Propositions! November 2022

By popular request, here are my analyses/recommendations for the propositions appearing on the California ballot this November:

Proposition 1: Yes.  This one would create a right to reproductive freedom, including the right to an abortion, under the California Constitution. Seems like a good step to take. (But I have to admit I haven't done the analysis to figure out exactly what practical effect this may have, if any).

Proposition 26 and 27: Leaning No on 26, No on 27. 

Proposition 26 would legalize sports betting (and some other games not currently allowed) in California at Indian casinos and licensed racetracks.  The tribes are the biggest proponents of Prop. 26.  If you are not too worried about the expansion of gambling (since we already have a bunch, including the California Lottery), and you have some sympathy for the tribes, then go ahead and vote for Prop. 26. But if you are concerned about a wider variety of gambling being available, vote no.

Proposition 27 would open up online sports betting, and is sponsored by a bunch of corporations that offer that.  I think this is just a corporate money grab and makes sports betting way too easy, and the fact that they throw in a warm-and-fuzzy PR element of dedicating most of the tax revenue to a homeless and mental health fund doesn't change that. Vote no.

Proposition 28: Yes.  This one would allocate a minimum amount of funding for arts and music programs in K-12 public schools.  I generally don't like budgeting-by-ballot, as it locks in funding levels regardless of where funding needs may be, but on this one unfortunately it is necessary.  Arts and music education is valuable for all students (I can explain why if you don't believe me), and those programs have largely gotten the short end of the stick over the years.  A guaranteed funding stream is needed, and I recommend voting yes.

Proposition 29: No. OMFG it is ANOTHER proposition on staffing of dialysis clinics, like the ones CA voters have rejected several times.  I'm not particularly fond of corporate dialysis clinics, and I have some sympathy for health care workers, but given that similar propositions have been rejected multiple times before (and recently), I think the message should be made even clearer - just stop it with these already.

Proposition 30: No.  I am fine with the idea of a raising income taxes a little bit on those making over $2 million, but this is a worse example of budget-by-ballot, with most of the resulting revenues going to subsidize electric vehicles and related infrastructure, with a smaller chunk going to wildfire prevention.  It is very prescriptive on what the money can be spent on, and locks in subsidies for a long time, when it is not clear to me that subsidies are needed for that long. Lyft is a big sponsor of this, so they probably are expecting to benefit from the subsidies. I am thinking that we have better things to spend our money on. I am fine with giving money to CalFire, but they don't get so much from this Proposition; I think they are just along for the ride on this one to make it look better. 

Proposition 31: Yes. The state legislature previously passed a ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products. The tobacco companies want to overturn it. This proposition essentially says, yes, we want to keep the ban in place. I don't see a pressing need for flavored tobacco products, and I am fine with hindering the ability of tobacco companies to market to kids. Vote yes.  

I Am Racist (and you ain't so "woke" either)

Yes, I am racist. This may surprise you - how could I, a Bay Area progressive with a Black daughter, be racist? To clarify a bit, I'm not intentionally racist, and it took me some time to realize that I was racist. Here is how I figured it out.

In 2004 I traveled to Ethiopia. I had never been to Africa before, and it was a very interesting experience. When I got back to the Bay Area, I noticed something: I was now looking at Black people on the street differently than I had before. Before my trip, when I would see a white person on the street, I would often look closely at them, observing details like how they resembled someone I knew ("that guy looks like Joe"), or their ethnicity ("she looks Irish"), or just some distinctive facial feature ("oh, interesting eyebrows"). But when I saw a Black person on the street, I would just look at them enough to identify basic traits - nicely dressed older guy, heavy younger woman, teenager with hoody, etc. But after being in Ethiopia, I found myself looking more closely at Black people, observing them more like how I observed white people ("she looks Ethiopian").

But the thing that surprised me was that I had no idea that I had been looking at Black people differently than how I looked at white people. So I guess at that moment I "woke" to how I had been before. But I don't really like the word "woke" - it's not like I became the fucking Buddha or something- I just realized that I had been acting in a racist way.  And given that I had had no clue that I was doing that, I figured I should check to see if I was still doing that in other ways.

The opportunity to do so came with a car. Specifically a black AMG-modified E-Class Mercedes sedan. (For those of you who are not car people, think of a nice, shiny black, medium size, slightly-fancier-looking-than-usual Mercedes sedan. It is an expensive but not particularly flashy car.) It was being driven by a young Black male, and the question that went through my head was: "How did he afford that car?" Almost immediately followed by an answer: "Drug dealer." Oops. I guess I am not so enlightened after all.

So the car became my new test - what story would pop into my head based on who I pictured driving the Mercedes? It was very interesting.  Middle-aged white male - executive or finance or attorney. Well-groomed blonde woman in her 30s or early 40s - real estate agent or trophy wife (oops - sexist). Young South Asian male - tech. Young Chinese female - daddy bought it (oops). Casual young white guy - tech. Unusually large young black male - pro athlete. Hispanic male - works at dealership moving and washing cars (oops). Middle-aged or older Chinese of either gender - successful small business owner. Hispanic female - didn't even picture it (oops).

And it is really hard to make those stories go away - they just tend to pop up by themselves, despite my conscious knowledge that they are racist or sexist. I have taken implicit bias tests, which are designed to measure this kind of reaction, and according to those tests, I actually moderately favor Blacks over whites. But my own Mercedes test causes me to question those results, and to acknowledge what feels like my own unintentional racism. 

I assume that these stories that pop into my head come from the societal context that I live in, even though that context is not overtly racist.  I live in the Bay Area, and I don't recall my parents or teachers or friends conveying racist ideas. But the stories came from somewhere - probably news stories, movies, music, TV and radio.  I don't really know what is going on in other peoples' heads, but I'm guessing that if I have these kinds of thoughts pop into my head, other Americans do as well. And if I wasn't really aware that they were there (just like how I didn't realize how I was looking differently at Black and white people), I'm guessing that other Americans are similarly oblivious.

This is why I question the validity of white Americans claiming to be "woke." The word may have had its origins as a description of trying to stay aware of racism - you are trying to be alert and pay attention to manifestations of racism or other prejudices (a good thing), but now it has the feeling of being used more to describe a state, like enlightenment. But one could have been a major asshole, realized it and became less of an asshole, but still an asshole.  Reaching the state of minor asshole does not seem to justify  publicly patting oneself on the back. Even if one becomes aware of one's past unconscious racism and takes steps to move away from it, can they be certain that all vestiges of racism are gone? My experience would indicate that the answer is "no." There could still be hidden racist thoughts floating around, and absent a trigger (like my Mercedes) they will likely remain both hidden and present. 

Are you really sure that you are woke? I am pretty sure that I am not.

 

 

Rethinking the Retirement of Diablo Canyon?

A recent study by Stanford and MIT argues that there are potential benefits to extending the operating life of PG&E’s Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant beyond its scheduled 2014/2025 retirement. The Stanford/MIT study finds benefits in Diablo Canyon’s largely carbon-free generation of electricity, and its potential to provide power for water desalination and hydrogen production. The study tries to address many of the physical and financial obstacles to extending the operating life of Diablo Canyon, but my initial impression was that it had flaws or omissions that rendered its conclusions too rosy.

Before publicly pointing out the problems I saw, I contacted the authors of the study to make sure I wasn’t missing anything. They responded promptly and politely to my questions, but their answers only partially reassured me.  That said, there are definite limits to my expertise and to the depth of my analysis of the study. First, I am trained as an attorney, not as an engineer or scientist, and my knowledge of Diablo Canyon comes from my work at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) relating to PG&E’s application to retire Diablo Canyon. Second, I was the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that heard PG&E’s application and wrote the CPUC decision approving the retirement of Diablo Canyon. I believe that decision was correct at the time, and that it is still correct. Things have not changed so significantly since that time; climate change was as real then as it is now. Finally, please note that my comments here are solely my own in my personal capacity – they are not on behalf of the CPUC or any division of the CPUC, and I have had no assistance from CPUC technical staff. I have not addressed every potential issue raised by the study, nor have I analyzed any of the cost figures in the study, but I have just focused on a few areas where I have some knowledge.

When I read the study, three potential problems immediately jumped out. 1) The study includes scenarios in which Diablo Canyon is assumed to be able to ramp up and down by as much as 50% to 100%. This is inconsistent with PG&E’s testimony before the CPUC. 2) The study did not appear to account for the capital cost expenditures necessary to continue operating the plant for another 20 years. 3) One of the water desalination scenarios used by the study did not appear to account for the true cost of installing a large water pipeline to the Central Valley.

I asked the authors of the study about these three issues; they clarified that the capital costs of continuing the plant in operation were included, in the amount of $145 million per year. This answered my question regarding issue #2 above, but I found their answers on my other two issues to be less satisfactory.

The biggest flaw I noticed was that the study used three long-term scenarios that used varying assumptions about how Diablo Canyon would operate going forward. As the study describes it, “The variation is based on the possibility that Diablo Canyon will provide electricity to the grid more flexibly in the future, either by ramping its generation up or down, or by allocating some fraction of that generation to such non-grid applications as H2 production or desalination.”  The three operating patterns used by the study are “must run, 50% flexible, and 100% flexible.” The must-run scenario is how Diablo Canyon operates now, as a baseload facility that does not ramp up and down. The study describes the other two scenarios as follows: “The 50% flexible scenario allows Diablo Canyon to operate as low as 50% minimum load, with the ability to ramp up or down by 50% of its full capacity in an hour. The 100% flexible scenario allows Diablo Canyon to run without a partial load limit or ramp-up limitation.” (Study at 23-24.)

My recollection was that PG&E stated to the CPUC that Diablo Canyon could not feasibly ramp up and down, so I conveyed that information to the authors of the report and asked them where they got the idea that Diablo Canyon could ramp up and down.  Their response was that Diablo Canyon’s current license provides for ramping, and that other nuclear plants worldwide could also do that. PG&E’s position before the CPUC did not cause the authors to change their conclusion.

Here is what PG&E told the CPUC:

“CGNP [Californians for Green Nuclear Power] states that flexible operation of DCPP is “certainly possible” and “might directly help mitigate overgeneration” but it offers no evidence to support this conclusion. The evidence in the record is that Diablo Canyon was licensed and is designed to operate at full power (e.g., baseload). Operating in load-following mode would take Diablo Canyon outside of the currently authorized NRC license conditions and would require extensive technical feasibility studies, redesign of procedures, processes and systems, maintenance practices and nuclear fuel redesign. While there are a few pressurized water reactors (“PWRs”) in Europe that perform daily load-following, these plants were specifically optimized and designed for this purpose. The United States fleet of PWRs do not operate in this mode (with a few exceptions where plants are capable of making minor ramping changes in plant output). It is unclear if Diablo Canyon could be retrofitted to safely and reliably operate in a different operating mode, whether the NRC would approve it, and whether it would be cost-effective to do so given the reduction in capacity factor that would result if Diablo Canyon were to be frequently ramped down to minimum operating levels during the daytime hours when solar power is prevalent.” (PG&E Reply Brief at 7, in proceeding A.16-08-006, footnotes omitted.)

From my perspective, given the unequivocal statement of PG&E to the CPUC and the age of Diablo Canyon, I am not persuaded that Diablo Canyon could ramp up and down by 50% or 100% just because its license might allow that and because other plants might have that capability.

The other issue I noticed relates to the proposal to build a large desalination plant at Diablo Canyon. The study looked at two scenarios; one scenario called for installing a pipeline to connect the desalination plant to the Coastal Branch of the California Aqueduct near San Luis Obispo, not far from Diablo Canyon, which seems potentially feasible.  The other scenario, however, is described as: “[A] shallow buried pipeline will convey product water from Diablo Canyon all the way to California’s Central Valley, where water demand from farmers is outstripping supply. This pipeline would be about 100 km long, with a net elevation gain of 100 m.” The pipeline would have an inside diameter of 3.5 meters, and based on quotes from two pipe vendors, the study estimates a total cost of $2.2B for the 100 km pipeline. That cost figure includes, “manufacturing, transportation and installation.” (Study at 69-71.)

Given the topography between Diablo Canyon and the Central Valley, I questioned the study’s apparent omission of the costs of permitting, acquiring land or rights-of-way, and more detailed construction and installation costs, which would appear to be significant.  In response, the authors of the report stated: “[I]f a very large desalination plant was deployed at Diablo Canyon and its freshwater was to be delivered to the Central Valley, the new pipeline would follow the exact same course of the existing Coastal Branch pipeline. In fact, it is likely that the very same pipes could be used (in reverse flow direction) for large segments of the pipeline. Therefore, we estimated that the permitting costs would be low.”

While this approach of using the existing route in reverse (which was not disclosed in the study) could mitigate some right-of-way acquisition issues, it is not clear that it would be as simple or low-cost as the authors appear to be assume, especially taking into consideration the potential ramifications of reversing the flow of part of the state water system. I remain unconvinced that this would be as cheap or easy as the study seems to assume.

There are few other barriers that the study either doesn’t address or that it glosses over. Renewing the NRC license for Diablo Canyon would obviously be essential; the study believes that this process could be done relatively quickly (less than two years) because of the license renewal work previously done, and that the plant could stay in operation while that review is underway.

This seems a bit optimistic, particularly since PG&E has not re-started the NRC relicensing process or shown any inclination to do so. I believe that PG&E is unlikely to initiate the NRC relicensing process absent a clear indication from the CPUC that PG&E will be able to get rate recovery for those costs.  This would require a re-opening and modification of the CPUC’s decision approving the retirement of the plant, which included a settlement of the amount of PG&E’s recovery of NRC licensing costs (signed by PG&E). Modification of that decision would be vigorously litigated by consumer and anti-nuclear groups (and probably PG&E itself), and would not likely be a quick process. Until that process is completed with a clear outcome, PG&E will be unlikely to want to spend any money on NRC relicensing.

There is also a potentially problematic state statute. California Senate Bill (SB) 1090 (2018) put into place Public Utilities Code section 712.7, and required modifications to the CPUC’s first decision approving the retirement of Diablo Canyon. While SB 1090 does not expressly codify the retirement of Diablo Canyon, the reality of that retirement is the basis for the substance of the bill, which required the Commission to provide substantially more ratepayer funding for the local community and plant workers to compensate for the retirement of the plant. Ratepayers are already paying those costs. Reversing course from the reality relied upon by SB 1090 would likely result in increased litigation risk.

The study acknowledges the significant financial and management challenges currently facing PG&E, and how those might make PG&E reluctant to take on another major project. In response, the study then proposes a number of possible other plant ownership models, such as a sale to another utility or a public entity, but without evaluating the feasibility of those options or the potential transaction costs. Any sale of Diablo Canyon would require prior approval of the CPUC under Public Utilities Code section 851, and would involve multiple contentious issues, which the study does not address. For example, a proposed sale of Diablo Canyon could trigger a review of the environmental impacts of that sale under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the construction of additional facilities (such as those necessary for water desalination or hydrogen production) would definitely require a CEQA review. But the study does not address CEQA.

Accordingly, the study paints the potential for achieving its preferred outcome in too optimistic of a light. Even though the study acknowledges that there are substantial challenges to its proposal, it understates those challenges, including many that I have not addressed here. As a theoretical exercise, the study raises some interesting ideas, but as someone once noted: “The gap between theory and practice is wider in practice than it is in theory.” That gap looks particularly wide here.

Trump Could Have Easily Won Re-election

I am feeling cautiously relieved at this point that Biden appears likely to win the presidency. But I am not feeling a large amount of relief, for a few reasons. First, the bird is not firmly in the hand yet - as I write this, the counting of ballots is not over.  Second, Trump will get to stay president for a bit longer. And third, what this post is about - Trump could have easily won re-election if he was even slightly less inept or had a small bit more self-control.

American did not clearly and strongly reject Trump's policies - more tax cuts for the rich and corporations, the xenophobic and wasteful border wall and immigration policies, more money for defense contractors, exploding the level of debt, threatening Social Security, encouraging white supremacists and anti-immigrant and anti-LGBQT hatred, trashing the environment for corporate profits, and the others that I am forgetting right now.

Look at the public opinion of Rudy Giuliani following his response to 9/11, or even the public opinion of Chris Christie following his response to Hurricane Sandy. Remember, this election was very close, and if Biden does in fact pull it out, it will be a near thing. To me, the examples of these past crises show that Trump could have easily won this election, and he could have done it 99% on style, with almost no change in policy or actions.

Here is how:

1) COVID-19 pandemic hits. Trump gives a speech, the gist of which is: "We understand that there is a new corona virus, COVID-19, that may pose a serious health threat. We have tasked our infectious disease experts at the CDC to analyze it and keep us informed."

2) There is the same delayed and haphazard response as was done, same China travel ban.

3) Trump gives a major speech from the White House. Trump shows up with a red MAGA face mask and a dark blue one with the Presidential seal. Melania and Ivanka have stylish designer masks that match their outfits.

4) Trump gives an inspiring we're-all-in-this together speech. He can cite to the size and diversity of the US to say that the way to respond to COVID-19 will be left up to each state, and directs everyone to cooperate with their state's public health experts, with the recommendation that they minimize disruptions to business. He encourages people to wear masks, and shows off his red MAGA mask and dark blue POTUS mask. He expresses confidence that America's phenomenal scientists, universities and pharmaceutical companies are working around the clock to bring us vaccines and treatments.

5) Trump declares an emergency, and has the federal government quickly procure and distribute massive numbers of masks to the hardest hit states.  He says he will do something similar with ventilators, but only really does some minor symbolic things.

6) He steps back and mostly shuts up. (Yeah, this is the hard part for him.) He lets Fauci and Birx make statements and hold press conferences, but not too often, and with control over their messaging. He stops vilifying and criticizing governors for what they do or what they say, especially re COVID-19. He expresses support for the ones he likes. He does not threaten any state's COVID-19 funding. He doesn't say anything about the press coverage of COVID-19 (his surrogates can, but his kids should not).

7) Every once in a while he gives an optimistic, upbeat Tweet or other communication about how much progress we are making towards beating COVID-19, and encouraging Americans to keep up their efforts.

8) In other areas - tariffs, TikTok, taxes, border wall, immigration, environment, etc. - he does not do anything substantively different than what he has done.

9) People feel good about Trump's "leadership" on COVID-19, and he wins re-election, beating Biden in a number of key swing states.

This is just one reason why Biden's narrow lead (and potential victory) is not all that reassuring to me. (There are other reasons, too.)  We are picking presidents more on in-the-moment feelings than we are on substantive policies. If Trump was just slightly more subtle and adept at playing those feelings, we would have had him as President for another four years.  And if someone like that is out there learning from Trump's playbook and watching his mistakes, we could easily have someone like that in the future. 

If I am wrong, please let me know.

 

Propositions! November 2020 (Second Batch)

 

There are a bunch of propositions on the November ballot, and some of them are pretty dense, so I had to break them down into two batches - here is the second batch.  The first batch is here: https://peterallenforag.blogspot.com/2020/09/propositions-november-2020-first-batch.html

Proposition 19 - Maybe no?  This one is a bit tricky to figure out what to do with, as it has some good parts and some less good parts. Under Proposition 13's limits on property taxes, properties are reassessed at market value (usually a significant increase) when they are bought/sold/transferred, but there are some exceptions/exemptions, and Proposition 19 tweaks those exemptions.

Under current law, certain people (over 55, disabled, fire and disaster victims) can take their (low) Prop 13 tax assessment with them when they buy a new house, but only to certain counties, and only if they buy a new house that is cheaper than their old one. (This is because the purpose of the exception was to allow old people who wanted to downsize to do so without getting hit with a big increase in their property taxes.) Proposition 19 would allow these sellers to take their tax assessment anywhere else in the state (a good thing, as the county-by-county limitation is bizarrely arbitrary), but would also allow the Prop 13 assessment to be used to reduce the assessment on a more expensive house (this is not so good - essentially a tax subsidy for someone who likely has plenty of money and is upgrading rather than downsizing).

Under current law, transfers from a parent to child do not trigger a reassessment - in other words, the children get to keep the parents' Prop 13 assessment.  This is true whether the children live in the house or not - they could rent it out or use it as a vacation home. Proposition 19 narrows this exemption, and only allows the children to keep the Prop 13 assessment if they live in the house. This seems like a good thing to me, as it reduces the tax subsidy granted by Proposition 13, and would likely result in increased property tax revenue.

Proposition 19 would earmark the increased proceeds for a California Fire Response Fund. I don't have a problem with the state spending money on fire response - I think that is a good thing. But budgeting-by-initiative that locks in funding for things, no matter how good, makes it harder for the state to adjust its budget. The legislature and the governor (no matter what you think of them) can no longer re-prioritize spending to meet the state's changing needs.

Overall, it is a close call, but I think we are a bit better off without Proposition 19, so I would lean towards a no vote.

Proposition 20 - No. This proposition goes deep into the weeds of criminal sentencing and parole, but its intent is clear - longer prison sentences for criminal convictions (including non-violent ones), make it harder to qualify for parole, and require many more DNA samples to be taken and maintained by the government. And it would reverse prior propositions approved by the voters. It is basically trying to turn the clock back to an earlier "tough-on-crime" approach that failed in everything but ballooning California's prison population. It was a bad idea then, and is a bad idea to repeat now. Vote no.

Proposition 22 - No. This is the Uber/Lyft/DoorDash sponsored measure to undo a state law (AB 5) that categorized their drivers as employees, rather than independent contractors. Under Proposition 22, app-based drivers would be considered independent contractors rather than employees. (Proposition 22 does not affect other businesses covered by AB 5.) It also requires that app-based drivers get certain benefits, such as insurance coverage.

I tend to dislike initiatives like this one that are put on the ballot by deep-pocketed companies for their own benefit. This is an attempt by corporations to protect their profits at the expense of their workers by overturning legislation passed to protect those workers. (Who will all probably be out of work anyway once autonomous cars become feasible, so it is not clear how long the impact of this will last.) Slimy. Vote no.

Proposition 23 - No. This is sort of like a proposition that we voted "no" on a few years ago, and would impose more regulations on kidney dialysis clinics, such as having a physician on duty all the time. I can't say that I'm a fan of corporate dialysis clinics, but this one is weird, and appears to be the latest manifestation of a fight we don't have a dog in rather than a response to a specific need to have these particular regulations imposed on dialysis clinics.  Looks to me like another abuse of the initiative process. Vote no.

Proposition 24 - No. Proposition 24 tweaks another recently-passed law on data privacy.  This one is really complicated and detailed, and has some decent stuff in it, but it has a couple of things that give me pause.  One, it creates a new state agency for data protection, rather than just having the attorney general's office address it.  Creating a new state agency when one is not needed is a bad (and expensive) idea. Second, it allows for "paying for privacy" schemes, where businesses could offer discounts to those who waive privacy rights.  For more details, EFF has a nice analysis here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/why-eff-doesnt-support-cal-prop-24

My inclination is to vote no.

Proposition 25 - Yes. The legislature recently passed a bill, SB 10, that replaces cash bail for criminal suspects with a risk-based assessment that considers risk of not showing up and risk to public safety. (Low risk suspects get released, high risk suspects stay locked up, medium risk suspects could go either way.) Not surprisingly, the bail bond industry does not like this, and have sponsored a "veto referendum" (which I didn't even know was a thing).

The way the veto referendum works is like you are voting anew on SB 10, so voting yes means to approve SB 10's shift from cash bail to a risk-based assessment system. Voting no would repeal SB 10.

There are some valid criticisms of SB10's risk-based assessment system, including that it would likely incorporate racially-biased criteria. But overall it seems like a step in the right direction. Additionally, Proposition 25 (like Proposition 22) is another attempt by an industry to use the ballot box to protect its bottom line, regardless of the public's interest. My inclination is to vote yes.

Propositions! November 2020 (First Batch)

There are a bunch of propositions on the November ballot, and some of them are pretty dense, so I haven't had the mental bandwidth to analyze all of them yet, but here is a first batch.

Proposition 14 - Probably yes. This proposition would authorize the issuance of $5.5 billion in general obligation bonds to fund grants for stem cell and other medical research and therapies, medical training and construction of research facilities.  This is a follow up to a 2004 bond issue to fund stem cell research. (Which I recall being an in-your-face move to the Bush II administration refusing to fund it because stem cells could come from fetal tissue.)

According to the Secretary of State’s website, the cost to California will be $7.8 billion to pay off principal ($5.5 billion) and interest ($2.3 billion) on the bonds, and the average annual debt payments would be about $310 million for 25 years.

On the one hand, this is a worthwhile and potentially useful thing to fund, and there is likely a lack of federal funds for this research.  On the other hand, there are a few questions to ask: 1) given the significant cost, is this the highest priority use for this money, or is there something else we should be spending it on; 2) how much debt should California take on, and how risky is it for the state to add this debt; and 3) should bonds be used to pay for ongoing expenses rather than large capital projects (like bridges, etc)?

So if you like the purpose of the bill, and you are okay with the borrowing and spending necessary to fund it, vote for it.

Proposition 15 - Yes. This proposition modifies the existing Proposition 13 limits on property taxes, by creating what is known as a “split roll” system.  Right now, property taxes on all real estate in California – houses, apartment buildings, farms, factories, high rises, shopping malls, etc. are capped in how much they can increase (I think it is 2% a year), regardless of how much the actual value of the property has increased.  But it does get reassessed at market value when a property is bought/sold. So if you bought a property one year ago for $500,000 and now it is worth $1 million, your assessed value for calculating property tax would only be $510,000, not $1 million.

Proposition 15 would have property taxes for commercial and industrial property (but not residential or farm property) calculated based on the actual value of the property, and no longer subject to the cap of Proposition 13. There is an exemption for commercial and industrial property with a value of less than $3 million.  While Proposition 13 has helped keep property taxes on peoples’ homes more manageable, it has also acted as a subsidy for real estate speculation and has created weird market distortions.  This proposition would result in significantly higher property tax revenue, and allocates that additional revenue to schools and local governments. (Local governments and school districts took a big hit from Proposition 13.) This type of reform to Proposition 13 is long overdue. Vote yes.

Proposition 16 - Yes. This proposition would repeal Proposition 209 that was passed in 1996 and prohibited the state from “discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. The California Constitution defines the state for these purposes to include the state, any city, county, public university system, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of, or within, the state.”

Proposition 209 resulted in more than just barring affirmative action in school admissions or hiring, and has more broadly limited or prevented the consideration of and support for diversity. Proposition 209 did not magically result in a color and gender blind society, and in fact appears to have had the opposite effect - a marked loss of diversity. (Spoiler: racism and sexism still exist.) While there may be disagreement on what measures should be used to promote diversity, doing so should not be barred by law. Vote yes.

Proposition 17 - Yes. Right now, people cannot vote in California if they are in prison or on parole for a felony, or if they are mentally incompetent. (That last criteria seems to be rather laxly applied, at least in some states.)  This proposition would allow people out on parole to vote.

This makes sense to me – we want former criminals to feel like they are part of society. Once they are out of prison they should be able to vote. Vote yes.

Proposition 18 - Probably yes. Right now you have to be 18 to vote in California. This proposition would allow 17 year olds to vote in primaries and special elections if they will be 18 at the time of the next general election.  I am not sure about the judgment of many 17 year olds (although the judgment of lots of older people seems to be pretty questionable, too), but it is a pretty minor change, and to the extent it encourages younger people to vote that is a good thing. I would lean toward yes.

Proposition 19 and 20 - Coming later.

Proposition 21 - Probably no. This one will change state limits on local rent control ordinances.  If your city does not have rent control (and is unlikely to enact it), this does not directly affect you.

Under current state law (known as Costa-Hawkins), in cities with rent control there is “vacancy decontrol,” meaning that when a tenant moves out of a rent controlled unit, the landlord can raise the rent to the market rate. Costa-Hawkins prohibits cities from limiting rent increases when a tenant moves out and the unit becomes vacant. Under Proposition 21, a city could impose limits on how much a landlord could raise the rent on a vacant unit, with the condition that the landlord could raise the rent by up to 15% over three years.

To illustrate how this would work, assume you have a duplex in a rent-controlled jurisdiction, and you rent out one unit. Market rate on that unit is around $2500/month. Your tenants have been there for a number of years, and are paying rent of $1000/month. Under current law, when the tenants move out, you could raise the rent for the new tenants to $2500. Under Proposition 21, when the tenants moves out, you could only raise the rent for the new tenants to $1,150 over three years.

Proposition 21 makes some other changes as well; the most significant one is that Costa-Hawkins exempts buildings built after 1995 from rent control, while Proposition 21 would change it to a rolling 15-year period, with newer buildings exempt.

Adding rent control to vacant units would have a range of impacts, some intended, some not. The intended effect would be to try to maintain a larger number of rental units at more affordable below-market rates, and it might do that. On the other hand, it will have some other effects. First, small landlords who are on the fence about whether or not to rent out a vacant unit (like half of a duplex or a backyard cottage) will be more likely to not rent it out, taking rental units off the market. (This happens a lot in Berkeley, even under current law.) Second, landlords will never offer reduced rent to anyone (like a friend, a relative, or a fire victim) because the effect of that reduced rent will be carried forward to every other successive tenant. (Not that they are likely to do that now under rent control, except possibly for short-term tenants.)

Because in general rent control hits small landlords harder, and new construction is exempt from rent control, there has been a shift in rental housing from smaller, individually-owned older buildings to larger, corporate-developed apartment buildings. This is particularly true in the jurisdictions with high land costs that are most likely to have rent control. Proposition 21 will likely exacerbate that shift and result in more small buildings being taken off the market, with proportionally more rental housing being larger and not locally owned. I don’t know enough about the economics of apartment buildings to know whether Proposition 21 will be a disincentive to the construction of new rental housing or not, but it may increase the incentive to build new rental housing in non-rent controlled cities.

If you are a renter in a jurisdiction with rent control, you should probably vote for Proposition 21. If you are a landlord or property owner in a jurisdiction with rent control, you should probably vote against Proposition 21. If you are not in a city with rent control, it won’t directly affect you, but don’t be under the illusion that Proposition 21 or rent control will fix our housing affordability problem.

Rent control helps tenants in rent-controlled housing, can help rein in abusive landlords, and can slow gentrification, but neither rent control nor Proposition 21 will do anything significant to address the real problems caused by California’s high housing costs. We have a significant problem with housing affordability due to high property values and relatively low incomes, which needs a major social/governmental response (such as public housing or a universal basic income or the like), and a privatized band-aid approach like rent control won’t fix that, with or without Proposition 21. But approval of Proposition 21 would allow us to pretend for a little longer that we have actually done something significant about housing costs, when we really have not.

Disclosure: my wife owns a four-unit rental building in Berkeley, which has been quite the learning experience. If I didn’t live in Berkeley (or hadn’t read their rent control ordinance), I might feel differently, but if you don’t otherwise have a strong opinion, I would suggest voting no.

Propositions 22 through 25 - Coming later.

 

 

Privilege for All! Or Maybe "Privilege" is the Wrong Word...

You have likely seen arguments like this: "Hey, Congress gets 100 days off a year and a pension!  That's not fair - I only get two weeks off and no pension, so Congress should only get two weeks off and no pension, too!"  I understand the envy, but I don't like the argument, which essentially boils down to:  "Since I have been fucked over, others should be similarly fucked over, too."  I prefer the reverse approach of unfucking everyone: "Hey, if Congress gets 100 days off and a pension I should get that, too!" That would be better for everyone.

There is a somewhat similar dynamic around the term "white privilege," which I think makes it harder for white people to accept the legitimacy of the idea.

I saw a description of white privilege as encompassing things like being able to go jogging without being shot or walk into a store without having security follow you around; not getting arrested for trying to open the front door of your own house or driving a nice car; being able to have a barbecue or dance in the street without someone calling the police. But these are things that everyone should have. In other words, if these are "privileges," everyone should have them.

But the word "privilege" tends to connote something that you did not do anything to earn - it just comes to you. When you hear that someone comes from a "privileged" background you understand that their family was wealthy. You do not have to work to become privileged, and in fact the word indicates that you did not work for your privilege.  With white privilege this is true - you get it just by being born white. That's it: if you are white, you have white privilege.

The status of being white is different than having a privileged background - there are plenty of white people who are poor, or who live in dangerous places or are subject to violence. So even though they have white privilege, they understandably do not think of themselves as "privileged," and hearing themselves described as having privilege feels jarring and unfair.

Adding to that, the American ideal of the self-made individual relies upon the story: "I am responsible for my success; I worked hard to get here."  In other words, success is earned. You can see the darker side of this ideal with the denigration of welfare recipients: "Hey, I worked hard for my money, but they get money for just sitting around, doing nothing. They don't deserve that." But white privilege is not earned - it is just conferred.

So if you put together the idea that privileges, such as material wealth or living in a nice neighborhood should be earned, with the fact that white privilege is not earned, the resulting implication is that white people do not deserve their privileges.  This can trigger a visceral response in some white people, as an accusation of having white privilege sounds like someone wants to take away their white privilege. (Just like some people want to take away vacations and pensions from Congress.)

But that is not the desired goal. Rather than fucking over white people to the same extent as black people, the better solution is to make everyday life for black people just as easy and safe as it is for white people. It is preferable for everyone if we unfuck black people rather than fuck over white people. In other words, everyone should have the same privilege as white people - privilege for all. 

But privilege for all is an odd construct, given the meaning of the word privilege, which is exclusive. Not everyone has privilege. Which is why I think "privilege" may not be the best word to use to describe what white people have. Because it is not that white people have something that they don't deserve, and that should be taken from them, but rather they have something that everyone deserves.

Maybe instead of white privilege we should call it "white normal," or better yet, just "normal." It shouldn't be something special, and it isn't something that you don't deserve or that should be taken from you - it is just normal. But it should be normal not just for whites, but for everyone. When everyone gets there it is just normal. For everyone. I think that would be nice.