Tackling all the state props on this year’s ballot

(Editor’s Note: This is Part I of a three-part series on the state-wide propositions.) 
Two state-level political leaders from Santa Cruz recently took the time to summarize and discuss the 11 state-wide propositions on the ballot for the Nov. 6 election.  John Laird, the current California Secretary of Natural Resources and former three-term state assembly member representing Santa Cruz, spoke at an event sponsored by the Valley Women’s Club on Sept. 29 in Ben Lomond. Mark Stone,current state assembly member representing the 29^th District since 2012, is running for re-election, and spoke at the North County Democratic Club on Tuesday, Oct. 2.
Both Laird and Stone explained that Propositions 1 through 4 are all requests for voter-approved bond issues- that is, with voter approval, private investors buy the state-issued bonds and the state repays both principal and interest for periods of 35 to 40 years, with the total cost to taxpayers roughly double the amount of the bond issue, paid with revenues from the state budget’s general fund- except for Prop. 2.  Both Laird and Stone gave a brief overview of the support, major donors and opposition to the various propositions. 
PROPOSITION 1: Affordable Housing And Home-Purchase Assistance For Veterans: If passed, Prop. 1 will authorize the sale of $4 billion in bonds to finance existing housing programs, as well as funding for infrastructure and grants to match local investment in affordable housing. One-quarter of this $4 billion will fund the CalVets Home Loan Program, helping veterans purchase farms, homes and mobile homes and will be retained as a “revolving fund” for such loans.
The measure was put on the ballot by legislative statute, requiring a 2/3 majority vote in both houses of the state legislature, and the governor’s signature. John Laird noted it has been at least a decade since the last State-sponsored bond issue for affordable housing. Mark Stone indicated the legislature had to exert considerable political pressure on the governor to make funding for affordable housing a priority-funding the governor has delayed for years, according to Stone. 
It should be noted that, if the local, affordable housing bond measure, Measure H, passes, Santa Cruz County will be more competitive and better able to leverage Prop. 1 funding, if Prop. 1 is passed.  State costs to repay the bonds averages about $170 million annually over the next 35 years.
Endorsements: San Francisco Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee have editorialized in favor of Prop 1 as necessary to confront California’s housing crises.  Endorsements include 26 veteran’s groups, 38 local governments, 22 Democratic Party organizations and 64 unions. Donors include Chan Zuckerberg Advocacy, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, Housing Trust Silicon Valley.
Opposition: The Press-Enterprise (Riverside): “If California’s leaders are serious about making California a more affordable place to live, they should concentrate their efforts on curtailing onerous regulations and restrictive land-use policies…”San Diego Union Tribune also editorialized against the measure.
Proposition 2: Authorizes Bonds to Fund Existing Housing Program for Individuals With Mental Illness:Prop. 2 does not entail any further debt to be paid by the state’s General Fund, but was deemed necessary by the state legislature to legally untangle the spending of a previously approved tax that was part of the Mental Health Services Act, Proposition 63, approved by voters in 2004, which put a one percent tax on income above $1 million for mental health services. Proposition 2 authorizes Prop 63 funding be used to make payments on $2 billion in revenue bonds to house homeless persons in need of mental health services, primarily for supportive housing.
This spending on housing was legally challenged as not specifically authorized by the original Prop. 63. Payments on these bonds could amount to as much as $140 million annually, with Prop. 63 generating about $2.23 billion in the fiscal year 2018-2019. John Laird indicated the measure could result in as many as 20,000 new units of supportive housing state-wide for the homeless and mentally ill, with essentially no additional cost to taxpayers. 
 Endorsements:  The Sacramento Bee opined,” For voters, approving this measure should be a no-brainer. Treatment for mental illness and addiction can only help so much when people are forced to return to the trauma of living on the streets.” Also endorsed by the San Francisco Chronicle, The San Diego Union-Tribune, Santa Cruz Sentinel, and the California Police Chief Association, and National Association of Social Workers.                                Opposition:  Opponents include the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) of Contra Costa County, which argues the cost of the housing bond is too high and the money is better spent on direct services, which the organizations NAMI represents provide.
PROPOSITION 3:AUTHORIZES BONDS TO FUND PROJECTS FOR WATER SUPPLY AND QUALITY, WATERSHED, FISH, WILDLIFE, WATER CONVEYANCE, AND GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AND STORAGE.If passed, Proposition 3 authorizes the state to issue $8.877 billion in bonds to fund projects for water infrastructure, surface water storage, dam repairs, and protection and restoration of fish and wildlife habitat.The measure was put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures. The legislative analysis from California Secretary of State’s office reports the total cost to taxpayers to repay this bond would be $17.3 billion- with $8.9 billion in principal, $8.4 billion in interest, with payments of about $430 million annually over the next 40 years.
While Laird reviewed the propositions in a mostly non-partisan, matter-of-fact manner, it seemed odd he was most critical of a water-related bond, since the Natural Resource Agency he directs has direct supervision over much of California’s water policies and funding.
“There’s no polite way to say it, but Proposition 3 verges on pay-to-play,” Laird said. The proposition was put on the ballot by sufficient signatures to qualify as a ballot measure. With one hundred different line items identified in the bill, Laird said the initiative is designed so that “the people who donated money to the initiative – there are pots of money related to that,” Laird said.
Stone reiterated that assessment.  “The project list looks like a bunch of earmarks. This looks to me like the kind of pork barrel politics that we normally try to avoid in the assembly,” Stone said.
Endorsements: U.S. Reps. Jim Costa (D) & John Garamendi (D). Ducks Unlimited, California Waterfowl Association, American Pistachio Growers, California Fresh Fruit Association.
Opposition: The San Diego Union Tribune points out that California voters are being asked to pass a water bond for the third time in just four years. The UT’s editorial board sees it as “throwing money at a problem.” San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News oppose. Sierra Club has come out in opposition. 
PROPOSITION 4: Authorizing Bonds for Children’s Hospitals: A yes vote supports authorizing the State to issue $ 1.5 Billion in bonds to build, expand, renovate, and equip children’s hospitals in California. The majority of funds would go to private nonprofit hospitals that provide services to children who qualify for certain government programs. In the Bay Area, this would benefit UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital & Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital (Stanford). The rest of the funds would be allocated to the University of California’s acute care children’s clinics, and public and private nonprofit hospitals that serve qualified children.  The measure was put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures. State estimates the bond would cost taxpayers $ 2.9 Billion over 35 years.
Both Laird and Stone pointed out the real question is whether this bond issue is the appropriate use of public funds, since most of the money goes to private hospitals, although for a very good cause of subsidizing expensive treatment of children. 
Endorsements: California Children’s Hospital Association, California Teachers Association, Children’s Hospital & Research Center Oakland, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital (Stanford).State Republican and Democratic parties are neutral on Prop. 4.
Opposition:  A private citizen named Gary Wesley has written the official “Opponent’s Argument” against Prop. 4. There are no major groups or elected officials who have stated their opposition.
Readers are encouraged to go to the following websites for more comprehensive, non-partisan analysis of the each ballot measure: The California Secretary of State Office at:    http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions  and https://ballotpedia.org/California_2018_ballot_propositions