bill’s california and sacramento ballot measure recommendations

By guest columnist Bill Magavern

These opinions are my own. Please feel free to forward them, or to send me comments of a civil  nature (no rants, please). 

STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS 

PROP 1, REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM — YES 

Put on the ballot by the Legislature, this measure would put the rights to choose whether to have  an abortion and whether to use contraception into the state constitution, giving those rights a  higher level of protection than their current statutory basis. The Supreme Court’s overturning of  Roe v. Wade prompted this step. Opponents argue its passage will mean California pays for  abortions for people coming from other states; to me, that’s not a reason to vote no, because I  support our state helping those facing repression in their home states. 

PROPS 26 AND 27, EXPANDED GAMBLING — NO AND NO 

These competing measures were put on the ballot by warring factions of the gambling industry.  26 would allow sports wagering, roulette and dice games in tribal casinos and horse-racing  tracks, while 27 would legalize online and mobile sports betting. I think California already has  enough gambling opportunities, and that expanding them would increase gambling addiction and  poverty, because people who can’t afford it will lose money to these gambling companies. It’s  probably inevitable that sports gambling will come to our state eventually, but I think the  Legislature is likely to do a better job of setting the rules than these industry initiatives would. 

PROP 28, ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ARTS AND MUSIC EDUCATION — YES 

This initiative supported by education groups would allocate from the state’s General Fund an  amount equaling 1% of public school funding to arts and music education programs in K-12  public schools. The money would go primarily to hire new arts staff, and would be tilted toward  schools serving more economically disadvantaged students. Budgetary initiatives are much better  when they are funded by a progressive revenue source (like Prop 30 is), so I’m not enthusiastic  about proposals like this one that have no new funding, but I do think that arts education is  valuable and has suffered in the past, and I like the support for disadvantaged students, so it’s  worth earmarking this very small slice — less than 1/2 of 1% — of the General Fund. 

PROP 29, NEW REGULATIONS FOR KIDNEY DIALYSIS CLINICS — NO 

This is the 3rd time in recent years that a union has put on the ballot an initiative to add  regulations to dialysis clinics. The previous 2 failed, and I can find no semblance of a campaign  on the yes side for 29. I’d be open to adding health-protective standards if the supporters proved  that there are medical problems currently, but their ballot argument does not even attempt to 

make a case that there’s a problem that needs to be addressed. Nor do they explain why the labor friendly Legislature could not address any problems that might exist. Opponents argue that Prop  29 would force community clinics to cut services or shut down. 

PROP 30, REDUCE AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE CHANGE AND PREVENT  WILDFIRES BY TAXING THE RICH — YES 

I have been involved in crafting and supporting this measure in my day job as Policy Director at  Coalition for Clean Air, because this is a tremendous opportunity to clean up our air, reduce  global warming and stop catastrophic wildfire. It would add a small (1.75%) additional tax on  incomes over $2 million, and would use the money — $3.5 – $5 billion annually — to fund  programs to reduce harmful emissions from transportation (80% of revenues) and to prevent and  control wildfires (20%). The transportation funds would go to incentives for purchasers of zero emission cars, trucks, buses, trains and boats, and for vehicle charging/fueling stations, with at  least half going to disadvantaged and low-income Californians. Proceeds would also fund clean  mobility for those who don’t own cars, through EV car-sharing, e-bike rebates, protected bike  lanes, and transit passes. 

The opposition, funded by greedy billionaires who don’t want to pay their fair share of taxes  (after benefitting from Trump’s terrible tax cuts for the rich), has mainly attacked the fact that  most of the funding for the Prop 30 campaign has come from Lyft. But nothing in the measure  favors Lyft of any other special interest; currently, Lyft drivers are eligible for electric-car  rebates, and nothing in the measure would change that. They are a tiny percentage of those who  will benefit from the transition to zero-emission transportation. Despite the deceptive opposition  rhetoric (a Sacramento judge called their language “false and/or misleading”), not a penny raised  by Prop 30 would come out of any other programs, because this is money that otherwise would  just stay in the pockets of the ultra-rich. 

I work on the budget every year, and have seen clean transportation programs constantly run out  of funds. We could never raise this amount of money through the legislative process, because tax  increases require 2/3 super-majorities in both houses and the billionaires have a huge amount of  

influence on the legislators and Governor through their campaign contributions. More info at https://www.ccair.org/topics/electric-vehicles/. 

PROP 31, PROHIBIT RETAIL SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS — YES 

A yes vote supports a law passed by the Legislature in 2020 to prohibit retail sale of flavored  tobacco products like cigarettes, e-cigarettes and chewing tobacco. The tobacco industry  gathered signatures to put the law to this referendum, so they want you to vote no. Tobacco  companies use candy flavors to trick kids into trying nicotine, according to the American Lung  Association. Tobacco marketing also uses flavors like menthol to prey on communities of color.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY MEASURES 

MEASURE A, SALES TAX TO FUND TRANSPORTATION — NO 

This is a money grab put on the ballot by those who profit from sprawl development and road  paving. It would increase the sales tax — which is not a progressive tax — by a half-cent for 40  years and use the revenues for various transportation purposes. To be fair, some of the money  would go to badly needed public transit and bike and pedestrian improvements, and to fixing  potholes. But those expenditures are being used as a trojan horse to carry the major investments  in road expansion that will cause more traffic, air pollution and global warming, and will benefit  the developers funding the campaign. I don’t mind paying higher taxes for good causes, but this  measure would raise taxes on people struggling to get by and would jeopardize our region’s  ability to meet air and climate standards. 

MEASURE B, CANNABIS TAX TO FUND HOMELESS SERVICES — YES 

B would help address the tragedy of human beings living without adequate shelter. This measure  was put on the ballot by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors. It would enable the  county to license cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution and sale in the  unincorporated county, subject to regulation, which means that people would get better access to  legal dispensaries. Taxes on the new businesses would go to fund services addressing  homelessness, including on the American River Parkway, a local jewel that has been suffering  from the county’s inadequate response to homelessness.  

MEASURE D, AFFORDABLE HOUSING — YES 

Unfortunately, the state constitution has a backward provision requiring voter approval before  local governments can build affordable rental housing. So this measure, put on the ballot by the  Board of Supervisors, is needed to allow Sacramento County to build badly needed affordable  dwellings for low-income, elderly and disabled residents who are being squeezed by rent  increases. 

SACRAMENTO CITY MEASURES 

MEASURE L — EARMARK FOR YOUTH PROGRAMS — NO 

This is a tough call for me, because I very much support youth development and violence  prevention programs, but I think they should be funded through the regular budget process. The  measure, put on the ballot by the Sacramento City Council, would take some of the city’s  General Fund and put it in a Children’s Fund. Which sounds great, until you think about the fact  that the measure would not create any new revenue, nor does it say what existing programs  would be cut to create the new spending. The City currently expects to run deficits for the next 5  years, so tough choices will have to be made, and locking up some of the existing revenues 

would limit flexibility. Cities have very few options for raising revenues or cutting services, so  I’m worried that homeless services, parks and other important needs could suffer. 

MEASURE M — CLARIFICATION OF COUNCIL DISTRICTS AFTER REDISTRICTING —  YES 

This measure, put on the ballot by the City Council, would clarify that after the decennial  redistricting process the new maps go into effect with the next election. This is necessary to  clarify that until the election the council members are still representing the districts that elected  them. 

MEASURE N — UPDATE OF TOURISM AND FACILITIES ORDINANCE — YES 

Put on the ballot by the City Council, this measure would make fairly minor changes in the 1964  law governing how the city spends hotel tax revenues to promote tourism, economic  development and theatre and arts venues. Sacramento has been successfully attracting music  festivals, sporting events, arts and culinary travel, and this update would support that. 

MEASURE O — HOMELESSNESS — NO 

This measure was put on the ballot by the City Council, but under heavy pressure from a  business-backed campaign that was gathering signatures for an initiative. I completely  sympathize with those who are frustrated by the homelessness crisis and want our governments  to do a lot more, both to help those living without homes and to protect our neighborhoods from  the adverse impacts of encampments. But I fear that this measure would not solve the problems,  and instead would result in moving homeless people from place to place. It wouldn’t give the  city any new resources to solve the crisis, deliver affordable and supportive housing, or expand  services necessary to help people on the streets. 

SACRAMENTO CANDIDATE RACES 

I’m not going to make comprehensive recommendations for all the offices on the ballot, but I do  want to weigh in on a few important local races I feel strongly about: 

State Senate District 8 — Dave Jones 

Jones has served us well as City Councilmember, State Assemblymember, and State Insurance  Commissioner, and it’s hard to imagine anyone better equipped to represent the Sacramento area  in the State Senate. He’s always been a skilled and progressive champion for social and  reproductive justice and affordable health care, and in recent years has added both expertise and  passion for preventing catastrophic climate change. 

Sacramento County Supervisor District 5 — Jaclyn Moreno 

This district covers the whole southern and most of the eastern portion of the county, and the  winner could well be the swing vote on the Board, so it’s a very important race. I met Moreno  recently, and I think she’s the clear choice for anyone caring about homelessness, social services,  our air, water and climate, and reproductive health. 

State Assembly District 10 — Eric Guerra 

I’ve known Eric for years and I think he’d do a great job representing this district that includes  Elk Grove and the southern portion of Sacramento. His experience as a City Councilmember and  a legislative staffer make him well equipped for the Assembly, and he’s a conscientious and  progressive public servant.