Showing posts with label Passed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Passed. Show all posts

Saturday, August 30, 2008

Proposition 1: The Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century PASSED

Bond Measure

  • Prop. 1 asks voters to approve the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds.
  • This would partially fund a $40 billion, 800-mile high speed train under the supervision of the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
  • The train would run between San Francisco and Los Angeles, with Anaheim, California, designated as the southern terminus of the initial segment of the high-speed train system.
  • Estimates are that the train system would be completed in 2030, and that it would take passengers between San Francisco and Los Angeles in about 2 hours and 40 minutes.

POSSIBLE DELAY
  • The California State Assembly approved AB 3034 on May 30 by a vote of 60-3. The goal of AB 3034 is to "make the rules for spending the bond money more flexible if voters sign off on the bonds in November."[1] The Senate Appropriations Committee is considering the bill.
  • AB 3034 has to be signed no later than midnight on July 15 in order for the language in it to be included in the ballot pamphlet for the November 4 election.
  • As it is currently written, Prop 1 gives top funding priority to a route between Los Angeles and San Francisco. If AB 3034 becomes law, Prop 1 would be:
  • * Amended to give all high-speed rail corridors, including the route through Altamont Pass, an equal opportunity to compete for a share of the $9 billion.

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.

Read more.

Proposition 2: Treatment of Farm Animals. PASSED

Statute

  • Requires that an enclosure or tether confining specified farm animals allow the animals for the majority of every day to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up, and turn around.
  • Specified animals include calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs.
  • Exceptions made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes.
  • Provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:
  • Probably minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue.
(Initiative 07-0041.)

For the full text as submitted to the CA Secretary of State, click here.

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.

Read more.

Proposition 3: Children’s Hospital Bond Act. PASSED

Bond Act

  • Authorizes $980,000,000 in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals.
  • Designates that 80 percent of bond proceeds go to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.
  • Requires that qualifying children’s hospitals provide comprehensive services to a high volume of children eligible for governmental programs and meet other requirements.
  • Designates that 20 percent of bond proceeds go to University of California general acute care hospitals.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:
  • State costs of about $2 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and the interest ($1 billion) costs of the bond.
  • Payments of about $67 million per year.
(Initiative 07-0034.)


More on the CA Secretary of State's site.

Read more.

Proposition 8: Limit on Marriage. PASSED

Constitutional Amendment

  • Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:
  • The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state.
(Initiative 07-0068.)

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.

Read more.

Proposition 11: Redistricting. PASSED

Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

  • Creates 14-member redistricting commission responsible for drawing new district lines for State Senate, Assembly, and Board of Equalization districts.
  • Requires State Auditor to randomly select commission members from voter applicant pool to create a commission with five members from each of the two largest political parties, and four members unaffiliated with either political party.
  • Requires nine votes to approve final district maps.
  • Establishes standards for drawing new lines, including respecting the geographic integrity of neighborhoods and encouraging geographic compactness.
  • Permits State Legislature to draw lines for congressional districts subject to these standards.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:
  • Probably no significant increase in state redistricting costs.
(Initiative 07-0077.)

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.

Read more.

Proposition 12: Veterans' Bond Act of 2008. PASSED

Bond Measure

  • Authorizes issuance of $900 million in bonds to create a fund that assist veterans who are purchasing farms, homes and mobile home properties.

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.

Read more.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Proposition 99: Eminent Domain. Limits on Government Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence. PASSED

Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

  • Bars state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence, as defined, for conveyance to a private person or business entity.
  • Creates exceptions for public work or improvement, public health and safety protection, and crime prevention.

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

  • No significant fiscal impact on state or local governments.
For the TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW:

PROPOSITION 99

This initiative measure is submitted to the people of California in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution. This initiative measure amends a section of the California Constitution; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

TITLE. This measure shall be known as the “Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act.”

PROPOSED LAW SECTION 1. PURPOSE AND INTENT

By enacting this measure, the people of California hereby express their intent to:

(a) Protect their homes from eminent domain abuse.

(b) Prohibit government agencies from using eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home to transfer it to another private owner or developer.

(c) Amend the California Constitution to respond specifically to the facts and the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London, in which the Court held that it was permissible for a city to use eminent domain to take the home of a Connecticut woman for the purpose of economic development.

(d) Respect the decision of the voters to reject Proposition 90 in November 2006, a measure that included eminent domain reform but also included unrelated provisions that would have subjected taxpayers to enormous financial liability from a wide variety of traditional legislative and administrative actions to protect the public welfare.

(e) Provide additional protection for property owners without including provisions, such as those in Proposition 90, which subjected taxpayers to liability for the enactment of traditional legislative and administrative actions to protect the public welfare.

(f) Maintain the distinction in the California Constitution between Section 19, Article I, which establishes the law for eminent domain, and Section 7, Article XI, which establishes the law for legislative and administrative action to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

(g) Provide a comprehensive and exclusive basis in the California Constitution to compensate property owners when property is taken or damaged by state or local governments, without affecting legislative and administrative actions taken to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

SECTION 2. AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION Section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution is amended to read: SEC. 19.

(a) Private property may be taken or damaged for a public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.

(b) The State and local governments are prohibited from acquiring by eminent domain an owneroccupied residence for the purpose of conveying it to a private person.

(c) Subdivision (b) of this section does not apply when State or local government exercises the power of eminent domain for the purpose of protecting public health and safety; preventing serious, repeated criminal activity; responding to an emergency; or remedying environmental contamination that poses a threat to public health and safety.

(d) Subdivision (b) of this section does not apply when State or local government exercises the power of eminent domain for the purpose of acquiring private property for a public work or improvement.

(e) For the purpose of this section:

1. “Conveyance” means a transfer of real property whether by sale, lease, gift, franchise, or otherwise.

2. “Local government” means any city, including a charter city, county, city and county, school district, special district, authority, regional entity, redevelopment agency, or any other political subdivision within the State.

3. “Owner-occupied residence” means real property that is improved with a single-family residence such as a detached home, condominium, or townhouse and that is the owner or owners’ principal place of residence for at least one year prior to the State or local government’s initial written offer to purchase the property. Owner-occupied residence also includes a residential dwelling unit attached to or detached from such a single-family residence which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons.

4. “Person” means any individual or association, or any business entity, including, but not limited to, a partnership, corporation, or limited liability company.

5. “Public work or improvement” means facilities or infrastructure for the delivery of public services such as education, police, fire protection, parks, recreation, emergency medical, public health, libraries, flood protection, streets or highways, public transit, railroad, airports and seaports; utility, common carrier or other similar projects such as energy-related, communication-related, water-related and wastewater-related facilities or infrastructure; projects identified by a State or local government for recovery from natural disasters; and private uses incidental to, or necessary for, the public work or improvement.

6. “State” means the State of California and any of its agencies or departments.

SECTION 3. By enacting this measure, the voters do not intend to change the meaning of the terms in subdivision (a) of Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution, including, without limitation, “taken,” “damaged,” “public use,” and “just compensation,” and deliberately do not impose any restrictions on the exercise of power pursuant to Section 19, Article I, other than as expressly provided for in this measure.

SECTION 4. The provisions of Section 19, Article I, together with the amendments made by this initiative, constitute the exclusive and comprehensive authority in the California Constitution for the exercise of the power of eminent domain and for the payment of compensation to property owners when private property is taken or damaged by state or local government. Nothing in this initiative shall limit the ability of the Legislature to provide compensation in addition to that which is required by Section 19 of Article I to property owners whose property is taken or damaged by eminent domain. SECTION 5. The amendments made by this initiative shall not apply to the acquisition of real property if the initial written offer to purchase the property was made on or before the date on which this initiative becomes effective, and a resolution of necessity to acquire the real property by eminent domain was adopted on or before 180 days after that date.

SECTION 6. The words and phrases used in the amendments to Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution made by this initiative which are not defined in subdivision (e), shall be defined and interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the law in effect on January 1, 2007, and as that law may be amended or interpreted thereafter.

SECTION 7. The provisions of this measure shall be liberally construed in furtherance of its intent to provide homeowners with protection against exercises of eminent domain in which an owneroccupied residence is subsequently conveyed to a private person.

SECTION 8. The provisions of this measure are severable. If any provision of this measure or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

SECTION 9. In the event that this measure appears on the same statewide election ballot as another initiative measure or measures that seek to affect the rights of property owners by directly or indirectly amending Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution, the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this measure. In the event that this measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and each and every provision of the other measure or measures shall be null and void.


Read more.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Proposition 97: Referendum on Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact (Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians) PASSED

REFERENDUM ON AMENDMENT TO INDIAN GAMING COMPACT.

A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, a law that:

  • Ratifies amendment to existing gaming compact between the state and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians; amendment would permit tribe to operate 3,000 additional slot machines;
  • Omits certain projects from scope of California Environmental Quality Act; amendment provides for Tribal Environmental Impact Report and intergovernmental procedure to address environmental impact;
  • Revenue paid by tribe to be deposited in General Fund; tribe would make $23,400,000 annual payment and pay percentage of revenue generated from the additional slot machines to the state.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:

  • Net increase in annual state government revenues probably in the tens of millions of dollars, growing over time through 2030.
  • For local governments in Riverside County, potential net increase of revenues due to economic growth and potential increased payments from the tribe to offset higher costs.

TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW HERE.

Read more.

Proposition 96: Referendum on Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact (Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation) PASSED

REFERENDUM ON AMENDMENT TO INDIAN GAMING COMPACT.

A “Yes” vote approves and a “No” vote rejects, a law that:

  • Ratifies amendment to existing gaming compact between state and Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation; amendment would permit tribe to operate 3,000 additional slot machines;
  • Omits certain projects from scope of California Environmental Quality Act; amendment provides for Tribal Environmental Impact Report and intergovernmental procedure to address environmental impact;
  • Specifies where revenue paid by tribe pursuant to amendment deposited; amendment requires tribe to make $20,000,000 annual payment and pay percentage of revenue generated from the additional slot machines to the state.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:

  • Net increase in annual state government revenues probably in the tens of millions of dollars, growing over time through 2030.
  • For local governments in San Diego County, potential net increase of revenues due to economic growth and potential increased payments from the tribe to offset higher costs.

TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW HERE.


Read more.

Proposition 95: Referendum on Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact (Morongo Band of Mission Indians) PASSED

REFERENDUM ON AMENDMENT TO INDIAN GAMING COMPACT.

A “Yes” Vote approves and a “No” Vote rejects, a law that:

  • Ratifies amendment to existing gaming compact between the state and Morongo Band of Mission Indians; amendment would permit tribe to operate 5,500 additional slot machines;
  • Omits certain projects from scope of California Environmental Quality Act; amendment provides for Tribal Environmental Impact Report and intergovernmental procedure to address environmental impact;
  • Revenue paid by tribe to be deposited into General Fund; amendment requires tribe to make $36,700,000 annual payment and pay percentage of revenue generated from additional slot machines to the state.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:

  • Net increase in annual state government revenues probably in the tens of millions of dollars, growing over time through 2030.
  • For local governments in Riverside County, potential net increase of revenues due to economic growth and potential increased payments from the tribe to offset higher costs.

TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW HERE

Read more.

Proposition 94: Referendum on Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact (Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians) PASSED

REFERENDUM ON AMENDMENT TO INDIAN GAMING COMPACT.

A “Yes” vote approves and a “No” vote rejects, a law that:

  • Ratifies amendment to existing gaming compact between the state and Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians; amendment would permit tribe to operate 5,500 additional slot machines;
  • Omits certain projects from scope of California Environmental Quality Act; amendment provides for Tribal Environmental Impact Report and intergovernmental procedure to address environmental impact;
  • Revenue paid by tribe to be deposited into General Fund; tribe would make $42,500,000 annual payment and pay percentage of revenue generated from the additional slot machines to the state.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:

  • Net increase in annual state government revenues probably in the tens of millions of dollars, growing over time through 2030.
  • For local governments in Riverside County, potential net increase of revenues due to economic growth and potential increased payments from the tribe to offset higher costs.

TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW HERE.


Read more.