Druff's endorsements for 2018 California propositions

Prop 1: Authorizes $4 billion in general obligation bonds for existing affordable housing programs for low-income residents, veterans, farmworkers, manufactured and mobile homes, infill, and transit-oriented housing.

My suggestion: Moderate NO

Republican position: No
Democratic position: Yes

Reason: While the intention sounds noble on the surface, California does not need $4 billion more of debt. A smarter solution to the housing situation needs to be formulated, rather than just throwing more money at the problem.



Prop 2: Amends Mental Health Services Act to fund No Place Like Home Program, which finances housing for individuals with mental illness. Ratifies existing law establishing the No Place Like Home Program. Fiscal Impact: Allows the state to use up to $140 million per year of county mental health funds to repay up to $2 billion in bonds. These bonds would fund housing for those with mental illness who are homeless.

My suggestion: Moderate YES

Republican position: Neutral/Yes
Democratic position: Yes

Reason: California needs to do a better job with its sizable mentally il population. This measure does not raise taxes, but rather shifts money around to fund housing for those mental illness, and gets them off the streets.



Prop 3: Authorizes $8.877 billion in state general obligation bonds for various infrastructure projects. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds averaging $430 million per year over 40 years.

My suggestion: Solid NO

Republican position: Neutral
Democratic position: Neutral

Reason: Huge bond issue, which will end up racking up almost $18 billion in debt after interest. Amazing, despite the fact that his is promoted as a water and drought measure, it will not produce one drop of new, usable water!



Prop 4: Authorizes $1.5 billion in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund grants for construction, expansion, renovation, and equipping of qualifying children’s hospitals.

My suggestion: Moderate NO

Republican position: No
Democratic position: Yes

Reason: Supposed "nonprofit" hospitals will be the prime beneficiary of $1.5 billion in bonds, racking up more debt for the state and giving it to hospitals which claim nonprofit status but may not be what they seem. There is better use for this money.



Prop 5: Removes certain transfer requirements for homeowners over 55, severely disabled homeowners, and contaminated or disaster-destroyed property.

My suggestion: Strong YES

Republican position: Yes
Democratic position: No

Reason: This is related to Proposition 13 from back in 1978, which severely restricted (previously skyrocketing) property tax increases for existing homeowners, allowing those who bought their house responsibly but unable to afford escalating property taxes to stay in their homes (such as seniors). Unfortunately, one flaw here was that it required these people to stay in the same home in order to keep deriving these benefits. So an older person who, say, wishes to move to an equivalent home 50 miles away to be closer to their family, would be smacked with horrible property tax rates, and couldn't do it. This changes the situation for people over 55 and those with disabilities. I don't understand the claim that it will impact property taxes collected, because their old home will start resulting in collection of market-rate property taxes once sold.



Prop 6: Repeals a 2017 transportation law's taxes and fees designated for road repairs and public transportation.

My suggestion: Strong YES

Republican position: Yes
Democratic position: No

Reason: California has among the highest gas prices in the nation, due to oppressive gas taxes. This reduction in taxes will bring California a bit closer to the rest of the nation regarding gas prices. Also, it's important to understand that gasoline tax is regressive, and hurts poor and lower-middle-class people the most.



Prop 7: Gives Legislature ability to change daylight saving time period by two-thirds vote, if changes are consistent with federal law.

My suggestion: Strong YES

Republican position: Yes
Democratic position: Yes

Reason: Sun sets before 5pm in California throughout much of the winter. This would not immediately change anything, but would authorize the California legislature shift the clock to where it's never completely dark before 6pm, and we will never have to go through pesky clock changes. Would also put California in the exact same time zone as Arizona throughout the year.



Prop 8: Requires rebates and penalties if charges exceed limit. Requires annual reporting to the state. Prohibits clinics from refusing to treat patients based on payment source.

My suggestion: Moderate YES

Republican position: No
Democratic position: Yes

Reason: Not a huge issue, and only impacts a small percentage of the population, but this measure attempts to bring down the skyrocketing and high-profit cost of dialysis treatment, and prevents clinics from refusing treatment to those without a deep-pocketed insurance company to bilk.



Prop 10: Repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property.

My suggestion: Strong NO

Republican position: No
Democratic position: Yes

Reason: At the moment, only a few cities in California area allowed rent control, and only involving buildings of a certain age. This would allow rent control in any city which chooses to authorize it. I STRONGLY urge a NO vote. Read on...

Rent control is a misleading name. In reality, it only holds down rent for existing tenants, who will lose it as soon as they move. It is also not related to income. A rich person living in the same rent controlled unit since 1970 would pay a pittance for rent (screwing the landlord), while a poor or young person attempting to rent an apartment will be paying MARKET RATE! It arbitrarily benefits people who have lived in the same unit for decades, while everyone else (landlords, new tenants, prospective tenants) get screwed. Furthermore, rent control laws cause a decrease in available units for rent, as landlords will destroy buildings which do not turn a profit, and replace them with non-residential buildings or condos.

If Prop 10 passes, there will be an even worse housing shortage in California, while only a select few longtime tenants will see any benefit from it!



Prop 11: Law entitling hourly employees to breaks without being on-call would not apply to private-sector ambulance employees.

My suggestion: Moderate NO (updated 10/17/18)

Republican position: Yes
Democratic position: No

Reason: See desertexplore's post further down this page (or just click the link).



Prop 12: Establishes minimum requirements for confining certain farm animals. Prohibits sales of meat and egg products from animals confined in noncomplying manner.

My suggestion: No opinion

Republican position: No
Democratic position: Yes

Reason: Confusing proposition. On the surface, it seems to prevent animal cruelty by forcing the cages for farmed animals to be of sufficient size. However, PETA claims the measure is flawed, and will encourage other kinds of cruelty involving no cages. Yet the ASPCA supports this measure. I honestly don't know which way to go on this one.

if ASPCA says yes and PETA says no, stack up on yes being the sane, responsible choice.

like in general.

whats the difference between 'solid' and 'strong'?

Lol at nonon prop 10 because it’s unfair to landlords! What a crock of shit. Landlords in California are literally scum of the earth. In San Francisco they are literally burning down their rent controlled buildings to displace everyone and rebuild to move in non rent controlled tenants. Druff wants to keep wages low and rents high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suicide King

Lol at nonon prop 10 because it’s unfair to landlords! What a crock of shit. Landlords in California are literally scum of the earth. In San Francisco they are literally burning down their rent controlled buildings to displace everyone and rebuild to move in non rent controlled tenants. Druff wants to keep wages low and rents high.

---

There are bad landlords out there, but also bad tenants who constantly skip out on rent, leave the place damaged, and disappear. In fact, we know one of them on this forum.

You can't paint all landlords with one brush, nor can you paint all tenants with one brush.

Rent control has several problems:

1) It's arbitrary and unfair. A person who has been in the building for 30 years pays an obscenely low rent. A person who moves in today, no matter how poor, is forced to pay market rent. Why should there be such a stark difference, simply based upon living in the same unit for decades?

2) Buildings eventually degrade to be worth the average rent being paid. If most units are rent controlled, the building will become a shithole, as the landlord has no incentive to keep it nice and well-maintained.

3) It's unfair to landlords. They are running a business. They're not renting out their property for charity or fun. They're doing it as a form of income, and in some cases, their sole form of income. They took a risk in buying the property in that it could go down in value (look at what happened to people who bought income property in 2007!) They have to pay utilities, property taxes, maintenance costs, insurance, mortgage, etc. They need to be able to cover these costs AND make enough money for the whole thing to be worth all the time, energy, and hassle. Normally the market rents take care of this, but when rent control arbitrarily restricts what they can collect, they can find themselves in the red. If you support rent control, why don't you support price control on all businesses?

4) This particular proposition is a bait-and-switch on landlords. It's one thing if you know you're buying a rent controlled building. It's another if you buy a building believing it will bring in free market rent (and that's factored into the price you pay), and then the government changes the rules midway and drops rent control rules on you.

I'm in shock that Druff doesn't want to help the low income and poor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suicide King

Lol at nonon prop 10 because it’s unfair to landlords! What a crock of shit. Landlords in California are literally scum of the earth. In San Francisco they are literally burning down their rent controlled buildings to displace everyone and rebuild to move in non rent controlled tenants. Druff wants to keep wages low and rents high.

---

There are bad landlords out there, but also bad tenants who constantly skip out on rent, leave the place damaged, and disappear. In fact, we know one of them on this forum.

You can't paint all landlords with one brush, nor can you paint all tenants with one brush.

Rent control has several problems:

1) It's arbitrary and unfair. A person who has been in the building for 30 years pays an obscenely low rent. A person who moves in today, no matter how poor, is forced to pay market rent. Why should there be such a stark difference, simply based upon living in the same unit for decades?

2) Buildings eventually degrade to be worth the average rent being paid. If most units are rent controlled, the building will become a shithole, as the landlord has no incentive to keep it nice and well-maintained.

3) It's unfair to landlords. They are running a business. They're not renting out their property for charity or fun. They're doing it as a form of income, and in some cases, their sole form of income. They took a risk in buying the property in that it could go down in value (look at what happened to people who bought income property in 2007!) They have to pay utilities, property taxes, maintenance costs, insurance, mortgage, etc. They need to be able to cover these costs AND make enough money for the whole thing to be worth all the time, energy, and hassle. Normally the market rents take care of this, but when rent control arbitrarily restricts what they can collect, they can find themselves in the red. If you support rent control, why don't you support price control on all businesses?

4) This particular proposition is a bait-and-switch on landlords. It's one thing if you know you're buying a rent controlled building. It's another if you buy a building believing it will bring in free market rent (and that's factored into the price you pay), and then the government changes the rules midway and drops rent control rules on you.

---

I actually agree with druff on all his recommendation,s...

Growing up working class(poor but proud) in the Bronx, I totally understand how familes suffer to just pay the rent while the welfare class throws weekly House parties.

I actually collect a rent now.

And yes , a basement studio in the Bronx is hitting $1400,
Lol

THE ONLY REASON RENTS ARE SO HIGH IS BECOUSE OF THE INFLUX OF ILLIGALS AND SECTION 8 VOUCHERS..

if it were truly market based on working class medium income they wouldn't be so high , AT ALL!!!!!!!.

so as long as you have sanctuary cities, all the affordable housing in the world won't be enough, that's not even a "drop out the lake"..

And the rents are based on what section 8 pays as a minimum base line and Go up from there,,, not what the market will bear to the people that actually work, pay taxes and live within the market based system..

There can be high unemployment and falling wages but rent won't drop or even stay stagnent for a year or 2. my rent will ALWAYS go up because there always tons and tons of illigals to use and section 8 just pays and pays and increases every year.

The answer isnt more illigals, More welfare, more section 8 and more taxes on THOSE same American familes already being priced out, lol. (More govt housing would do "what!?!?" NOTHING!.)

I'm sure I'm ahead of the news cycle on this but more and more tax payers are living in shelters and cars and renting rooms while baby momma's and illigals are living in the apartment,s..

Most important IMO is the “no place like home” prop, since California has a huge % of mentally ill. It’s around 24,000,000 people.

Underlying all of your supposed problems is fear. The United States' every man for himself ideology means the rich fear the poor, the poor fear the rich, the minorities fear the police, the majority fear the minority, Republicans fear the Democrats and vice versa, a majority fear government of any kind, regulation or de-regulation, a majority fear being robbed literally or by government and corporations.

Having the largest military ever you fear the smallest countries. You fear knowledge that threatens your bankbook, i.e. climate change. In short you fear the other guy. You're armed to the teeth as a population because of fear.

It's ironic that number one is always looking over it's shoulder. Being number one has wreaked havoc and will continue to do so.
The spoils of war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Prop 11: Law entitling hourly employees to breaks without being on-call would not apply to private-sector ambulance employees.

My suggestion: Moderate YES

Reason: At the moment, ambulance employees can refuse to answer calls for emergencies, because they're on break. Ridiculous! This will change that.

---

The only support for this proposition is coming from AMR, a private ambulance company, that is trying to pass this proposition so they can get out of hundreds of millions in current (and likely future) lawsuits and operating costs. That tells you all you need to know.

Also, in practice, EMTs are on-call during their breaks. They keep their phones with them and if they are the only available unit to respond, they do.

Prop 2: Amends Mental Health Services Act to fund No Place Like Home Program, which finances housing for individuals with mental illness. Ratifies existing law establishing the No Place Like Home Program. Fiscal Impact: Allows the state to use up to $140 million per year of county mental health funds to repay up to $2 billion in bonds. These bonds would fund housing for those with mental illness who are homeless.

My suggestion: Moderate YES

Reason: California needs to do a better job with its sizable mentally il population. This measure does not raise taxes, but rather shifts money around to fund housing for those mental illness, and gets them off the streets.

can't agree...provide 50,000 more beds for mentally ill/homeless and in the end all California will wind up with is 50,000 more bums

Quote:

---

Reason: At the moment, ambulance employees can refuse to answer calls for emergencies, because they're on break. Ridiculous! This will change that.

---

This is NO true. They still have to respond, but will not get compensated for the time and could go hours without getting an entitled meal break.

Druff- I know the fire and ambulance business like you know the poker world and you got Prop 11 wrong, we want a NO on that. Why, the current ambulance employees do NOT get meal breaks, they have to skip a meal to eat. They could go hours before getting a meal break while running calls. This is why the big company AMR (American Medical Response) is against this prop, they want their worker bees working hard and not stopping for meal breaks and missing some profit. I can verify this first hand. How would you like to work during your lunch break, be starving and still not get compensated for the state law that says you should get it? Can you please change this as you got it wrong?

Quote:

---

Californians who only see the ads for Proposition 11 may be likely to vote yes. After all, it sounds not only reasonable, but also a matter of essential public safety: to require ambulance workers to remain on call during their paid work breaks. It also would guarantee mental health benefits for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, and additional training for active shooters, terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

But, as is too often the case in the initiative process, the pitch is decidedly deceptive.

The question of whether ambulance personnel should remain on call during breaks came to the fore because the state Supreme Court ruled in 2016 (Augustus vs. ABM Security Services) that private security guards are subject to state labor rules and thus could be unreachable during breaks.
The Chronicle Recommends

Ambulance companies are understandably worried that such legal reasoning could be extended to them and went to the state Legislature for a bill that would clarify that their crews could be kept on call during their paid breaks. They have argued that organized labor has stood in the way.

Here is what you need to know: The union representing 4,000 ambulance workers agrees with the need for a fix. In fact, it supported AB263, which spelled out that employees could be required to monitor pagers, radios, station and alert boxes, intercoms, cell phones and other communications devices during their breaks — and could be required to answer an emergency call. That bill cleared the Assembly on a 56-17 vote on June 1, 2017.

However, that bill stalled in the state Senate over two key issues: One was whether the interruptions could include less serious calls; the other was whether the legislation should effectively void pending labor-related lawsuits against American Medical Response, which also happens to be the funder of Prop. 11. Those workers should not be denied their day in court. This issue should be resolved in the Legislature, with all parties at the table to negotiate and compromise. Vote no on Prop. 11.

---

The Chronicle recommends: No on California Prop.11

California First Responders Say “No on Prop 11”

Quote:

---

Prop 11 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. While purporting to be about protecting public safety, it actually strips first responders of their right to meal and rest breaks, which makes their jobs more grueling and makes us all less safe. Thousands of California’s first responders are in jeopardy of losing their right to meal and rest breaks, worsening already difficult working conditions and potentially risking public safety.

What is Prop 11? A proposition on the November ballot that would change California’s labor code, which currently guarantees workers at private ambulance companies time to eat and rest.

Who supports Prop 11? The measure is funded by American Medical Response (AMR), one of California’s largest private ambulance companies. AMR spent $1 million to get the signatures required to get Prop 11 on the ballot and has since spent some $3.65 million to sway voters. If Prop 11 passes, the measure rids AMR of the obligation to pay on millions of dollars’ worth of pending and future lawsuits for meal and rest break violations.

Who opposes Prop 11? The United Steelworkers (USW), which represents some of the affected first responders, and labor unions across the state including the California Labor Federation.

What they’re saying: “Follow the money. Look who donated and why,” said USW Local 12-911 President Lee Almeida, whose local includes some 1,400 first responders. “You’ll find AMR is behind this, and there’s a reason for it.” Much of the language surrounding Prop 11 focuses on public safety, but it is misleading. A lot of the things they’re saying are like ‘we want to take our meals before saving lives. That’s not true. Saving lives come first.”

Why this is important: First responders work pressure-filled, grueling schedules and often deal in matters of life or death. Stripping them of guaranteed rest and meal breaks does nothing to improve public safety. In fact, it makes their jobs even more difficult. The measure also sets a terrible precedent that could be used to take away meal and rest breaks from other workers.

Taking breaks away from those we entrust with the lives of our families is never the answer. Protect our first responders. Vote NO on Prop 11!

---

https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net...6d&oe=5C52C0EE

Okay, I'm convinced. I will change Prop 11 to NO.

Thank you Druff!

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...66&oe=5C3C3C84

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desertexplore

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...66&oe=5C3C3C84

---

I dont get paid to take shits neither should you.

Vote Yes to prop 11

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badguy23

I dont get paid to take shits neither should you.

Vote Yes to prop 11

---

Thats not what its about. And YOU DO get 15 minutes work breaks per state law, they do not. They just want to get compensated per current state law for the time they miss running to calls and missing meal breaks.

BUMP for tomorrow's election.

I also updated the original post to include the Republican and Democratic endorsements for these propositions.

I am mostly voting with Republicans, but I am opposing them on Props 8 and 11, I'm neutral on 12 (Republicans want yes), and I'm voting yes on 3 (Republicans are neutral). I'm voting with them on props 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 10. Both parties support prop 7, as do I.

why can't we see when you edit your own posts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwai

why can't we see when you edit your own posts?

---

bc it's his forum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwai

why can't we see when you edit your own posts?

---

bc it's his forum

---

so you think it's ok for him to be able to edit posts without anyone being able to tell?

Chelsea Handler needs to not pose nude to drum up voting.

Here's the results:

Prop 1: Likely YES
Prop 2: YES
Prop 3: Likely NO
Prop 4: YES
Prop 5: NO
Prop 6: YES
Prop 7: YES
Prop 8: NO
Prop 10: NO
Prop 11: YES
Prop 12: YES

Props 1 and 3 are still slightly up in the air, but likely to stay as listed above.

The bold ones are the props which matched how I voted.

Very annoyed that the gas tax repeal (prop 6) failed. In fact, it looks like it will lose by 6 points. California has the 2nd highest gas tax in the nation, 3rd place is substantially lower. Only Washington state has higher gas taxes than CA.

Lots of money went into NO advertising for props 8 and 10, and it worked. Neither came close to winning.

Since the daylight savings one (prop 7) easily passed, now we have to wait and see if the CA legislature actually passes a law for permanent daylight savings time. This would put California and Arizona on the same time zone year round. It would also create the odd situation where driving EAST to Nevada would force Californians to turn the clock back one hour in the late fall and winter.

Here would be some oddities regarding the time zone thing if CA goes on permanent daylight savings time.

Time from early November through early March:

Los Angeles: 2:00pm
San Francisco: 2:00pm
Rapid City, SD: 2:00pm
Chicago 3:00pm
Pensacola, FL: 3:00pm
Las Vegas: 1:00pm
Spokane, WA: 1:00pm
Phoenix: 2:00pm

So Los Angeles and Rapid City would be on the SAME TIME ZONE during these months, and part of Florida (western panhandle) would be just 1 hour later than LA.

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Here's the results:

Prop 1: Likely YES
Prop 2: YES
Prop 3: Likely NO
Prop 4: YES
Prop 5: NO
Prop 6: YES
Prop 7: YES
Prop 8: NO
Prop 10: NO
Prop 11: YES
Prop 12: YES

Props 1 and 3 are still slightly up in the air, but likely to stay as listed above.

The bold ones are the props which matched how I voted.

Very annoyed that the gas tax repeal (prop 6) failed. In fact, it looks like it will lose by 6 points. California has the 2nd highest gas tax in the nation, 3rd place is substantially lower. Only Washington state has higher gas taxes than CA.

Lots of money went into NO advertising for props 8 and 10, and it worked. Neither came close to winning.

Since the daylight savings one (prop 7) easily passed, now we have to wait and see if the CA legislature actually passes a law for permanent daylight savings time. This would put California and Arizona on the same time zone year round. It would also create the odd situation where driving EAST to Nevada would force Californians to turn the clock back one hour in the late fall and winter.

---

California voters say "Yes" when nobody asked.

And here, I've been voting "No" whenever a proposition with dubious purposes and supported by special interests makes the ballot.

Most gullible voters in the nation, very surprised 10 was defeated, and with such crazy numbers. Nothing here makes sense, it is almost as if it is all fixed from the start.

People on my Facebook -- even ones who are centrist and left-of-center -- are complaining about the failure of Proposition 6, the gas tax repeal.

Prop 6 would have reversed the recent 12-cent gasoline tax hike, which took it to 2nd highest in the nations (only slightly behind Pennsylvania).

https://files.taxfoundation.org/2018...-July-2018.png


Notice Nevada's tax is 22 cents per gallon lower than California's. That's why gasoline goes down in price suddenly once you cross the border while driving to Vegas, Reno, or Tahoe.

Anyway, the question everyone's asking on Facebook: "Who voted no on this proposition, and why?"

It turns out that a lot of voters voted NO because they didn't understand the proposition, due to the confusing wording on the ballot.

The measure was worded to sound like money was simply being siphoned away from transportation necessities, such as road maintenance. The official description on the ballot was as follows:

Quote:

---

Eliminates Certain Road Repair and Transportation Funding. Requires Certain Fuel Taxes and Vehicle Fees Be Approved by the Electorate.

---

Notice it says NOTHING about repealing a 12 cent gas tax!

Indeed, polls showed that people were in support of proposition 6 when they were told it was a gas tax repeat, whereas they were against it when they didn't know that.

Here's an article about it: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...ion-is-unfair/

The bad wording is no coincidence. Attorney General Javier Becerra wrote the wording, and he is believed to be an opponent of Prop 6.

LOL government corruption