstanding, which seems to me to be a waste of time.

D: Non citizen voting on School Board elections: Yes.
Their kids are in school, they pay taxes. Yes, let them vote.

E: Election Day voter Registration. Yes.
Anything to make voting easier.

F: Health Service Board Elections. ??
Another in the "Sorry, I'm not qualified to be making this decision...." props. Not sure where I am on this.

G: Transit Operator Wages. No.
There are better ways to address driver pay issues without legislating them.

H: Local Elected officials on Political Party Committees. No
Actually we don't really get to legislate anything about how local political parties choose their committee members.

I: Saturday Voting. Yes.
Sure let's try it. It's a one-time trial run.

J: Hotel Tax clarification. Yes.
Eliminates the loophole by which online bookers do not have to pay hotel taxes.

K: Same hotel tax, but different. No.
J includes an increase tax which will help generate revenue, while K does not (done to placate the hotel and tourism businesses), but SF needs the money and there's no clear argument that a $3 tax will discourage tourism.

L: Bans sitting or Lying on Sidewalks. NO ICK PTOOEY.
I'm as annoyed as anyone by the people sprawled on the sidewalks on Haight, but this is stupid. You're going to make it illegal to park your butt on the curb for lunch everywhere in the city? Never make a law you can't enforce and this one can only be selectively enforced.

M: Community policing and foot patrols: Yes.
Now this makes sense. bring back beat cops who know the neighborhood and then they can HELP with the lying on sidewalks...

N: Real property transfer tax. Yes.
Increases the tax charged on the sale of property worth more than $5 million. I can live with that.

Read more.

Prop 18: On August 10, 2010, the State Legislature and Governor removed Proposition 18 from the ballot.

At the end of 2009, the California Legislature passed a series of water-related bills and at the same time approved a massive $11.14 billion bond [the "Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010"] to fund a wide range of water projects and efforts. This is the largest water bond in 50 years, yet the costs and benefits of the bond have not been fully assessed by an independent organization. Until now.

This bond is to be voted on by California voters in November, as Proposition 18. The Governor recently proposed postponing the bond, but the Legislature has not yet taken the action required to have it pulled off of the November ballot.

The Pacific Institute has just completed a major, comprehensive, and independent analysis of the bond and released the report: The California 2010 Water Bond: What Does It Say and Do? The questions addressed by that analysis include:

- What does the bond language actually cover and say?
- How does the bond compare to past water bonds in size, definitions, and scope?
- How will the bond be allocated among different funding priorities?
- What are the governance implications of the bond?
- What options are available for funding water system improvements?
- What effect would the bond have on other critical public services and projects funded by the state?
- How are the water needs of disadvantaged communities addressed by the bond?

The Institute has also published three major Information Sheets on the Bond:
- What are the Fiscal Impacts of an $11 Billion Water Bond?
- How Does this 2010 Water Bond Compare to Past Bonds?
- Does the 2010 Water Bond Help Those Who Need It Most?

The Institute takes no formal position on the bond, but given the possibility that the bond will be pulled from the ballot and re-written, the Institute also offers a set of principles for writing a responsible and effective water bond. These principles, not followed when preparing Proposition 18, include:

- A responsible bond relies less on the state's beleaguered General Fund.
- A responsible water bond ensures that publicly funded projects provide real public benefits.
- A responsible water bond ensures that the needs of the most vulnerable stakeholders are prioritized.
- A responsible water bond ensures that water resource management strategies are compared on an equal playing field.

We recommend that our Legislators and politicians take a look at the Pacific Institute analysis before deciding whether to pull the current bond off the Ballot, and if they do not, we recommend voters read these fact sheets before voting in November.

Peter Gleick Pacific Institute

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gleick/detail?entry_id=69267#ixzz13rsvKR98

Read more.

PROP 19 LEGALIZES MARIJUANA UNDER CALIFORNIA BUT NOT FEDERAL LAW. PERMITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE AND TAX COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, A

Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Fiscal Impact: Depending on federal, state, and local government actions, potential increased tax and fee revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potential correctional savings of several tens of millions of dollars annually.


WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES vote on this measure means: Individuals age 21 or older could, under state law, possess and cultivate limited amounts of marijuana for personal use. In addition, the state and local governments could authorize, regulate, and tax commercial marijuana-related activitites under certain conditions. These activities would remain illegal under federal law.

NO vote on this measure means: The possession and cultivation of marijuana for personal use and commercial marijuana-related activities would remain illegal under state law, unless allowed under the state's existing medical marijuana law.

Read the complete text of the proposed laws.

Read more.

PROP 20 REDISTRICTING OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Removes elected representatives from process of establishing congressional districts and transfers that authority to recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and respresentatives of neither party. Fiscal Impact: No significant net change in state redistricting costs.

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES vote on this measure means: The responsibility to determine the boundaries of California's districts in the U.S. House of Representatives would be moved to the Citizens Redistricting Commission, a commission established by Proposition 11 in 2008. (Proposition 27 on this ballot also concerns redistricting issues. If both Proposition 20 and Proposition 27 are approved by voters, the proposition receiving the greater number of "yes" votes would be the only one to go into effect.)

NO vote on this measure means: The responsibility to determine the boundaries of California's districts in the U.S. House of Representatives would remain with the Legislature.

Read the complete text of the proposed laws.

Read more.

PROP 21 ESTABLISHES $18 ANNUAL VEHICLE LICENSE SURCHARGE TO HELP FUND STATE PARKS AND WILDLIFE PROGRAMS. GRANTS SURCHARGED VEHICLES FREE ADMISSION TO

Exempts commercial vehicles, trailers and trailer coaches from the surcharge. Fiscal Impact: Annual increase to state revenues of $500 million from surcharge on vehicle registrations. After offsetting some existing funding sources, these revenues would provide at least $250 million more annually for state parks and wildlife conservation.

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES vote on this measure means: An $18 annual surcharge would be added to the amount paid when a person registers a motor vehicle. The surcharge revenues would be used to provide funding for state park and wildlife conservation programs. Vehicles subject to the surcharge would have free admission and parking at all state parks.

NO vote on this measure means: State park and wildlife conservation programs would continue to be funded through existing state and local funding sources. Admission and parking fees could continue to be charged for vehicles entering state parks.

Read the complete text of the proposed laws.

Read more.

PROP 22 PROHIBITS THE STATE FROM BORROWING OR TAKING FUNDS USED FOR TRANSPORTATION, REDEVELOPMENT, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS AND SERVICES. INITIATI

Prohibits State, even during severe fiscal hardship, from delaying distribution of tax revenues for these purposes. Fiscal Impact: Decreased state General Fund spending and/or increased state revenues, probably in the range of $1 billion to several billions of dollars annually. Comparable increases in funding for state and local transportation programs and local redevelopment.

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES vote on this measure means: The state's authority to use or redirect state fuel tax and local property tax revenues would be significantly restricted.

NO vote on this measure means: The state's current authority over state fuel tax and local property tax revenues would not be affected.

Read the complete text of the proposed laws.

Read more.

PROP 23 SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION

Fiscal Impact: Likely modest net increase in overall economic activity in the state from suspension of greenhouse gases regulatory activity, resulting in a potentially significant net increase in state and local revenues.

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES vote on this measure means: Certain existing and proposed regulations authorized under state law ("Assembly Bill 32") to address global warming would be suspended. These regulations would remain suspended until the state unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or lower for one year.

NO vote on this measure means: The state could continue to implement the measures authorized under Assembly Bill 32 to address global warming.

Read the complete text of the proposed laws.

Read more.

PROP 24 REPEALS RECENT LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ALLOW BUSINESSES TO LOWER THEIR TAX LIABILITY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues of about $1.3 billion each year by 2012–13 from higher taxes paid by some businesses. Smaller increases in 2010–11 and 2011–12.

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES vote on this measure means: Three business tax provisions will return to what they were before 2008 and 2009 law changes. As a result: (1) a business will be less able to deduct losses in one year against income in other years, (2) a multistate business will have its California income determined by a calculation using three factors, and (3) a business will not be able to share tax credits with related businesses.

NO vote on this measure means: Three business tax provisions that were recently changed will not be affected. As a result of maintaining current law: (1) a business will be able to deduct losses in one year against income in more situations, (2) most multistate businesses could choose to have their California income determined based only on a single sales factor, and (3) a business will be able to share its tax credits with related businesses.

Read the complete text of the proposed laws.

Read more.

PROP 25 CHANGES LEGISLATIVE VOTE REQUIREMENT TO PASS BUDGET AND BUDGET-RELATED LEGISLATION FROM TWO-THIRDS TO A SIMPLE MAJORITY. RETAINS TWO-THIRDS VO

Legislature permanently forfeits daily salary and expenses until budget bill passes. Fiscal Impact: In some years, the contents of the state budget could be changed due to the lower legislative vote requirement in this measure. The extent of changes would depend on the Legislature's future actions.

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES vote on this measure means: The Legislature's vote requirement to send the annual budget bill to the Governor would be lowered from two-thirds to a majority of each house of the Legislature.

NO vote on this measure means: The Legislature's vote requirement to send an annual budget bill to the Governor would remain unchanged at two-thirds of each house of the Legislature.

Read the complete text of the proposed laws.

Read more.

PROP 26 REQUIRES THAT CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL FEES BE APPROVED BY TWO-THIRDS VOTE. FEES INCLUDE THOSE THAT ADDRESS ADVERSE IMPACTS ON SOCIETY OR THE E

Fiscal Impact: Depending on decisions by governing bodies and voters, decreased state and local government revenues and spending (up to billions of dollars annually). Increased transportation spending and state General Fund costs ($1 billion annually).

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES vote on this measure means: The definition of taxes would be broadened to include many payments currently considered to be fees or charges. As a result, more state and local proposals to increase revenues would require approval by two-thirds of each house of the Legislature or by local voters.

NO vote on this measure means: Current constitutional requirements regarding fees and taxes would not be changed.

Read the complete text of the proposed laws.

Read more.

PROP 27 ELIMINATES STATE COMMISSION ON REDISTRICTING. CONSOLIDATES AUTHORITY FOR REDISTRICTING WITH ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL

Eliminates 14-member redistricting commission. Consolidates authority for establishing state Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization districts with elected representatives who draw congressional districts. Fiscal Impact: Possible reduction of state redistricting costs of around $1 million over the next year. Likely reduction of these costs of a few million dollars once every ten years beginning in 2020.


WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES vote on this measure means: The responsibility to determine the boundaries of State Legislature and Board of Equalization districts would be returned to the Legislature. The Citizens Redistricting Commission, established by Proposition 11 in 2008 to perform this function, would be eliminated. (Proposition 20 on this ballot also concerns redistricting issues. If both Proposition 27 and Proposition 20 are approved by voters, the proposition receiving the greater number of "yes" votes would be the only one to go into effect.)

NO vote on this measure means: The responsibility to determine the boundaries of Legislature and Board of Equalization districts would remain with the Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Read the complete text of the proposed laws.

Read more.

Defeat is sharp rebuke to governor, Legislature

California voters soundly rejected a package of ballot measures Tuesday that would have reduced the state's projected budget deficit of $21.3 billion to something slightly less overwhelming: $15.4 billion.

Defeat is sharp rebuke to governor, Legislature.
Read more.

It's in your hands...

From the AP, an analysis of the May 19 ballot measures.

Lawmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger arranged Tuesday's special election on six ballot measures in February, when they agreed to a budget package that was intended to close a $42 billion deficit through the middle of next year. But even after cutting $15 billion in spending, raising taxes by $12.8 billion and borrowing more than $11 billion, the budget deficit has reappeared amid a global economic recession.

Analysts say the six ballot measures are a recipe for electoral disaster because of their complexity and the lack of support from a unified state Legislature. The election also comes at a time of rising unemployment rates, plunging home values and deep distrust of state politicians, leaving voters in a foul mood.

Analysts have questioned whether it's smart for lawmakers to place so much of the state's annual budgeting process in the hands of the electorate.

"It's not particularly wise to put to voters these decisions," said Jessica Levinson, director of political reform for Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles. "It not only causes the expense of having elections, it causes voter fatigue, it causes voter disgust with the system."

Read more from the AP.
Read more.

Top contributors to the propositions on the May 19 ballot

Top contributors to campaigns supporting one or more of the six propositions on Tuesday's special election ballot:

1. California Teachers Association, $9.2 million.

2. National Education Association, $3 million to support propositions 1A and 1B.

3. Governor's California Dream Team campaign committee, $2.5 million.

4. A. Jerrold Perenchio, former chairman and chief executive officer of Univision, a Spanish-language television network, $1.5 million.

5. GTECH, a lottery and casino management company, $1.3 million, mainly to support Proposition 1C.

6. California State Council of Service Employees, $1.1 million to support Proposition 1C.

7. Chevron Corp., $500,000.

8. California Alliance for Jobs, a construction industry group, $400,000.

9. Philip Morris, $350,000.

10. California Democratic Party, $341,158 in support of Proposition 1C.

___

Top contributors against one or more of the six propositions:

1. California Faculty Association, $1.2 million against Proposition 1A.

2. California State Council of Service Employees, $1.1 million against Proposition 1A.

3. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, $680,399 against Proposition 1A.

4. California Federation of Teachers, $567,420 against propositions 1A, 1D and 1E.

5. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, $566,100 against propositions 1A, 1D and 1E.

6. California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies, $275,000 against propositions 1D and 1E.

7. First 5 Association of California, $166,049 against propositions 1D and 1E.

8. Actor and director Rob Reiner, $150,000 against propositions 1D and 1E.
Read more.

PROPOSITION 1F ELECTED OFFICIALS’ SALARIES. PREVENTS PAY INCREASES DURING BUDGET DEFICIT YEARS.

ELECTED OFFICIALS’ SALARIES. PREVENTS PAY INCREASES DURING BUDGET DEFICIT YEARS.

• Encourages balanced state budgets by preventing elected Members of the Legislature and statewide constitutional officers, including the Governor, from receiving pay raises in years when the state is running a deficit.
• Directs the Director of Finance to determine whether a given year is a deficit year.
• Prevents the Citizens Compensation Commission from increasing elected officials’ salaries in years when the state Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties is in the negative by an amount equal to or greater than one percent of the General Fund.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Minor state savings related to elected state officials’ salaries in some cases when the state is expected to end the year with a budget deficit.

TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW BELOW

PROPOSITION 1F
This amendment proposed by Senate Constitutional Amendment 8 of the 2009–2010 Regular Session (Resolution Chapter 3, Statutes of 2009) expressly amends the California Constitution by amending a section thereof; therefore, existing provisions proposed to be deleted are printed in strikeout type and new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
P
roposed Law
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 8 OF ARTICLE III
SEC. 8. (a) The California Citizens Compensation Commission is hereby created and shall consist of seven members appointed by the Governor. The commission shall establish the annual salary and the medical, dental, insurance, and other similar benefits of state officers.
(b) The commission shall consist of the following persons:
(1) Three public members, one of whom has expertise in the area of compensation, such as an economist, market researcher, or personnel manager; one of whom is a member of a nonprofit public interest organization; and one of whom is representative of the general population and may include, among others, a retiree, homemaker, or person of median income. No person appointed pursuant to this paragraph may, during the 12 months prior to his or her appointment, have held public office, either elective or appointive, have been a candidate for elective public office, or have been a lobbyist, as defined by the Political Reform Act of 1974.
(2) Two members who have experience in the business community, one of whom is an executive of a corporation incorporated in this State which ranks among the largest private sector employers in the State based on the number of employees employed by the corporation in this State and one of whom is an owner of a small business in this State.


Read more.