Water Damage Restoration in Antioch, CA

GENERAL ELECTION – NOVEMBER 5, 2024

HJTA’s Quick Guide to the Statewide Propositions:

NO on 2, 4, 5, 6, 32, 33

YES on 34, 36

HJTA takes no position on 3, 35

Why the gap in the numbers?

Propositions 2 through 6 were placed on the ballot by the Legislature and given special numbering.

Propositions 32-36 are citizens’ initiatives that were given sequential numbering from prior elections, as usual.

Statewide Propositions

No on 2

Why we’re against it

Proposition 2 is $10 billion of bonds, new state debt, to pay for school facilities. It is almost certain to result in higher property tax bills, because school districts must provide a “local match” of funds in order to receive money from the Prop. 2 state bonds. That will lead to districts issuing new local school bonds, which are paid for by adding new charges to property tax bills. Enrollment is declining in both K-12 district schools and community colleges and the declines are projected to continue. But Proposition 2 commits California to pay an estimated $18 billion, including interest, for school buildings that may not even be necessary. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 2.

Proposition 3 – HJTA takes no position on this measure

Proposition 3 removes language from the state Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and woman. It adds the language, “right to marry is a fundamental right.” This measure has no effect on the current law, because the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution protects the right to marry.

No on 4

Why we’re against it

This is the $10 billion “climate bond” that state politicians have long planned. California already has too much bond debt, over $78 billion outstanding as of January 1. Then $6.38 billion was added with Proposition 1 in March. Proposition 4 would add another $10 billion in bond debt to pay for climate “programs.” It’s reckless to use borrowed money, an estimated $18 billion with interest, to pay for “programs,” including salaries for all the groups that receive the money. Bond financing only makes sense for necessary projects that will last more than the 30 years it takes to repay the debt. The governor has already declared a budget emergency because the state spends more than it takes in. Spending even more “on the credit card” is a bad idea. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 4.

No on 5

Why we’re against it

Proposition 5 is ACA 1, a direct attack on Proposition 13. It makes it easier to raise taxes by eliminating the longstanding two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass local bonds (borrowed money that must be repaid with interest). All new bond measures for “infrastructure” (nearly everything is “infrastructure”) and for public housing projects would pass with just 55% approval instead of the current 66.7%. Local bonds are paid for with extra charges on property tax bills, adding to the tax burden on homeowners and businesses, leading to higher rents for tenants and higher consumer prices for everyone. If Proposition 5 is not stopped, property tax bills are likely to go up after every election, forever. Proposition 5 will raise the cost of living in California, which already has the highest poverty rate in the country when the cost of living is taken into account. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 5.

No on 6

Why we’re against it

Proposition 6 bans mandatory work requirements for state prison inmates. It doesn’t seem fair to further increase the burden on taxpayers by creating the conditions to negotiate higher wages for inmates who are paying off their debt to society by serving their sentences in state prison. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 6.

No on 32

Why we’re against it

Proposition 32 would raise California’s hourly minimum wage from $16 to $18 and then adjust it annually for inflation. Unfortunately, raising the hourly minimum wage has sometimes reduced weekly wages as businesses cut hours and lay off workers. The best way to raise incomes in California is to stop driving job-creating businesses out of the state or into the ground. Raising the minimum wage is counter-productive. It also increases the state’s expenses by raising government labor costs. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 32.

No on 33

Why we’re against it

Proposition 33 is a rent control measure that would lead to a reduction in the supply of rental housing. It repeals a sensible 1995 law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which put limits on rent control laws to ensure that housing providers could make a fair return on their investment and stay in business. Repealing Costa-Hawkins would mean cities could enact radical rent control, even on single-family homes and condos, and prevent property owners from resetting the rent to the market rate after a tenant voluntarily moves out. Proposition 33 would lead to a sharp reduction in new apartment construction as lenders evaluate financial risk due to potential rent control laws. That will worsen the housing shortage in California. Voters have already rejected this proposal twice before, in 2018 and 2020. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 33.

Yes on 34

Why we’re for it

Some nonprofit healthcare organizations that receive federal funds to provide health care services have abused the system to spend large amounts of money on political causes. Proposition 34 would end this practice and require that healthcare providers spend most of the money they receive from a federal prescription drug discount program on direct patient care. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 34.

Proposition 35 – HJTA takes no position on this measure

California currently taxes managed care organizations (MCOs) such as Anthem Blue Cross and others. The MCO tax is set to expire in 2026, and we expect the Legislature to make it permanent. Proposition 35 would also make it permanent but would require the revenue from the tax to fund Medi-Cal, the government health insurance program for low-income residents, instead of being used to close gaps in the state budget. About 14 million California residents rely on the Medi-Cal program for their health care needs.

Yes on 36

Why we’re for it

Proposition 36 is the “Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act,” backed by law enforcement groups and retailers. It makes thoughtful changes to Proposition 47 (2014), which reduced some theft and drug felonies to misdemeanors. Proposition 36 would get tougher on third offenses and also offer drug and mental health treatment as an alternative to incarceration. It would allow judges to sentence some individuals to state prison instead of county jail. The surge of retail theft, vehicle break-ins and open drug use on California’s streets has increased the burden on first responders, and on taxpayers, as well as raising insurance costs throughout the state. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 36.

About HJTA

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights, including the right to limited taxation, the right to vote on tax increases and the right of economical, equitable and efficient use of taxpayer dollars. For over 35 years, HJTA has been the legal and political watchdog for Proposition 13 and a staunch defender of California taxpayers. For more information and to join visit http://www.hjta.org.

the attachments to this post:

HJTA 13 logo & Election 2024 button

Politics & Elections, State of California. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

No Comments so far.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

GENERAL ELECTION – NOVEMBER 5, 2024

HJTA’s Quick Guide to the Statewide Propositions:

NO on 2, 4, 5, 6, 32, 33

YES on 34, 36

HJTA takes no position on 3, 35

Why the gap in the numbers?

Propositions 2 through 6 were placed on the ballot by the Legislature and given special numbering.

Propositions 32-36 are citizens’ initiatives that were given sequential numbering from prior elections, as usual.

Statewide Propositions

No on 2

Why we’re against it

Proposition 2 is $10 billion of bonds, new state debt, to pay for school facilities. It is almost certain to result in higher property tax bills, because school districts must provide a “local match” of funds in order to receive money from the Prop. 2 state bonds. That will lead to districts issuing new local school bonds, which are paid for by adding new charges to property tax bills. Enrollment is declining in both K-12 district schools and community colleges and the declines are projected to continue. But Proposition 2 commits California to pay an estimated $18 billion, including interest, for school buildings that may not even be necessary. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 2.

Proposition 3 – HJTA takes no position on this measure

Proposition 3 removes language from the state Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and woman. It adds the language, “right to marry is a fundamental right.” This measure has no effect on the current law, because the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution protects the right to marry.

No on 4

Why we’re against it

This is the $10 billion “climate bond” that state politicians have long planned. California already has too much bond debt, over $78 billion outstanding as of January 1. Then $6.38 billion was added with Proposition 1 in March. Proposition 4 would add another $10 billion in bond debt to pay for climate “programs.” It’s reckless to use borrowed money, an estimated $18 billion with interest, to pay for “programs,” including salaries for all the groups that receive the money. Bond financing only makes sense for necessary projects that will last more than the 30 years it takes to repay the debt. The governor has already declared a budget emergency because the state spends more than it takes in. Spending even more “on the credit card” is a bad idea. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 4.

No on 5

Why we’re against it

Proposition 5 is ACA 1, a direct attack on Proposition 13. It makes it easier to raise taxes by eliminating the longstanding two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass local bonds (borrowed money that must be repaid with interest). All new bond measures for “infrastructure” (nearly everything is “infrastructure”) and for public housing projects would pass with just 55% approval instead of the current 66.7%. Local bonds are paid for with extra charges on property tax bills, adding to the tax burden on homeowners and businesses, leading to higher rents for tenants and higher consumer prices for everyone. If Proposition 5 is not stopped, property tax bills are likely to go up after every election, forever. Proposition 5 will raise the cost of living in California, which already has the highest poverty rate in the country when the cost of living is taken into account. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 5.

No on 6

Why we’re against it

Proposition 6 bans mandatory work requirements for state prison inmates. It doesn’t seem fair to further increase the burden on taxpayers by creating the conditions to negotiate higher wages for inmates who are paying off their debt to society by serving their sentences in state prison. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 6.

No on 32

Why we’re against it

Proposition 32 would raise California’s hourly minimum wage from $16 to $18 and then adjust it annually for inflation. Unfortunately, raising the hourly minimum wage has sometimes reduced weekly wages as businesses cut hours and lay off workers. The best way to raise incomes in California is to stop driving job-creating businesses out of the state or into the ground. Raising the minimum wage is counter-productive. It also increases the state’s expenses by raising government labor costs. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 32.

No on 33

Why we’re against it

Proposition 33 is a rent control measure that would lead to a reduction in the supply of rental housing. It repeals a sensible 1995 law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which put limits on rent control laws to ensure that housing providers could make a fair return on their investment and stay in business. Repealing Costa-Hawkins would mean cities could enact radical rent control, even on single-family homes and condos, and prevent property owners from resetting the rent to the market rate after a tenant voluntarily moves out. Proposition 33 would lead to a sharp reduction in new apartment construction as lenders evaluate financial risk due to potential rent control laws. That will worsen the housing shortage in California. Voters have already rejected this proposal twice before, in 2018 and 2020. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 33.

Yes on 34

Why we’re for it

Some nonprofit healthcare organizations that receive federal funds to provide health care services have abused the system to spend large amounts of money on political causes. Proposition 34 would end this practice and require that healthcare providers spend most of the money they receive from a federal prescription drug discount program on direct patient care. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 34.

Proposition 35 – HJTA takes no position on this measure

California currently taxes managed care organizations (MCOs) such as Anthem Blue Cross and others. The MCO tax is set to expire in 2026, and we expect the Legislature to make it permanent. Proposition 35 would also make it permanent but would require the revenue from the tax to fund Medi-Cal, the government health insurance program for low-income residents, instead of being used to close gaps in the state budget. About 14 million California residents rely on the Medi-Cal program for their health care needs.

Yes on 36

Why we’re for it

Proposition 36 is the “Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act,” backed by law enforcement groups and retailers. It makes thoughtful changes to Proposition 47 (2014), which reduced some theft and drug felonies to misdemeanors. Proposition 36 would get tougher on third offenses and also offer drug and mental health treatment as an alternative to incarceration. It would allow judges to sentence some individuals to state prison instead of county jail. The surge of retail theft, vehicle break-ins and open drug use on California’s streets has increased the burden on first responders, and on taxpayers, as well as raising insurance costs throughout the state. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 36.

About HJTA

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights, including the right to limited taxation, the right to vote on tax increases and the right of economical, equitable and efficient use of taxpayer dollars. For over 35 years, HJTA has been the legal and political watchdog for Proposition 13 and a staunch defender of California taxpayers. For more information and to join visit http://www.hjta.org.

the attachments to this post:

HJTA 13 logo & Election 2024 button

Politics & Elections, State of California. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

No Comments so far.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

In the latest move to keep an Amtrak stop in Antioch, a nonprofit has urged the California Attorney General to investigate the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority for potential violations related to the board’s decision to close the downtown station.

The California Center for Movement Legal Services this week requested Attorney General Rob Bonta investigate SJJPA following the board’s vote in March 2023 to decommission the Antioch-Pittsburg Amtrak station.

The group claims the decision to move the current Amtrak station to Oakley, a smaller and more affluent community, was a “clear injustice” that the SJJPA has breached. SJJPA oversees rail services between Oakland and Bakersfield, including the Antioch station that residents rely on as commuters or passengers.

“This closure will disproportionately impact working-class Californians, most of whom are Black, Indigenous, people of color, who will lose access to essential transit services without any viable alternative,” Margaret DeMatteo, directing attorney for the California Center for Movement Legal Services, wrote in the Sept. 13 letter to Bonta.

DeMatteo noted that SJJPA may have violated several state and federal laws, such as the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The letter also said that the authority’s failure to provide adequate notice to the public before making its decision violated the state’s public participation laws.

Local officials have said the decision to shutter the Amtrak platform caught them by surprise after the regional board voted 6-1 last year to close the Antioch-Pittsburg stop, citing riders who felt unsafe at the East Contra Costa station. Six miles east, Oakley is building a new transit center that the SJJPA board said can serve the entire area. The platform in Oakley, a city with a population of about 44,000, is expected to be completed later this year.

Ahead of this Friday’s SJJPA board meeting, Antioch Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe said he and Acting City Manager Kwame Reed plan to visit the train station to devise measures to reinvigorate it, such as improving landscaping. He plans to make a presentation before the transit board and submit a conceptional proposal to the Antioch City Council for approval at its meeting early next month.

“This decision was made outside of us, so I want to make sure the City Council weighs in,” Hernandez-Thorpe said.

On his website last week, Hernandez-Thorpe said he met with SJJPA and the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission and was assured by both entities that the city is “now on a path to keeping the Antioch Amtrak station open.”

Last Saturday, community members and leaders, including Hernandez-Thorpe and state Assemblymember Tim Grayson, held a rally outside the East County Amtrak station, demanding that the SJJPA halt the proposed closure.

Participants got on trains in Oakland and Richmond and got off in downtown Antioch to join a walking tour.

Tachina Garrett, chairperson of Antioch’s Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment Action, accused SJJPA of not engaging with the East Contra Costa community, which she called a “big red flag.”

“We don’t want them to make their own rules. Other cities are losing train stations for no real reason,” Garrett said. “Imagine one day you wake up to go to work and find that the train station doesn’t exist anymore.”

She said the train station is an essential mode of transportation for residents to travel for work. Garrett noted many in Antioch have been dislocated from their homes due to high rent, and taking away a mode of transportation will only exacerbate the problem.The rail line connects Antioch to Martinez, Richmond and Oakland in one direction, and Sacramento, Stockton and the Central Valley in the other.

Garrett said members will attend the Friday meeting to further pressure the joint power authority to reconsider its decision.

Carter Lavin, co-founder of the Transbay Coalition, said the SJJPA’s unilateral decision without proper public engagement was “deeply insulting and anti-Californian.”

“The joint power of authority is spitting on the face of some 200,000 people living in Pittsburg and Antioch, who are predominantly Black and brown, working-class folks, in favor of replacing it with a station in a smaller community that will have less ridership,” Lavin said.

The SJJPA board meeting will be held at 11 a.m. on Friday in Martinez on the first floor of the Contra Costa County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar St. People can also join the meeting remotely at: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84594500119?pwd=GS2xHg7aikIXEvOffmaAhOxaLbu7bp.1.

©2024 MediaNews Group, Inc. Visit at mercurynews.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.