Eh, using a prop 13 argument to try to say no on 10 just really illustrates the divide on this issue quite clearly.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
California ballot initiatives 2018
- Thread starter Septimus Prime
- Start date
Agree or disagree with Prop 13, if it didn't exist, her rent would have shot up past $1,000/month a long time ago.
So, the literature on rent control - in general - is well established, as indicated in the article's studies.
In the article, multiple issues are being tangled together by rent control advocates in order to promote additional rent control policies. But the studies themselves are looking at units that had rent control enacted decades ago.
It stands to reason that if you eliminate rent control across the board, that people who won the rent control lottery would be adversely impacted. And that's literally what the Bay Area institute found. It's sort of a "no shit", and an argument against eliminating rent control for those properties.
It says nothing about further increases in rent control impacting affordability. Rather, the study's authors cautioned against rent control as a means to address affordability.
Rent control absolutely leads to subsidization of cost, a decrease in available rental supply, and does little to address affordability on the macro scale. It's awesome if you win it, but affordable rent can't be mandated by state fiat without systemic consequences to the population at large.
Prop 13 is literally rent control for homeowners. And yeah, I'm aware that prop 13 has kept some homeowners from raising their rents. But that's an anomaly -- most people are perfectly fine with raising rents regardless of how much they are saving on taxes because of 13.
Prop 13 is one of the most racist pieces of referendum on the planet, given how it adversely impacts people of color and disproportionately benefits white people.
Well after some food for thought (reading things further), changed my vote for prop 10 from no to yes.
Yeah, this is probably a pretty tough decision and pretty divisive of a prop.
Yeah, this is probably a pretty tough decision and pretty divisive of a prop.
I don't know if it's racist. But I do know that the same people whining about 10 (not the people in this thread, mind you, but in general in California) generally align with the folks that benefited greatly and still benefit from 13. So, to cite 13 to counter 10 is like smashing egg in your face to make coconut creme pie -- the logic doesn't work.
I'll say this more generally as well, but the reason why Levin says what he says in the Kqed article I cited is because the data is messy. You have 1 gold standard study (the Diamond Stanford study) and then you have a lot of theory linked with incomplete practical fieldwork. This isn't the fault of the researchers -- it's because conditions like this don't really occur in real life all that often, so you can't really perform classical 'experiments' around the issue of rent control, instead you have to rely on conditions on the ground to give you some insight into what's happening. Levin acknowledges this as does the Stanford study in a responsible manner. So yeah, I do remain healthily skeptical of articles or people who unequivocally tell me that rent control is bad or that it's always good. Even the paper acknowledges that it does help some groups of stakeholders -- and that's a choice that policy makers have to make sometimes.
All of this and 10 doesn't even enshrine rent control at all. It just gives cities the choice to enact it or not. I'm sure that if things get so bad in SF people can move to Palo Alto, Atherton, Saratoga or some other place that surely isn't going to do it anyways cause they are too busy protecting the value of their homes. Joking, joking, but only sorta.
White people in California have a far lower property tax burden than minorities because of prop 13, while obviously having far more of the wealth.
If Prop 10 does pass, and rent control goes statewide, I suspect you'll see the following:
A rise in evictions as independent owners exit the market with the intention of selling.
A short term drop in property values as single investors sell.
A forced change in the makeup of the SF Bay Area as former renters leave and are replaced by homeowners.
Prop 10 passing will very likely be the best chance for individuals to buy property (at a discount) in the Bay Area since the recession of 2009-10.
A rise in evictions as independent owners exit the market with the intention of selling.
A short term drop in property values as single investors sell.
A forced change in the makeup of the SF Bay Area as former renters leave and are replaced by homeowners.
Prop 10 passing will very likely be the best chance for individuals to buy property (at a discount) in the Bay Area since the recession of 2009-10.
To be honest, and I know you're being quite genuine, that wasn't the point I was making. But just to be clear, yes, 13 is bad too and you should vote against 5 if you think 13 is bad.
Thank you. I was really unsure of Prop 8. This helps a lot.
The only other one I'm unsure about is the emergency crews taking breaks one. Some info/context would help.
Also, I have no idea how I would vote for the 10+ judicial positions on my ballot. Is there any website that offers insight into the judicial nominations?
I couldn't find a comprehensive guide for judges but there's a republican site with recommendations for all judges running. You can just vote opposite to their recommendations.
https://judgevoterguide.com/
OP
OP
That one really is as simple as it sounds. Yes means they need to be on call, always. No protects their break times.
If it's that simple, I would pick No. They should get breaks. There is no one on duty during the breaks?
I don't know any EMTs to get first hand insight. :/
Edit:
This helps. Thank you.
Ok found a site for judges. Or at least which ones to vote for that aren't supported by the GOP.
http://politics.voxpublica.org/2018...es-how-to-vote-in-californias-judicial-races/
http://www.theleaguesf.org/voter_guides
http://politics.voxpublica.org/2018...es-how-to-vote-in-californias-judicial-races/
http://www.theleaguesf.org/voter_guides
The only reason prop 11 is on the ballot is cause the ambulance corporation is getting sued for unpaid breaks. Right now if there's a call during an emts break they have to go if they're the closest one available and their break is supposed to be rescheduled for later during the day. A recent ruling regarding private security guards ended similar on call breaks for them so emts are suing the ambulance corporation for unpaid wages from interrupted breaks. So the ambulance corporation, literally 1 company, decided to make a prop and dump 20 million in advertising it so they can kill the 100 million lawsuit they're facing. If they're so worried about slower response times they can hire more emts or compensate the ones they have for interrupting their breaks, they shouldn't be allowed to bypass the courts with a prop made solely to benefit them and screw their employees.
SF and Berkeley are already planning on legislation to pass if it does.
The prop doesn't make RC happen, but action will likely be swift if it does, and the results likely won't be what prop 10 proponents are hoping for.
Correct but don't pretend that local Democratic parties won't be stumbling over themselves to show how progressive they are. Rent control is the Democratic equivalent of GOP tax policy "it did not work the last time because we did not go far enough!"
Existing renters who win that lottery love it.
Single family home owners love it because all that new comer demand has even less choice.
And it absolutely removes a huge amount of political pressure for building more housing supply, so it is not going to solve or even mitigate homelessness.
Yeah that's wack but I'm pro rent control and I think there can be ways to implement it with out the hiccups you're mentioning.
You may be honestly for it as a way to help those in need, but the masses in SF couldn't get two shits about need.
Every single time the idea of means testing has been proposed, it's been shot down hard by the pro-tenant majority.
Not surprising, given that the last estimate (City can't do an actual survey) puts a majority of RC units in the hands of people making a comfortable six figures.
I'll happily support subsidized rent for those who need it to survive. I have no sympathy for those who are well off and simply won the rent lottery in college.
I'm surprised the no vote on prop 6 is so prevalent.
SB-1 barely passed, and only with a chunk of the money going towards the areas with swing votes. This would repeal it and let the electorate vote on increases to the gas tax.
Putting aside where the money is going, whether you think high speed rail should be funded, etc., it doesn't seem like a bad thing to put it in the hands of the voters. Also, if the argument against is that more republicans will come out to vote when it's on the ballot, well, I realize people on this forum especially have a hatred for republicans but more voter turnout overall isn't necessarily a bad thing in general.
The other argument I saw in that voter's guide that was linked earlier was that the gas tax in general is a good thing to dissuade drivers.
SB-1 barely passed, and only with a chunk of the money going towards the areas with swing votes. This would repeal it and let the electorate vote on increases to the gas tax.
Putting aside where the money is going, whether you think high speed rail should be funded, etc., it doesn't seem like a bad thing to put it in the hands of the voters. Also, if the argument against is that more republicans will come out to vote when it's on the ballot, well, I realize people on this forum especially have a hatred for republicans but more voter turnout overall isn't necessarily a bad thing in general.
The other argument I saw in that voter's guide that was linked earlier was that the gas tax in general is a good thing to dissuade drivers.
Things that are harmful to the environment shouldn't go to vote by the electorate. People just want cheap gas. They won't care about road quality and climate change. You need to creative incentives or disincentives to bring about change.
Putting more and more items into the hands of the voters as ballot measures is really dumb, and is just a way to subvert the state being able to do anything. We already vote on way too many things that the most people have no clue about, because of previous measures . Regardless it's not surprising that the majority is against prop 6 when there are huge amount of road work projects going on everywhere. Everyone is able to see the tax dollars at work visually.
Beyond that, I'm not sure why people are particularly against a gas tax anyway. It's very fair, and particularly targets the trucking industry that is oversubsidized and causes the majority of damage to roads and highways.
Edit
From an environmental perspective people should absolutely be discouraged from buying larger low mpg vehicles, which have been on the rise again for some time now.
Last edited:
No on 10. God, we need to fix zoning in this state so bad and we're looking at these band-aid (but not really) solutions to make us feel good. Yeah it really does suck when you hear about evictions and you'd have to be really up your ass to not be empathetic but I only foresee 10 having long-term negative consequences and rents rising even higher.
Yeah I think you get me but I'm for the slow decommodification of housing overall. Right now zoning laws are a problem and impedes on new housing being built but simply building more housing doesn't protect lower income residents from being displaced.
The problem I see with 10 is that there doesn't seem to be any reasonable restrictions or framework for where and how rent control should be applied. I mean, I think rent control is an ok measure for short term relief while other issues are addressed, but not long term or in wide reaching implementation. Allowing counties to adopt it wholesale, and on any rental property types, sounds like a really bad idea to me.
I would propose banning of rental property (outside of zoned hotels) as a way to address the housing issue in the SF Bay Area.
It's a massive shift from what we have now, but it would remove investors from the picture.
Basically, if you own a house, you can either live in it, or maintain it (and pay taxes), but you can't use it for profit.
Don't want to cover the carrying costs on something you're not using? Put it up for sale so someone else can buy it.
Force more liquidity into the market and eliminate housing as a for-profit investment.
Wouldn't that also restrict where people who rent can live and what schools they can send their kids to?
Of course not but we all know how this will end up. Giving more power of zoning controls to local municipalities will almost always result in more restrictions.
Voters will almost always vote no on tax increases even if you tell them it's good for them in the long run. It's the job of the representatives to, you know, vote for the interest of thier constituents even if they don't want to swallow the bitter pill. They also see the inner workings of the government and can see that the gas tax is definitely needed.
I'm trying to get myself informed for voting tomorrow. I'm taking a look at ballotready and votesaveamerica, but are there any other sites that people here might recommend?
Ballotpedia or check local newspapers for endorsements. With ballotpedia, it really helps to just scroll down and see who is funding each measure/putting money into it and that'll give you a good idea of where to vote. With local papers it helps to know where they align politically. For example, SF Chronicle is kind of a moderate, pro-business and establishment paper, so I always look at their endorsements and think about why they might endorse the way they do and think about it that way.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_...evenue_and_Required_Refunds_Initiative_(2018) That is interesting that the GOP is against it and the Democrats are sponsoring it.
I've been torn on Prop 8, and until the last minute was going to vote yes out of sheer hatred for DaVita. However, I'll be voting no tomorrow. I don't want to feel responsible for even 1 person not having access to a dialysis clinic that gets closed due to this prop.
why are they trying to do so many things with bonds?
aren't taxes cheaper (no interest payments)?
aren't taxes cheaper (no interest payments)?
Wouldn't rent control be a good step for removing investors from the big picture by capping their profits?
I rent now because the cost of buying is too high. If the investors fled from the rental market that 'could' make it easier for me to buy.
I know that sounds a bit selfish, but I'm Also dealing with rising rent costs, no new homes or anything being built, and I'm not too keen on packing up and leaving the state.
The only downside to rent control we're assuming is if mass evictions occur? Which is a bad one for everyone who can't buy, but I'd honestly hope there has to be a happy median to where profitability for investors and affordability for renters can exist.
Vote Yes, Dialysis is commonly a medical procedure being intentionally farmed for profits, the patients aren't treated well and many of them are kept on Dialysis just to keep milking them and the entire for-profit Healthcare complex of America. I work in a nursing home and care for multiple dialysis patients daily, their healthcare needs aren't being met at Dialysis clinics, and rarely at the Nursing home either for that fact, they are being farmed for money on both sides, either through Medicaid or Medicare. The entire paradigm of healthcare management vis a vis for-profit companies needs to be reset, this is a small step in the right direction.
It's capitalist profit off of socialist healthcare programs, it's a broken system that needs to be chipped away at.
One of my family just texted me to tell me which Democrat he didn't vote for.
But he did vote almost purely Democrat. Which is.... goddamn amazing for him.
But he did vote almost purely Democrat. Which is.... goddamn amazing for him.
Was it one of the lieutenant governors or senators? Because that'd be kind of amusing to gloat about!
After waking up this morning and and reading your post, I'm back to undecided lol. I agree with your argument, which is why I was yes for the most part. I'm going to need all day to think about it some more.
yeah not sure what to do on this one anymore. Was initially voting No
Apparently Prop 3 is a scam? Thoughts?
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-proposition-3-water-20181012-story.html
Damn i can see this still passing. The synopsis of the prop is going to get a lot of people.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-proposition-3-water-20181012-story.html
Damn i can see this still passing. The synopsis of the prop is going to get a lot of people.
