PROPOSITION 15 – OPPOSE
Changes Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Split roll taxes commercial and industrial properties based on current market value instead of purchase price.
Reasons for Position: Proposition 15 is a $12.5 billion a year property tax increase—the largest in state history. The measure is riddled with flaws that will hurt all Californians, increasing the cost of living and making everything more expensive, including food, gas, utilities, day care and health care. The measure repeals the taxpayer protections of Proposition 13 that have kept property taxes affordable. Proposition 15 proponents have admitted that homeowner protections are next. Proposition 15 will hurt the small businesses that employ more than half of all California employees. The measure lacks accountability and will not help local governments and schools recover from the COVID-19-induced economic crisis.
PROPOSITION 20 – SUPPORT
Restricts Parole for Non-Violent Offenders. Authorizes Felony Sentences for Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only as Misdemeanors. Initiative Statute. Limits access to parole program established for nonviolent offenders who have completed the full term of their primary offense by eliminating eligibility for certain offenses.
Reasons for Position: Proposition 20 discourages organized retail thefts by increasing penalties and saves retailers thousands of dollars in lost merchandise and loss prevention programs. It includes a felony for “serial theft.” A person caught stealing merchandise valued at more than $250 three separate times would face felony charges. The measure also expands the list of violent crimes for which early release isn’t an option. Requires the Board of Parole Hearings to consider an inmate’s entire criminal history when deciding parole, not just his/her most recently committed offense.
PROPOSITION 21 – OPPOSE
Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute. Allows local governments to establish rent control on residential properties over 15 years old. Allows local limits on annual rent increases to differ from current statewide limit. Exempts units owned by individuals who own no more than two single-family dwellings.
Reasons for Position: A substantial body of economic research and the Legislative Analyst’s Office conclude that rent control depresses new residential construction, decreases affordability of most units, encourages gentrification and creates spillover effects into surrounding neighborhoods. By discouraging new construction, rent control exacerbates the housing shortage that is the underlying cause of the state’s high housing costs. The ballot measure is unnecessary in the wake of legislation signed last year (AB 1482), which caps annual rent increases at 5% plus inflation for tenants, and requires that a landlord have a just cause, as defined in the law, to evict tenants that had occupied the rental for at least one year. AB 1482 included exemptions for housing built in the last 15 years and some single-family homes and duplexes. It was designed to sunset after 10 years.
PROPOSITION 22 – SUPPORT
Changes Employment Classification Rules for App-Based Transportation and Delivery Drivers. Initiative Statute. Classifies app-based drivers as independent contractors instead of employees and provides independent contractor drivers other compensation, unless certain criteria are met.
Reasons for Position: Passage of Proposition 22 will ensure that thousands of workers continue to have access to app-based work that provides a flexible option to earn income. Supporting app-based drivers in the gig economy is critical to a diverse and robust economy. In light of the economic turmoil created by COVID-19, it is more important than ever to do everything possible to position the state for a robust comeback. The measure will provide important clarifications for determining who is an independent contractor and eliminate costly and ongoing litigation against companies in the gig economy. It also outlines wage and benefit guarantees, as well as other protections for drivers and passengers.
PROPOSITION 23 – OPPOSE
Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Requires On-Site Medical Professional. Initiative Statute. Requires physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant on site during dialysis treatment. Prohibits clinics from reducing services without state approval or from refusing to treat patients based on payment source.
Reasons for Position: Because dialysis treatment is prescribed by a patient’s personal nephrologist and administered by specially trained nephrology nurses and patient care technicians, the physician on site requirement is unnecessary and would increase costs of care dramatically. The increased costs would be passed on to everyone in the form of higher insurance premiums and higher taxes for government-sponsored health care. It has been estimated that nearly half of the 600 dialysis clinics in the state would become financially unsustainable due to Proposition 23, resulting in closure of some clinics and reduced care options for sick patients.
PROPOSITION 25 – OPPOSE
Referendum on Law that Replaced Money Bail with System Based on Public Safety and Flight Risk. A “yes” vote approves and a “no” vote rejects a law replacing money bail with a system based on public safety and flight risk.
Reasons for Position: PROP. 25 eliminates the right to bail for every Californian. California’s justice system guarantees that people accused of a non-violent crime have the choice of securing their release by posting bail or by order of a judge. But Prop. 25 replaces this right with an automated computer-generated predictive modeling system based on mathematical algorithms administered by 58 different counties. Civil rights leaders, law enforcement, victims’ rights groups, and county officials say this proposition will create more biased outcomes against people of color and those from economically disadvantaged areas.
More Information: sos.ca.gov
One thought on “Visalia Chamber of Commerce Nov 3 Ballot Recommendations”
(Commenter ID is a unique per-article, per-person commenter identifier. If multiple names have the same Commenter ID, it is likely they are the same person. For more information, click here.)
You are RECOMMENDING that people vote conservative, just like you. You’re going to sway people who aren’t reading the fine print.
Are you serious?
Even how you word your reasoning, is beyond biased.
Shouldn’t be surprised though. I grew up in Visalia, and it’s the most biased, conservative, hypocritical county I’ve ever been apart of.