from the California Builders Alliance
Proposition 2 – Kindergarten Through 12 Schools and Local Community College Public Education Facilities Modernization, Repair, and Safety Bond Act of 2024
FRAMING: Many schools and community colleges in the state are outdated and need basic health and safety repairs and updates. Obligating new bond funding will allow for upgrading existing schools and constructing new facilities without raising taxes. $10 billion in school construction will also spur high-skilled jobs in the built environment.Modernizing and upgrading classrooms will also improve career technical and vocational education in the state.
SUMMARY: Authorizes $10 billion in state general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K–12 public schools (including charter schools) and community colleges. Provides funding for new facilities, to improve school health and safety conditions at existing facilities, and for classroom upgrades (e.g., science, engineering, transitional kindergarten, and vocational classrooms). Expands eligibility for financial hardship grants for small and disadvantaged school districts. Provides a higher percentage of state matching funds to schools demonstrating greatest need. Requires public hearings and performance audits. Appropriates money from the General Fund to repay the bond.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Increased state costs of about $500 million annually for 35 years to repay the bond.
SUPPORT: CA Dem Party, CA Teachers Association, CA School Nurses, Community College Leage of CA
OPPOSITION: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
RECOMMENDED POSITION: SUPPORT (SRBX Only)
Proposition 32 - $18/Hour Minimum Wage
FRAMING: The proposal to increase the minimum wage puts an unfair burden on businesses, especially small businesses, who cannot afford the associated increase in payroll expenses. We are also concerned that this would have a cooling effect on hiring as businesses may be forced to reduce jobs or working hours.
SUMMARY: Raises minimum wage as follows: For employers with 26 or more employees, to $17 immediately, $18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, to $17 on January 1, 2025, $18 on January 1, 2026.
FISCAL IMPACT: State and local government costs could increase or decrease by up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. State and local revenues likely would decrease by no more than a few hundred dollars annually.
SUPPORT: CA Democratic Party
OPPOSITION: CA Republican Party, CA Chamber of Commerce, CA Restaurant Association, CA Grocers Association
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Oppose
Proposition 33 – Justice for Renters Act (Costa Hawkins Repeal)
FRAMING: Prop 33 would effectively overturn over 100 state housing laws, including laws making it easier to build nimble housing such as ADUs. It grants local governments broad authority to supersede California’s statewide renter and eviction laws. The proposition lacks any language requiring affordable housing or funding to build affordable housing. Rent control also disincentives mobility as tenants often choose to stay in controlled units longer than they financially need to, reducing overall housing turnover. It also encourages subletting and other informal arrangements that are problematic for owners and tenants alike.
SUMMARY: The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 prevents local government from limiting the initial rate that landlords may charge new tenants and also prevents local governments from limiting rent increases on existing tenants. This initiative repeals the Costa-Hawkins Act and would prohibit the state from limiting the right of local governments to enact rent control ordinances.
FISCAL IMPACT: Reduction in local property tax revenues of at least tens of millions of dollars annually due to likely expansion of rent control in some communities.
SUPPORT: CA Democratic Party, CA Nurses Association, CA Alliance for Retired Americans
OPPOSITION: CA Republican Party, CA Council for Affordable Housing, CA Chamber of Commerce; CA Apartment Association
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Oppose
Proposition 36 – The Homelessness, Drug Addition, and Theft Reduction Act (Prop 47 Reform)
FRAMING: Two major issues facing California are explosions in retail theft and trafficking of deadly hard drugs like fentanyl. One factor in the rise in these crimes is the lack of serious consequences for the people committing them under Proposition 47, which voters passed in 2014. Prop 47 reduced theft and hard drug possession penalties and while it made some progress in our justice system, it led to unintended consequences like increased repeat and often organized retail theft, store closings, locked-up items, and difficulty convincing people to seek drug and mental health treatment. Creating real accountability will make our communities safer. The proposition also provides meaningful treatment incentives for individuals with mental health and drug addiction issues.
SUMMARY: Makes several key changes related to punishments for theft and drug crimes. First, it increases punishment for some of these crimes. Second, it creates a new treatment-focused court process for some drug possession crimes. Third, it requires courts to warn people convicted of selling or providing illegal drugs to others that they can be charged with murder if they keep doing so and someone dies.
FISCAL IMPACT: State criminal justice costs likely ranging from several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Local criminal justice costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually.
SUPPORT: CA Republican Party; Crime Victims United of CA; CA District Attorneys Association; a coalition of businesses including Walmart, Target, Home Deport
OPPOSITION: CA Democratic Party, ACLU
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Support
MARK SMITH
Smith Policy Group
1001 K Street, 6th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 335-5072
mark@smithpolicygroup.com
smithpolicygroup.com