Positions on Statewide Ballot Initiatives for November 5, 2024 Election
Proposition 2: Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation state bonds for public schools and community colleges. OPPOSE. California cannot afford another bond. The debt-servicing payments on this bond will be substantial and likely lead to higher taxes. A statewide bond of $9 billion dollars passed in 2016, only eight years ago, meaning we did not get the benefit of the bargain from the last bond before issuing a new one. There is no guarantee that this new bond will benefit our local community. Plus, any bond funds from the State are usually distributed as matching funds to proposed projects, meaning it requires local funding to utilize. Education bonds are better when done at the local level because money is then spent locally. Chaffey College Community District passed a $700 million dollar bond in 2018, and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District passed a $848 million dollar bond in 2012 to modernize all the high schools in our district. Meanwhile, the four elementary school districts have various bonds in existence and/or proposed. The Chamber’s opposition to this state bond is not a commentary or critique of any local bond measure currently pending. Local bonds and state bonds are substantially different.
Proposition 4: Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation state bonds for water, wildfire prevention, etc. OPPOSE. California cannot afford this bond. The debt-servicing payments on this bond will be approximately $400 million per year for 40 years. This money would be paid out of the general fund, which currently has a substantial deficit that is expected to continue for years. A statewide water bond of $7 billion dollars was passed in 2014 and not a single dam has been built since then. Instead, most of the money went to build smaller nonessential projects that have not improved our water situation.
Proposition 5: Allows local bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure with 55% voter approval. OPPOSE. This measure reduces the threshold needed to pass city or county bonds from 66% to 55% when the money is for affordable housing and infrastructure. This threshold would be akin to education bonds that typically only require 55% approval. If passed, this measure would make it easier to pass local bonds, thereby resulting in higher property taxes per each bond. Proposition 5 is also opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce.
Proposition 32: Raises minimum wage to $18 per hour for all workers (except for the minimum wage for fast-food workers of $20 and certain health care workers of $25). OPPOSE. California’s current minimum wage is $16. In 2014, California’s minimum wage was raised to $9 per hour and has exponentially increased yearly since then. This measure would result in the doubling of the minimum wage in ten years. This is patently unaffordable, results in higher prices, and would decimate small businesses. Proposition 32 is also opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce.
Proposition 33: Repeals Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently prohibits local ordinances limiting initial residential rental rates for new tenants or rent increases for existing tenants. OPPOSE. Currently, California law prohibits certain local rent control laws in three ways: (1) rent control cannot apply to any single-family homes, (2) rent control cannot apply to any housing built on or after February 1, 1995, and (3) rent control cannot apply to what a landlord charges a new renter when first moving in. If passed, Proposition 33 would repeal those protections and allow cities and counties to adopt such controls. Similar measures were rejected by voters in 2018 and 2020. Rent control does not work. Preventing landlords from adjusting rents to market rates decreases quality and availability, discourage construction of new housing, and reduce values. California already passed legislation in 2019 to cap annual rent increases at 5% plus inflation for tenants, and limitations on evictions except for just cause. Proposition 33 is also opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce.
Proposition 36: Allows felony charges and increases sentences for certain drug and theft crimes. SUPPORT. This measure revises parts of Proposition 47 passed in 2014 which made theft of up to $950 a misdemeanor. Proposition 36 would make this theft a felony if the person has two or more past convictions for theft crimes and subject to up to three years in jail or prison. Proposition 36 allows certain drug crimes to be charged with a “treatment
mandated felony” instead of a misdemeanor. Proposition 36 is an important first step to combating retail theft and drug crimes that are plaguing our communities. California Chamber of Commerce supports Proposition 36.
Robert Hufnagel
General Counsel
Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs
9/25/2024