“Why we’re against it
This is the treacherous “split roll” property tax, a direct attack on Proposition 13. Proposition 15 would repeal part of Prop. 13 and require reassessment to market value of business properties. It would raise taxes on supermarkets, shopping malls, office buildings, factories, movie theaters, hotels, restaurants, sports stadiums, warehouses, self-storage facilities, major retailers and other businesses where Californians work or shop. Even the smallest businesses that lease space will face higher rents, or will have to pay the higher property taxes as part of their “triple net” lease agreement. Those higher costs are passed on to consumers. Proposition 15 would raise prices, increase the cost of living and put countless jobs at risk as companies cut back or leave the state. The proponents of this measure are seeking to weaken Proposition 13, and we can guess why. They could come after homeowners next. Protect Prop. 13. VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 15.”The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

“Why we’re against it
Proposition 19 takes away important taxpayer protections that have been enshrined in the State Constitution since 1986. That’s when 76% of voters approved Proposition 58 to allow parents to transfer a home and limited other property to their children without an increase in property taxes. Proposition 19 eliminates Proposition 58 and a similar measure, Proposition 193, which gives the same protection to transfers between grandparents and grandchildren if the children’s parents are deceased. Proposition 19 would require property transferred within families to be reassessed to market value as of the date of transfer, resulting in a huge property tax increase for long-held family homes. The only exception is if the children move into the home within a year and make it their principal residence. This is a billion-dollar tax increase on California families. Proposition 19 contains other provisions, which HJTA has supported in the past, to expand the opportunities for older homeowners to transfer the base-year value of their home (under Prop. 13) to a replacement home. This was on the ballot in November 2018 as Proposition 5, but voters rejected it. Now, with a massive tax increase added, the price is too high. HJTA opposes this measure. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 19.”The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

“Why we’re against it
In 2004, voters approved $3 billion for a publicly funded stem-cell agency, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, to support research into new treatments and possible cures. The money has been spent, and the backers of Proposition 14 want voters to approve $5.5 billion more. But CIRM has been widely criticized for inefficiency and insider dealing. Moreover, the federal government and private enterprise are now funding stem-cell research. Proposition 14 fails to address issues of accountability and oversight in the spending of previously approved public funds. These new bonds will cost taxpayers $2.3 billion just in interest payments, drawing $260 million out of the budget every year for three decades. Proposition 14 is not necessary and it’s especially unwise at this time, when there are so many demands on taxpayers. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 14.” The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Reintroduces racial discrimination. – Repeals Proposition 209 (1996), which prohibited the state from considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting. ACA 5, Resolution Chapter 23, Statutes of 2020. We are all equal under the law and should be considered by merit and not any form of bias or discrimination or quota.

No on 17

Parolee Voting – Gives the right to vote to people convicted of felonies who are still on parole. ACA 6, Resolution Chapter 24, Statutes of 2020. Once people who have been convicted of felonies have served their sentence, completed parole and any other requirement, then it is just and reasonable to have their voting rights restored.

“Why we’re against it
Proposition 18 would change the voting age in California to allow 17-year-olds to vote in primaries and special elections if they will turn 18 by the date of the next general election. While some states allow this, California is different than other states because under Prop. 13 and Prop. 218, tax increases must go on the ballot for voter approval. These proposed tax increases are frequently on primary and special election ballots. Proposition 18 would allow high school students to vote on tax increases. This is unwise. The voting age in California should not be changed. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 18.”The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Keep California Safe Act – Reverses excesses of Propositions 47 and 57 which have resulted in an increase in crimes, certainly in Humboldt County. Restricts parole for certain offenders. Re-authorizes felony sentences for certain offenses currently treated as misdemeanors, such as grand theft. Initiative Statute.

“Why we’re against it
Proposition 21 would change state law to allow radical rent control laws to be passed in cities that are already suffering from an inadequate supply of housing. In 2016, California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office issued a report that found that expanding rent control “likely would discourage new construction” by limiting the profitability of new rental housing. Under current law—the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act—housing providers have the right to raise the rent on a vacant unit to market value after a tenant moves out. The same law also bans rent control on units constructed after February 1995 and on single-family homes and condos. Proposition 21 would repeal this law and allow unelected rent boards (or elected rent boards) to impose radical rent control and regulations, even on single-family homes. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 21.”The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

“Why we’re for it
In 2019, the Legislature passed, and the governor signed Assembly Bill 5, a law aimed at destroying the “gig economy” and forcing companies to stop using independent contractors as part of their business. Supporters said companies must put all workers on the regular payroll as employees, with control over their hours and wages. The Legislature carved out exceptions for many industries, but the ride-share and restaurant delivery industry wasn’t granted an exception. Proposition 22 was put on the ballot by Uber, Lyft and DoorDash. It would create an exemption from AB 5 for the companies’ drivers, while providing them with basic benefits and protections. Without this exemption, the companies would likely stop offering their services in California, depriving state residents of convenient and affordable transportation and delivery services. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 22.”The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers

Authorizes State Regulation of Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Establishes Minimum Staffing and Other Requirements – Requires physician on-site at dialysis clinics and consent from the state for a clinic to close. Initiative Statute. Kim Zuber, Executive Director, American Academy of Nephrology Pas, opposes Prop. 23 by stating, “By moving nephrologists and experienced Physician Assistants (PAs) out of the hospital and offices, where a significant amount of our most vital work is done, Prop 23 will put all nephrology patients at risk.”

“Why we’re against it
In 2018, the Legislature passed, and the governor signed the California Consumer Privacy Act, which gave state residents more rights and control over how their data is shared when they go online. The CCPA took effect this year, and businesses have worked to learn the new legal requirements and comply with them. Proposition 24 is a new privacy law to replace the CCPA. It changes the rules before we even know if they’re working well. Worse, it creates a new state agency to write and enforce regulations that have the effect of new laws, but that no elected official will vote on. This new agency will cost taxpayers $10 million a year, but it will cost California businesses far more. Companies will be effectively forced to hire lawyers to review every technological change or upgrade in order to show the new agency that they are in compliance. This will be a great advantage to the largest companies, because many small start-up companies will not be able to afford the legal bills to file the compliance documents, or the cost of defending themselves from complaints, even meritless complaints. The regulatory burden will strangle technological innovation in California and protect tech giants while hurting small businesses. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 24.”The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

“Why we’re against it
Proposition 25 is a referendum on a state law, Senate Bill 10, that eliminated cash bail and replaced it with a system based on judging risk, specifically the risk that an arrested person poses to public safety and the risk that the person will fail to show up for a court appearance. Because opponents of the law qualified a referendum, SB 10 did not take effect. A “yes” vote is in favor of the law going into effect; a “no” vote means you do not want the law to take effect. Proposition 25 would result in immense new costs to counties. The new system of risk-based release instead of cash bail would cost taxpayers somewhere in the mid-hundreds of millions of dollars, according to the Legislative Analyst. It’s not clear where this money will come from. This is a huge new cost at a time when counties are already struggling to meet their financial obligations. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 25.”The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on reddit
Reddit
Share on email
Email
Close Menu
Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com