Richie-boy’s 2022 Santa Cruz Ballot
Once again, it’s election time. It actually might be a relief when the Republicans take over congress and complete their destruction of our democracy. At least we won’t have to go through this torturous process every year. Just kidding. We need to do everything we can to maintain our democracy. A couple of nights of researching candidatates and ballot propositions is a small price to pay to protect our rights and our right to have a say in our government. Anyway, here’s how I’m voting in the upcoming election.
Democrats
Thankfully, most of the races this year are between a Democrat and a Republican. That makes things easy. I’m going to vote for the party that isn’t filled with people who still won’t accept the results of the 2020 election. I’m going to vote for the party that doesn’t have the full support of the nazis, the KKK, the Proud Boys, the Oathkeepers, and all the other white supremacist and anti-semitic groups in the country. I’m going to vote for the party that didn’t try to overthrow the US government in 2020.
Gavin Newsom
The one Democratic candidate I will mention by name is Gavin Newsom. I didn’t support him when he ran against other Democrats a few years ago, but I’ve been extremely impressed with his performance as governor. California has its lowest unemployment rate ever. Our economy is on the verge of overtaking Germany and become the 4th largest economy in the world. It’s true that Newsom hasn’t lived up to his promises with regards to building 3.5 million new homes, but he’s done a lot more to address our housing issues than any of his predecessors. Lastly, his leadership through the Covid pandemic saved tens of thousands of lives. That’s not an exaggeration. If California lost lives to Covid at the same rate as Florida, 50,000 more Californians would have died. Anyway, at this point, Newsom has been the best governor of CA in my lifetime, and I wholeheartedly endorse him for governor in 2022 (and president of the USA if he ever decides to run).
CA Prop 1 — Right to Reproductive Freedom
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1,_Right_to_Reproductive_Freedom_Amendment_(2022)
• Strong YES
This will enshrine in California’s state Constitution the right to abortions that the US Supreme Court recently removed. It also guarantees the right to contraception. The GOP will try to implement nationwide bans on these things once they control the House. Aside from protecting against these rights being removed by future California governments, having these rights in our Constitution will, hopefully, help us to defend against those upcoming nationwide bans.
CA Prop 26 — Legalize sports betting
• Strong NO
I’m generally in support of legalized gambling, and this is the better of the two props on the ballot. I just don’t understand why we need to put card rooms out of business to do this. Also, the part where citizens can help enforce the new law through lawsuits is disturbing. Were it not for the card room changes, which should be unrelated to sports betting, I’d probably vote yes on this one. One thing we should’ve learned from Prop-64 and our legalization of pot a few years back is that when we legalize vices, we should be very careful not to destroy the businesses who have been providing those services in the gray market for decades.
CA Prop 27 — Legalize online sports betting
• Strong NO
This one is a massive expansion of legalized gambling in our state. Ultimately, it will replace the tribal casino system with a system run by giant corporations, most of which are headquartered out of state. This is the far worse of the two gambling props. MLB, in particular, should be ashamed of themselves for supporting this proposition. It’s galling that MLB has embraced gambling to the extent where they’re arguing in favor of new laws, but they have done nothing to increase transparency within the game (like requiring all managers to post their lineups before any game starts so that people betting can know who’s playing). I digress. A bigger issue is that this is a law that doesn’t solve any problem. Has there been anyone who looked at the various real problems in California and claimed that if only we had more gambling the state would be better off?
CA Prop 28 — Fund art and music in K-12
• Mild NO
This prop would require a minimum percentage of the money we dedicated from the general fund for education funding with Prop 98 (1988) is dedicated towards funding arts and music education. In its simplest terms, this would require that 1% of the approximately 40% of the general fund dedicated for for education would go towards arts and music. This is a tough no for me, as I like arts and music, and I think they should be funded. That said, I am generally against these types of forced allocations of funds. I’d prefer to leave the flexibility in the hands of legislators. If I could repeal Prop-98 (1988), I would. More importantly, while there is a national narrative that STEM has taken over our education system and other things are under-funded, recent test scores from California don’t align with that narrative. Specifically, we do OK, relative to other states on reading scores. We’re at about the national average. It’s the math scores that are really dismal. That’s where we’re below the national average and are ranked about 37th among the states. Given that, I don’t think its a good idea to be forcing schools to spend money on arts and music instead of math, although you could make the argument that music is related to math and music education might improve math scores, which is why this is a tough one for me.
CA Prop 29 — Yet another dialysis clinic proposal
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_29,_Dialysis_Clinic_Requirements_Initiative_(2022)
• Strong NO
Stop. Just stop. You lost. Voters rejected this in 2018. We rejected it again in 2020. Stop making us vote on essentially the same proposition every year. If ever there was an argument to radical changes to the ballot proposition process, the dialysis propositions are that argument. Personally, I’d like to change the process so that signature gatherers cannot be paid. If propositions could only get on the ballot through volunteers, we’d see a lot less propositions, and we wouldn’t need to waste time and money voting down dialysis clinic regulations every two years.
CA Prop 30— Tax on Income Above $2 Million
• Strong NO
Liberals, like myself and most other Californians, usually default to yes on any policy that increases taxes on higher incomes and helps to clean up the environment. In this case, though, it should give all of us pause that Governor Newsom is against this proposition and has campaigned against it. Newsom correctly points out that Prop 30 is, “ a cynical scheme devised by a single corporation to funnel state income tax revenue to their company.” That corporation is ‘Lyft’, which has spent 45 million dollars on this prop. Of the 46 million collected in support of this proposition. 45 million came from Lyft.
The reasons to vote against this one go beyond just anti-corporate rhetoric, though, including some technicalities whereby it avoids the Prop-98 (1988) minimum percentage requirement for education spending (see blurb on Prop 28), and it might push us over the Gann limit for expenditures. Beyond that, taxes on the wealthy are finite. If we pass this 1.75 point increase that mostly helps Lyft and upper middle income Californians, that’s a tax increase we can’t pass in future years to fund worthier causes (ie. housing). While the GOP narrative of people and businesses fleeing California in droves is a lie, a truth is that some people and businesses do leave, and that some of them do so because of the high tax burden. In many cases, I think this is a worthwhile tradeoff, but not in this one. If you were to walk through Santa Cruz, you’d see an electric vehicle in the driveway of every 3rd or 4th million dollar cottage, and you’d also see tents and unhoused people. If we’re going to increase taxes on the wealthy, let's put that money towards the latter issue (or the general fund).
CA Prop 31 — Flavored Tobacco Products Ban
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_31,_Flavored_Tobacco_Products_Ban_Referendum_(2022)
• Mild YES
This is a wierd one. It’s a ‘veto referendum’. This means that we’re voting on whether to uphold a law that overwhelmingly passed the California legislature a couple of years ago. A yes vote upholds that law and retains the ban on flavored tobacco products. A no vote, vetos the legislation and removes the ban on flavored tobacco. I’m not sure if this is backwards or intentionally confusing, or if it makes sense. In any case, I’m sympathetic to the NO argument that this is prohibition and prohibition doesn’t work. If this were a standalone proposition and not a veto of an existing law, I might vote against the ban. That’s not what this is, though. This law passed the both our state assembly and senate with only a single no vote. I don’t think we should override those legislators based on what Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds (which have spent a combined $15 million) are telling us.
Santa Cruz Measure K— High School Bond
• Mild YES
$249 million seems like a lot of money, and I’d prefer to use taxes as a funding source over bonds, especially with rising interest rates, but we need to maintain our schools, so I’m a yes on this one.
Santa Cruz Measure L— Elementary School Bond
• Mild YES
$122 million seems like a lot of money, and I’d prefer to use taxes as a funding source over bonds, especially with rising interest rates, but we need to maintain our schools, so I’m a yes on this one.
Santa Cruz Measure N — Empty Home Tax
• Strong YES
If the ‘Santa Cruz Together’ or ‘Santa Cruz United’ group supports a proposition, I’m likely to be against it. These are the folks that supported the recall of Glover & Krohn, and they’re the people who fought against Measure M (2018), the rent stabilization prop from a few years ago. Now, they’re using the same tactics against Measure N. They’re using the same “Too extreme” slogan, and, sadly, the same homeowners who voted down Measure M (2018), against their own interests, are falling for the deceptive tactics again.
One hint to anyone looking at these propositions is that, when one side is claiming things like, “well … uhhh … it’s a fine concept, but its a poorly written bill that’s too extreme”, that side is lying. We know this because, after months of claiming Measure M (2018) was too extreme, they never offered any sort of less extreme version after they won. Instead of working towards a compromise less extreme ordinance with the progressive city council members, Santa Cruz Together recalled two of them them and replaced them with developer-friendly council people. In the case of Measure N, they’re claiming that filling out a form attesting that a house was occupied more than 120 days in the year is somehow too invasive? WTF? If you’re a homeowner in Santa Cruz, don’t fall for this nonsense.
As for the supporters of Measure N, they don’t do themselves any favors in the way they framed this proposition. What they should have said is that Measure N is about reducing crime. The single biggest deterrent to crime is people. Empty houses, vacant lots, and empty apartments are invitations for criminal activities. Every single day that a house is occupied is another day with more eyes on the street and another day on which a crime is less likely to occur.
Lastly, on this measure, I’ll add that I’m one of those lucky few people who this might affect, as I’m out of town quite a bit. During the pandemic in 2020, I probably would have come in under the 120 days. I might be on the border in some upcoming years, but I’m not going to pay the penalty. Instead, I’ll just make sure to be here enough. And my simple presence will reduce the probability a crime occurs on my street.
Santa Cruz Measure O— Downtown building plan
• Mild YES
This proposition amends the general plan in an effort to prevent the city council from moving the library and farmers market along with building a new parking garage. Normally, I’d oppose this type of a measure, as I’d prefer to let our government officials do their jobs. In the case of the Santa Cruz City Council, though, I don’t consider them to have much legitimacy after the recall from a couple of years ago. If there was a way I could vote against both this measure and the City Council’s plan, I would, but there isn’t, and that leaves me to choose the lesser of two evils, which is Measure O.
The thing most abhorrent about the City Council’s plan is that they will be using funds from Measure S (2016) to do things that weren’t approved in that measure. Speficially, Measure S (2016) allocates funds “To modernize, upgrade and repair local libraries in Santa Cruz, Aptos, Live Oaks, Scotts Valley, Boulder Creek, Capitola, Felton and La Selva Beach — replace failing roofs, oudated bathrooms, electrical systems/structurally damaged facilities; support”. It doesn’t provide for building an entirely new library and parking facility. “repair” doesn’t mean “build a new building in a completely different location”. Even if I really liked the City Council’s building plan, this misuse of Measure S funds would require that I vote against it.
The other thing I don’t like about the City Council’s plan is the parking structure. Anyone who isn’t familiar with Donald Shoup’s work on the high cost of free parking would do well to familiarize themselves with it. In short, we have an over-abundance of parking spots in this country (at least 4 for every car), and that drives up housing costs and encourages people to harm the planet by driving more. My personal thoughts on the parking situation in Santa Cruz are that a great way to bring down the cost of market-rate housing is to not provide any parking at all. Force people moving into these places to go carless or park a few blocks from home in existing parking structures.
Santa Cruz Measure P— Hotel Tax
• Mild NO
This one increases the tax on hotel rooms and vacation rentals. I’m generally against hotel taxes. I don’t like paying them when I’m traveling, and I don’t like the notion of charging our guests when they come to our town. We collect plenty of taxes from our visitors in the form of sales taxes and other fees that they don’t get to vote on. We shouldn’t be increasing hotel taxes every time we need more funding just because the people paying those taxes don’t get to vote against them.
Santa Cruz 3rd District Supervisor
• Justin Cummings
There are two types of Democrats in Santa Cruz politics. One type is completely in thrall to the developer lobby, and the other type at least pays lip service to the needs of the less fortunate residents of Santa Cruz. Shebreh is of the former variety and Justin is the latter. Justin hasn’t been the progressive savior that people hoped he would be when he was elected to the council, but he’s been on the correct side of many issues. Were it not for the recall, he might have accomplished a whole lot more.
Santa Cruz Mayor
• Joy Schendledecker
Moving to district elections and an at-large mayor with no power was a mistake. I truly wonder at the intentions of the group that sued the various cities in California to force district elections under the pretense of better representation for minorities. Does anyone in Santa Cruz really think that minorities will be better represented with the new districts? After the leaked tape of the L.A. City Council districting discussion, there should be no doubt that districting creates more problems than it solves. Nationally, the drawing of districts has destroyed our democracy, and, while I don’t think geography should be completely removed from our politics, I do think it should be greatly reduced.
So, I was going to use the write-in as a protest vote for this position. Then I listened to Fred Keeley’s housing plan. It’s horrific. His plan is to segregate all of the low income and very low income housing the state is requiring us to build into a single small area south of Laurel St. Put in slightly harsher terms, Keeley’s housing plan is to build a ghetto.
I will always be hesitant to vote for anyone identifying as a Democratic Socialist, but, after listening to Schendledecker, I think she’s pretty reasonable. At least she understands the housing burden needs to be spread out through the city.
