Geez ... That thing lost 3 Bay Area counties. https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/13 That's just bad campaigning. And it's bad strategy to put ballot measures on primary ballots.
Highly unusual. I bet whoever was backing this thing was shocked that it didn't pass - I can't remember the last time a bond measure failed.
Financing education is always a hard sell - people who don't have school age children don't see any benefit in it.
Some people. Well OK many people. But happily, from my perspective, there are a great many exceptions. Every house on my block is an empty nester, there isn't a single child on the street, and we pay a combined ... oh never mind, a combined whole lot in property taxes, which largely go toward education in Illinois since there is little state-level funding.
It looks like all propositions in San Francisco passed. So, now if The City doesn't meet its affordable housing goals -which it won't- the amount of office space will have to be reduced, which will in turn reduce the revenues the city needs for affordable housing, which will further reduce affordable housing, which will further reduce the amount of office space...and so on. Gotta love these leftist voters. Maybe they think they can make up the revenue with the vacant storefront tax that they passed.
I don't know if it's too early to update this, but we got some good ones coming up in the November election. Links below are to Ballotpedia. I haven't done a lot of research on these yet so any support or opposition noted by me is preliminary. Here we go! Proposition 14, a bond measure for stem cell research. The only bond measure on the ballot this time. I would assume it would pass easily, but after the surprising (to me) defeat of the education bond measure in the spring, it's not obvious if this will pass. Proposition 15, an update to 1978's Proposition 13 which capped property taxes and ********ed over the state budget for the last forty years. This will repeal Proposition 13 for commercial and industrial properties while leaving it in place for residential properties. Finally! Proposition 16, undoes 1996's Proposition 209 which ended affirmative action in the state, so apparently it will re-establish some kind of affirmative action. Haven't looked in great detail yet. Proposition 17, allows former felons who are still on parole to vote. Currently, former felons can vote after they are no longer on parole, so this will slightly reduce the amount of time before they can vote again. I'm generally in favor of allowing more people to vote, which includes people in prison, so I expect to vote for this. Proposition 18, allows 17 year olds to vote in a primary if they will turn 18 before the general election. Some other states have done this already, and it's not a red vs. blue thing, it's in effect in both South Carolina and Connecticut. My kid will actually be affected by this in 2024, his birthday is in late March so if we still have the March primary, he'll be 17 for the primary and 18 for the general election. I'm in favor. Proposition 19, something to do with tax assessments when moving to a larger or smaller house. The ballotpedia page is weird, it seems to indicate that whoever was supporting it is trying to withdraw it because the state legislature passed something or other that made this measure irrelevant. Or something. I'll dig into it more when the election gets closer. Proposition 20, something something criminal sentencing parole something. At this point, if the cop unions are in favor of something, I'm going to oppose it, and the cop unions are in favor of this one. And the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the geniuses who recommended this week that Orange County schools should be fully open in the fall, so their judgement is poor - they're in favor so I'm pretty sure I should be opposed. Proposition 21, expands the possibilities for rent control. Didn't we recently have a rent control vote? Yeah, Ballotpedia says that 2018's Proposition 10 was about rent control, so I could probably scroll up thread and read about it there. Anyways, the moonbat in me says rent control is a good idea, but the landlord in me says I should squeeze my tenants for everything they have - yes, I'm a landlord, we're renting our condo after we bought a house a couple of years ago, and you would not believe how much it rents for, it's ridiculous. So I'm undecided. Proposition 22, classifies gig workers as independent contractors, trying to undo AB 5, which was passed by the state legislature in 2019 and classified gig workers (and others) as full time employees. I remember @argentine soccer fan had issues with AB 5 because it was screwing over the translators who worked in the court system - AB 5 was aimed at the gig workers (e.g. Uber drivers) but had a lot of collateral damage like freelance journalists and other people who had good reason to work as independent contractors. Anyways, this one is on track to be one of the most expensive ballot measures in state history, as Uber, Lyft, Doordash, Instacart and Postmates have contributed over $100 million combined to pass this. Probably by October we're all going to be tired of the ads pushing this one. Proposition 23, something something dialysis. ********ing hell, we are once again having a statewide election to decide how some goddamn industry governs itself because they can't figure it out on their own. We just did this with 2018's Proposition 8. I hope there's an option to vote for "stop bothering us with statewide ballot measures about ********ing dialysis", because that's what I want to choose. Proposition 24, some kind of update to the California Consumer Privacy Act. I haven't looked in enough detail at this one yet. Proposition 25, replace cash bail with risk assessments. It's probably a pretty good time to have a vote on this with the recent focus on reform in the criminal justice system and the police. My moonbat side says that bail is unfair and an additional tax on the poor. And the Orange County Board of Supervisors is opposed to this, so I'm probably in favor of it. So there we are. I'm super excited about Proposition 15.
OMG yes on 23. I'm not on dialysis or any other renal remedy, but renal failure is a common cause of death within spina bifida. We need access to quality care. Perhaps tangentially, I'm tentatively a fan of socialized medicine, though anything has its drawbacks. But I think we're paying for many things we don't need to be, and that's, in part, causing us not to be able to care for those that need it in as good a manner as we could. On second thought: As I read the BP entry, it looks like it is opposed by AMVETS and the state NAACP. I agree with Knave. This thread is not too early. The earlier the better. I need a better cram session. So easy to leave things to the last minute thinking you aren't.
ALL American citizens should have the "right" to vote. Felons who are on parole. Felons who are incarcerated. Sorry, Brummie, even people who voted for Trump.
I hope they repeal AB5, it's been creating havoc in the interpreting industry, although with COVID19 most of the independent contractors are screwed anyway, so the impact of AB5 hasn't been quite as significant as it would have been under normal circumstances. I hear a lot of horror stories from contractors, and I can't even hire them for the court, because we are also having issues and we are not hiring right now. Everybody is struggling right now. After the governor mandated budget cuts, the Superior Court at Santa Clara County laid off 52 employees - just yesterday- and mandated furloughs for the rest, basically cutting everyone's salary, so it's not like the unionized employees are doing a whole lot better than contractors. As far as prop 15, I would imagine that a large number of commercial and industrial property owners are struggling in this new economy - with the shutdowns, restrictions, low demand and all - losing business if they own their own property, and losing tenants if they are landlords. It's probably not the best timing to vote on what would effectively be a huge tax increase for many businesses that are already fighting to survive against the odds. But I doubt most Californian voters will consider that, as long as it doesn't affect them personally. Everyone is caught up in his own very real personal drama nowadays.
My experience is that most businesses don't own the building that they're operating in, and if they do, they didn't buy the building and get a stepped-up property tax basis - they bought a holding company that owns the building, and since the building didn't change ownership (it is owned by the same holding company), the property tax stays at the same rate. And if the business doesn't own the building, they're certainly paying market rate for rent. The commercial district of my town (San Carlos, the commercial district is Laurel Street, it's not quite as upscale or as big as downtown Palo Alto or Burlingame but there are a number of pleasant restaurants and shops and it's lovely to stroll, or at least it was in the before time) has come up a lot in the last 20 years and a bunch of the businesses have turned over, but none of the buildings have changed hands, and the property owners are still paying 1978 taxes on those properties, while getting 2020 rents from their tenants (or 2020 income from their customers if they own the property themselves). I looked up my favorite beer garden in Redwood City - public records, you can do a search for parcel number 052322060 on the San Mateo County tax collector's web site. Assessed value is under $700K for a storefront on a busy commercial street, walking distance from the train station, two stories, shop in front, office upstairs, restaurant and beer garden in the back. There's no way that property would cost under $700K if it sold on the open market. Maybe it's different outside the Bay Area, but I'm pretty sure that's the case for most commercial properties around the Bay.
Yeah, it's great that we have rent control now that rents aren't going up anyway and not sometime back in the last decade when rents were going up like crazy. Really, really great.
That's true of the majority of retailers, because renting gives them flexibility. (To move, expand, contract etc. as needed). Wholesalers and manufacturers are more likely to own their own building, if they can afford it. I used to own my own warehouse, I sold it when I closed my business. I didn't want the headache of being a commercial landlord. The problem is that the high tech bubble caused crazy inflation in industrial and commercial property and while rasing taxes on property to keep up with the crazy property inflation sounds like an awesome idea for some, it will be a disaster for many non-high tech businesses that are struggling at this time. Ultimately whether they own or rent their building is a moot point. If they own their property, they will not be able to afford it anymore, and if they rent, they will not be able to afford the higher rent that will inevitably result. I expect that as a result of the current crisis a lot of commercial and industrial property will be lost by their owners and/or vacated by their tenants even if we don't touch prop 13 at this time. Lots of non-high tech businesses will disappear. And perhaps if we are lucky the high tech industry will remain strong and will be able to swallow the real estate property that others lose, and keep the prices high, and they will be able to afford the higher property taxes, and bring more revenue to the state. But whether that will happen remains to be seen, it is a risky proposition. I think it's a dangerous time to think of raising commercial and industrial property taxes.
The high tech bubble also caused crazy inflation for residential property, but homeowners don't get the protection of Proposition 13 when we buy a house on the open market, with the rare exception of those lucky enough to inherit a house from their family without the stepped-up tax basis. The only way we could afford an upgraded home was due to insane stock market valuation of the company my wife worked for (Tesla) - the idea that a family on a regular salary can afford a nice home in a good school district is pretty far from reality. Is this sustainable? Probably not, but supply and demand is a real thing that housing in the Bay Area has to deal with, and right now, people who get lucky in the stock option market get to buy houses while a lot of other folks can't. I believe that most businesses - commercial / retail businesses, at least - are already paying crazy inflated rents and the commercial / retail landlords have been making serious bank by charging market rate rents while paying property taxes on decades-old valuation of their property. Prime retail property is limited - there's only three blocks of Laurel Street in San Carlos that are in prime locations and if you want a storefront in those three blocks you have to compete with everyone else who wants those locations, and those prices are through the roof. If the commercial landlords do suddenly have to sell their property... it's worth so much more than when they bought it that they can retire in style, and hopefully whoever buys the property can afford the stepped up property taxes, which means more money for our schools and parks and stuff. If a glut of commercial property is suddenly on the market, the free market has a solution for that - prices will drop and the new owners will pay less in property taxes. The reality is that money has been flowing into the Bay Area like crazy - even more so under the pandemic while people are staying at home and using more internet services. The inflow of cash from the rest of the country has upended the residential property market so that people who are lucky enough to be able to afford a big house are paying a disproportionate amount of property tax, while commercial property owners have been skating on the decades old valuation of their property while collecting vast amounts of money from their rentals. It's time to even things out.
Even things out? I’m saying that the small business owner who worked hard and bought his warehouse and is now struggling due to COVID and the economic crisis will be forced to sell, and those big landlords with big pockets that you decry will scoop it up and will end up owning all the property. They will then likely raise rents even more, driving out any non-high tech businesses that still manage to remain and that are still fighting to get by during this crisis, a struggle that in the Bay Area in particular is as you say compounded by the inflationary pressures driven by high tech that still exist. I still hope for a return to a more diverse California economy in which not all property is owned by the big landlords and by high tech. That’s the only way to make our beautiful state viable in the long term. But the trends are going against it, and this proposition at this particular time will not help. Go ahead and pass this reform right now in the midst of this economic meltdown. Instead of evening things out it will likely lead to even more business failures, inequality, homelessness and gentrification, and this will result in an even bigger budget crisis for the state that will probably more than offset any additional revenues we might hope to get from the tax increase.