PSAR General Election Voter Guide






Election Day, Tuesday, November 4

Register to Vote by Monday, October 20 at 
Find Your Polling Place Here
For additional Voter Information Look Here

East County Endorsed Candidates

El Cajon Mayor         Bill Wells
El Cajon City Council (1 seat) Gary Kendrick

La Mesa Mayor         No recommendation
La Mesa City Council (2 seats) Bill Baber and Mary England

Lemon Grove City Council (2 seats) Howard Cook and Jerry Jones

Santee City Council (3 seats) Rob McNelis, Ronn Hall and John Minto

Lakeside Community Planning Group Mike Anderson

East County Ballot Measures

Support - Proposition C – Cajon Valley School District – Technology Upgrade School Bond
No Position – Proposition P – Julian-Cuyamaca Fire District Assessment Increases

South County Endorsed Candidates

Chula Vista Mayor No recommendation
Chula Vista City Council (2 seats) Dan Smith

Imperial Beach Mayor Jim Janney
Imperial Beach City Council (3 seats) No endorsement

National City Mayor Ron Morrison
National City City Council (2 seats) Mona Rios

California Association of REALTORS®  State Ballot Measures

Vote to Support-     Proposition 1 – Water Bond

No position Not Real Estate Related
Proposition 2 – State Budget Stabilization Account
Proposition 45 – Health Insurance Rate Changes
Proposition 46 – Doctor Drug/Alcohol Testing/Penalty Increase for Negligence Lawsuits
Proposition 47 – Criminal Sentencing/Misdemeanor Penalties
Proposition 48 – Indian Gaming Compact Referendum

For Local and State Ballot Measure Background Information

Background On All Ballot Initiatives

Proposition C - Cajon Valley Union School District $20.0 million School Bond.

 

The Cajon Valley Union School District’s $20.0 million bond issue will be used to fund education technology projects with the bonds having a maximum maturity of (5) five years. The District is seeking a tax up of to $18.83 per $100,000 of assessed property with an average tax increase of $15.48 per $100,000 of assessed valuation to finance debt services on $20 million of EdTech bonds. The bonds are required to have a maturity of less than five years and require a 55% supermajority vote for approval.  The proceeds will be used to fund phases 3 and 4 of their Comprehensive Educational Technology 3-Year Plan (Phases 1 and 2 having already been implemented) and will be used for device rollouts to school sites, 1:1 device replacement, and replacement of teacher laptop/projectors by the district.   The San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SDCTA) supports the measure because it meets key provisions of the SDCTA Bond Support Criteria including the district outlining their technology needs, detailed cost expenditure estimates and because debt maturities match the average useful life of the assets.

 

PSAR Govt Affairs/Board Position: Support.

 

 

Proposition P - Julian Cuyamaca Fire District

 

The Julian Cuyamaca Fire Protection District is proposing to raise its current parcel tax from $50/parcel to $197/parcel for one dwelling unit, $293 for 2-4 dwelling units and $500 for >4 dwelling units.  Specifies that vacant parcels would be assessed $9.50 /parcel for <.99 acres; $16 for 1-5 acres, $29 for 5.1 to 10 acres, and $43 for > 10 acres.  The assessment on low-income homeowners would remain at $50/parcel with self-certification required to determine low-income status. The proceeds would be used to staff the district with three paid firefighter-paramedics and one part-time supervisor so that one paid firefighter-paramedic would be on duty 24-hours 7-days a week; thereby creating faster responsive times and raising the level of public safety in the event of a fire or medical emergency.  These would be supplemented by the current volunteer fire fighters.  Increased revenues would be used to raise the level of service and stature of the JCFPD, provide up-to-date training and equipment, and enable a fully staffed and equipped engine to be out the door in less than a minute.  2/3rds vote required for passage.

 

PSAR Govt Affairs Com Position:  No position.


 

 

CAR Legislative Committee Background Information

State Ballot Propositions

POSSIBLE POSITIONS:

1. FOR: This ballot measure is real estate related and consistent with C.A.R. policy and its passage could be beneficial to the real estate industry.

2. AGAINST: This ballot measure is real estate related and conflicts with C.A.R. policy and its passage could have a harmful effect on the real estate industry.

3. NEUTRAL: This ballot measure may be real estate related, but C.A.R. has chosen not to take a position.

4. NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED (NRER): This ballot measure may be significant, but it’s deemed to not be related to property or real estate transactions.

November 4, 2014, General Election Ballot

 

FOR  -  PROPOSITION 1: Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2014.

 

Summary: Placed on the ballot in late 2014 by AB 1471 (Rendon), this measure, which replaces an earlier water bond, proposes to enact the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 which would authorize $7.1 billion of general obligation bonds to fund water infrastructure as well as redirects $425 million in previously authorized, unissued water quality, supply and infrastructure bonds. The allocation of the bond funds would be as follows: $810 million for regional water management and conservation projects, $520 million for water quality and infrastructure projects, $725 million for water recycling projects, $1.495 for ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects, $900 million for groundwater sustainability, $2.7 billion for water storage projects, and $395 million for flood management.

 

Pro: Proponents argue that this measure is a fiscally responsible bond, providing investment in only critical projects while requiring spending accountability through annual audits and public disclosure. This measure protects our water resources through groundwater treatment and management, new storage and treatment facilities, and investment in water recycling while protecting the environment, the delta and allowing water for farms and business. This measure received bi-partisan support in the California State Legislature+ and was overwhelmingly approved with only two no votes. Policy Position Paper

Con: Opponents argue that this measure is too expensive, adding over $14.4 billion to taxpayer debt. Opponents further argue that me measure threatens the San Francisco Bay Delta (Delta) by allowing industrial farming operations to overpump Delta resources. Additionally, the measure threatens the fishing industry by allowing exporters to take water from Northern California Rivers and forcing taxpayers to buy water (form an unspecified source) that is available under current law to protect fish supplies. Finally, the opposition argues that this measure subsidizes private companies to build dams which will have no significant impact on California's water supply while ignoring the current drought situation.

 

NOTE: C.A.R.'s Board of Directors, at its January 2010 meetings, adopted a "NEUTRAL" position on Proposition 43, known as the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010, which was removed from the November 2014 ballot and replaced by this proposition. This measure proposed to enact the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010 which would have authorized $11.14 billion of general obligation bonds to fund water infrastructure including water storage projects, delta sustainability, ecosystem protection projects, regional water supply reliability, water recycling and treatment technologies, groundwater protection and water quality, and drought relief.

 

C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its October 2006 meeting, voted to take a “NEUTRAL” position on Proposition 84, of 2006, known as the Water Quality, Safety and Supply, Flood Control, Natural Resources Protection and Park Improvements Bond Initiative Statute, which was approved by the voters.

 

 Proposition 84 supplemented Proposition 1E and authorized $5.4 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund projects relating to water quality, water supply reliability, flood control and coastal protection projects around the state. C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its June 2006 meeting, voted to take a “FOR” position on Proposition 1E which created the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006, which was approved by the voters. Proposition 1E authorized $4.09 billion of general obligation bonds to fund infrastructure projects for flood protection and levee repair. C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its October 1999 Meetings, voted to take a “FOR” position on Proposition 13 of 2000, known as the Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Bond Act, which was approved by the voters. This act provided for a bond issue of $1.97 billion ($1,970,000,000) to provide funds for a safe drinking water, water quality, flood protection, and water reliability program. Appropriated money from the General Fund to pay off bonds.

 

NRER  PROPOSITION 2: State Budget. Budget Stabilization Account Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

 

Summary: Under this proposition, placed on the ballot by ACA 1XX (Perez), the amount transferred to the state Budget Stabilization Account (BSA) each year will be reduced from 3% to 1.5% of General Fund revenues each year for 15 years; additional capital gains-related tax revenue would go to the BSA in above average years. Half of the 1.5% will be required to be allocated as extra funds to pay down pension and retiree health benefit debt, debts owed to local and state government accounts, etc. The remaining funds will be transferred from the General Fund to the BSA. These transfers will be required until the BSA has reached 10% of General Fund revenues. Once the fund has reached the 10% threshold, designated revenues will then be directed toward the building and maintenance of infrastructure. Currently, the decision to transfer money into the BSA is at the Governor's discretion, this proposition would only allow non-payment when the Governor has declared a budget emergency in cases of natural disaster or low revenues. In times of budget emergency money can be withdrawn from the BSA with a majority vote of the

legislature, however, spending is limited to the amount needed for the budget emergency, and only up to 50% of the account balance in the first year of an emergency. Finally, this proposition creates the Public Policy Position Paper

 

Under this proposition, in addition to the 3% transfer of General Fund revenues required to be transferred from the General Fund into the Budget Stabilization Fund, any “unanticipated” revenues would have been transferred into the Budget Stabilization Fund. These transfers would have continued until the Budget Stabilization Fund reached 10% of the General Fund revenues, at which point, “unanticipated” revenues would have been directed toward debt repayment and other one-time expenditures. Spending of the Budget Stabilization Fund was limited to periods when state revenues are insufficient to support the previous year’s expenditures or there is a state emergency (i.e., earthquake, flood, etc.) Finally, this measure created the Supplemental Budget Stabilization Account, which would have received half of the mandatory 3% transfer from the General Fund and which could only be used to pay for one-time infrastructure projects or debt service obligations. C.A.R.'s Board of Directors adopted a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 1A of 2009 part of the Governor’s budget package, which was rejected by the voters. Under this proposition, “unanticipated” revenues would have been directed to meet the funding obligations under the state constitution for K-14 education, fill the existing budget reserve to its target (which would have been increased from 5% to 12.5% of state revenues) and to pay off any budgetary borrowing. Only after these payments were made, could “unanticipated” revenues have been used for other purposes. Proposition 1A also proposed the extension of numerous temporary taxes such as the Vehicle License Fee and the Personal Income Tax increases. C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its January 2004 Meetings, voted to take a “FOR” position on Proposition 58 of 2004, known as the California Balanced Budget Act, which was approved by the voters. This proposition requires that the state enact a budget that is balanced and provides for a “mid-year adjustment,” where the Governor may declare a fiscal emergency if he or she determines that the state is experiencing a revenue shortfall. The Legislature must send corrective legislation to the Governor within 45 days or it will be barred from acting on any other non-budget related measure or adjourning in joint-recess until the legislation is passed. This initiative also created a BSA. A portion of General Fund revenues would be transferred in this account until it reaches $8 billion. Funds from this account can be transferred to the General Fund through a majority vote of the Legislature and Governor’s approval to be used for various purposes or to cover budget shortfalls. However, once the money is transferred into the General Fund, it will require an additional vote to be spent. C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its 1979 Meetings, voted to take a “FOR” position on Proposition 4 of 1979, known as the Gann Spending Limit, which was approved by the voters. The Gann Spending Limit amended the state constitution, and limited the amount of tax revenues the state can spend each year. In a series of changes occasioned by initiatives over the years, the spending limit has been modified and adjusted to the point where it no longer works to effectively limit or “cap” spending. Policy Position Paper

 

NRER -  PROPOSITION 45: Approval of Healthcare Insurance Rate Changes. Initiative Statute.

 

Summary: This measure requires, for insurance rates taking effect after November 6, 2012, insurance companies have their rates approved by the Insurance Commissioner, and publicly disclose and justify their rates before the rates can go into effect. Additionally, health, home and auto insurance companies will be prohibited from charging higher rates due to an applicant's lack of prior insurance coverage or credit history.

NOTE: C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its October 1988 Meetings, voted to take “NO POSITION” on Proposition 103 of 1988, which was approved by the voters. (Prior to 1994, C.A.R. considered three possible positions on each ballot measure - “FOR,” “AGAINST” and “NO POSITION.” Beginning in 1994, C.A.R. opted to remove the “NO POSITION” option and replaced it with two more specific options - “NEUTRAL” and “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED.”)This measure required insurance companies to reduce rates for various types of insurance, including motor vehicle, fire, and liability by 20% and to keep the discounted rates until at least November 8, 1989. The insurance Commissioner would be required to review and approve rate increases on a go forward basis and he or she could approve an increase prior to November 8, 1989 if it is apparent that the insurer is threatened with insolvency. Finally, this measure required insurance companies to offer a "Good Driver Discount Plan" and made other changes regarding auto insurance.

PROPOSITION 46: Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors. Medical Negligence Lawsuits. Initiative Statute.

Committee: Legislative Committee

Summary: This proposition, beginning on January 1, 2015, would raise the $250,000 cap, based on inflation, on the amount of damages that can be awarded against a health care provider for noneconomic loses including, pain, suffering, disfigurement, etc. in medical negligence lawsuits. This measure will also require the Medical Board of California (Board) to conduct alcohol and drug testing for physicians: 1) on a random basis; 2) physicians whose patients experienced an adverse event occurring within 24 hours of care; and 3) on physicians reported to the Board by another physician or person who suspects impairment from drugs or alcohol. The cost of this testing will be billed to the physician and other fees associated with the administration of this measure will be paid for by an annual fee assessed by the Board on all physician's licenses. The hospital will be required to report a positive test or a test refusal the to the Board, who will then be required to take disciplinary action up to and including license suspension. Finally, this measure will require physicians and pharmacists to consult the Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System (CURES), the electronic prescription drug monitoring program, for existing prescriptions prior to prescribing a controlled substance to a patient.

Pro: Proponents for this measure argue that is will deter medical negligence by increase the monetary penalties for doctors as well as save lives by protecting patients from doctors impaired by drugs or alcohol through random testing. Additionally, proponents argue that this proposition will save lives by limiting drug abuse by requiring doctors to check for existing prescription prior to prescribing new addictive painkillers. Policy Position Paper

 

Con: The opponents to this proposition argue that this measure will quadruple the limit on medical malpractice awards, costing taxpayers millions of dollars, leading to increased health care costs and causing doctors to quit the profession or move. Additionally, opponents argue that this measure is a threat to privacy as it requires doctors to expand their use of the personal prescription drug database. Finally, opponents feel that this measure is a push by trial attorneys to make it easier to sue doctors.

 

NRER -  PROPOSITION 47: Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute.

 

Summary: This proposition would reduce the penalties for some offenders convicted of nonviolent property and drug crimes from felonies or possible felonies to misdemeanors. These crimes include: theft of property worth $950 or less; shoplifting of property worth $950 or less; receiving stolen property worth $950 or less; writing a bad check worth $950 or less; forging a check worth $950 or less, and possession of illegal drugs for personal use. If the offender has previously been convicted of multiple instances of these crimes, a misdemeanor charge would not be guaranteed as with first time offenders. This proposition would also allow offenders currently serving felony sentences for the above crimes to apply to have their sentences reduced and it would allow those who have already completed a felony sentence to apply to have their conviction changed. Resentencing is not required if the court finds it likely that the offender will committee a severe crime in the future. Finally, any annual savings to the state from this measure will be deposited in the newly created Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund, 25% of which will go to reducing truancy, 10% of which will go toward victim services grants, and 65% of which will go to support mental health and drug abuse treatment services.

 

Pro: Proponents of this measure argue that this measure will stop the waste of prison space and resources on low-level nonviolent crimes, while keeping the dangerous criminals locked up. Proponents argue that this measure will save hundreds of millions of dollars by stopping state government monetary waste on keeping nonviolent criminals in state prisons. This money can then be reallocated to fund schools, provide crime victim assistance and treatment programs to help stop the cycle of crime.

Con: Opponents of this measure argue that this proposition will lead to the release of thousands of dangerous criminals who have previously committed serious violent felonies, but who are currently serving sentences for non-serious crimes. Opponents also argue that this measure provides protections for individuals stealing a fire arm, since as long as it is worth less than $950 it is no longer a felony. Similarly, opponents feel that this measure undermines sex-crime laws as individuals arrested for possession of a date-rape drug would only be charged with a misdemeanor. Finally, the opposition feels that this measure will burden our criminal justice system with overcrowded county jails and courts trying to process requests for sentence reductions.

 

NOTE: C.A.R.'s Board of Directors, at its Fall 2012 meetings, voted to take a "NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED" position on Proposition 36 of 2012, which was approved by the voters. This proposition revised the "three-strikes" law and allowed for shorter sentences for some repeat offenders. Offenders who have had two or more felony convictions, but whose current offence is not a serious or violent felony received a sentence of twice the normal term for that offence, rather than 25 years to life. Additionally, this measure allowed for the resentencing of certain offenders convicted under the three-strikes law based on the nature of their current and prior offences.

The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its October 2008 Meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 5, which was rejected by the voters. Proposition 5 would have required the state to expand and increase funding and oversight for individualized treatment and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent drug offenders and parolees. The measure would reduce criminal consequences for nonviolent drug offenses by mandating a three-tiered probation and treatment plan and shortens parole for most drug offenses. Proposition 5 adds convictions for the sale of controlled substances Policy Position Paper

 

and nonviolent property crimes to the list of offences that require probation and/or drug treatment. Finally, the initiative would make possession of 28.5 grams of marijuana an infraction, instead of a misdemeanor, punishable with a fine up to $100.

 

C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its October 2004 meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE REALTED POSITION” on Proposition 66 of 2004, which was rejected by the voters. The initiative would have limited the “Three-Strikes” law to violent and/or serious felonies and permitted limited re-sentencing under new definitions and increases punishment for specified sex crimes against children. While preserving the original mandated sentences of double-time for a second violent and/or serious felony and 25 years-to-life for a third violent and/or serious felony, proposition 66 would have amended the law to require mandatory increased sentences when convictions are for violent and/or serious felonies such as rape, robbery, murder, selling drugs to minors etc. Finally, the measure would have allowed prisoners now serving Three-Strikes sentences to apply for and receive a re-sentencing hearing because their offense would no longer count as a strike.

 

The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its September 2000 Meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 36, which was approved by the voters. Proposition 36 requires probation and drug treatment, not incarceration, for a conviction of possession, use, or transportation for personal use of controlled substances and related parole violations. Individuals may be terminated from the treatment program for continued use of a controlled substance. Proposition 36 also prohibits a conviction from being used to deny employment, benefits, or license’s to individuals who have completed their drug treatment program.  C.A.R.'s Board of Directors, at its winter 2014 meetings, adopted a "NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED" position on PROPOSITION 48.

 

NRER -  PROPOSITION 48: Referendum to Overturn Indian Gaming Compacts. Referendum.

Summary: On August 31, 213 the State of California and the North Fork Rancheria Band of Mono Indians (Mono Indians) entered into a compact which allows for the establishment of a casino, through 2033, with up to 2,000 gaming devices on land granted to them in Madera County. This land was provided as an alternative to land they already hold in trust due to that lands designation for individuals rather than the tribe as a whole as well as the lands proximity to environmentally sensitive areas near Yosemite National Park, a National Scenic Byway, a national forest and several state wilderness areas. The tribe will be required to pay a percentage, beginning at 10% and increasing to 15%, of its Annual Net Win from the gaming devices for non-gaming tribes, local mitigation, state regulation, and mitigation to the Wiyot Tribe and the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians. On March 20, 2013 State of California and the Wiyot Tribe also entered into a compact in which the tribe, in exchange for 3.5% of the gaming revenue for the Mono Indians' facility in Madera County, agreed to forgo building a casino on its lands due to their proximity to the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge. In 2013 the legislature ratified these compacts with the passage of AB 277 (Hall), which would have taken effect on January 1, 2014. However, this proposition is a referendum to AB 277, which will now only take effect if the ballot measure is approved by the voters.

 

NOTE: C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its January 2008 Meetings, voted to take “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 94 of 2008, which was approved by the voters. This Proposition was a referendum to SB 903 which amended the gaming compact between the State of California and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians to extend the length of the terms, increase the number of allowed gaming devices and increased the amount paid to the state by the tribe.

C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its January 2008 Meetings, voted to take “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 95 of 2008, which was approved by the voters. This Proposition was a referendum to SB 174 which amended the gaming compact between the State of California and the Policy Position Paper

 

Morongo Band of Mission Indians to extend the length of the terms, increase the number of allowed gaming devices and increased the amount paid to the state by the tribe.

C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its January 2008 Meetings, voted to take “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 96 of 2008, which was approved by the voters. This Proposition was a referendum to SB 175 which amended the gaming compact between the State of California and the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation to extend the length of the terms, increase the number of allowed gaming devices and increased the amount paid to the state by the tribe.

C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its January 2008 Meetings, voted to take “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 97 of 2008, which was approved by the voters. This Proposition was a referendum to SB 957 which amended the gaming compact between the State of California and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahullia Indians to extend the length of the terms, increase the number of allowed gaming devices and increased the amount paid to the state by the tribe.

C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its January 2000 Meetings, voted to take “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 29 of 2000, which was approved by the voters. Proposition 29 was a referendum to enacted legislation which approves 11 tribal-state compacts that were concluded in 1998; provides procedures for approving future compacts; declares the Governor responsible for negotiation of compacts; and authorizes Governor to waive state’s immunity to suit by tribes.