2010 Ballot Recommendations

November 2008

NOVEMBER 4, 2008 ELECTION

Click here for a printer-friendly version of SDCTA's ballot measure recommendations or click on the underlined propositions below for a detailed analysis of the measure. 

LOCAL MEASURES

Proposition A: YES
County of San Diego Fire Protection Parcel Tax

Proposition B: NO
Port of San Diego Marine Freight Preservation and Bayfront Redevelopment Initiative

Proposition C: NO
City of San Diego Charter Amendment - Mission Bay Lease Revenues

Proposition E: NO
Chula Vista City Attorney Initiative

Proposition J: NO
City of El Cajon Sales Tax Increase

Proposition K: NO
City of Encinitas Sand Replenishment Tax

Proposition L: NO
City of La Mesa Sales Tax Increase

Proposition M: YES
National City Sales Tax Repeal

Proposition O: NO
San Marcos Growth Management & Neighborhood Protection Act

Proposition S: YES
San Diego Unified School District Bond Measure

Proposition T: YES
Escondido Union High School District Bond Measure

Proposition U: YES
Grossmont Union High School District Bond Measure

Proposition V: YES
Lakeside Union Elementary School District

Proposition X: YES
South Bay Union School District

STATE MEASURES

Proposition 1A: NO
Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.

Proposition 3: Neutral
Children's Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 7: NO
Renewable Energy Generation. Initiative Statute.


JUNE 3, 2008 ELECTION

Click here for a printer-friendly version of SDCTA's ballot measure summaries and recommendations or click on the underlined propositions below for a detailed analysis of the measure. 

LOCAL MEASURES

Proposition A: YES
City of San Diego Charter Amendment. Public Safety
Proposition A assures that those who directly deliver core public safety services are not subject to outsourcing through the managed competition process, which voters approved in 2006 as Proposition C.  The measure applies only to badge-carrying sworn police officers, firefighters and lifeguards.  It does not include those who perform administrative support functions such as dispatch and clerical duties.  These are important jobs, but they are categorically distinct from line public safety functions.

Proposition B: YES
City of San Diego Charter Amendment. Sunset/Veto/9th Council Seat
Proposition B will allow voters to decide whether or not the City of San Diego shall continue with the Strong Mayor form of governance at the end of the trial period in the year 2010, as Proposition F (passed by voters in 2004) intended.  If voters decide to keep Strong Mayor in place, a ninth Council district will be implemented in addition to a two-thirds requirement to override a Mayoral veto.  A true Mayoral veto and override process provides a necessary check and balance of legislative authority.

Proposition C: YES
City of San Diego Charter Amendment. Audit Committee
Proposition C would amend the City of San Diego's Charter to create an Audit Committee and establish the roles and responsibilities of the CFO, City Auditor and Independent Budget Analyst.  The measure implements safeguards and controls for true audit independence, which will help to restore our credit rating.

Proposition D: YES
City of Carlsbad Charter
Proposition D would establish a Charter form of government for the City of Carlsbad, which currently operates as a General Law municipality.  The State Constitution and the State Legislature govern General Law cities, while only the State Constitution governs Charter cities.  Passage of this measure would allow the City of Carlsbad to have greater control and flexibility in their decision-making including the negotiation of contracts for goods and infrastructure, which may result in savings.

Proposition E: NO
City of Chula Vista General Plan Protection Initiative
The General Plan Protection Initiative would require voter approval for any changes regarding height restrictions for new or existing buildings in the city of Chula Vista's General Plan. The formation of the General Plan, including the height restrictions, consists of extensive community input before its approval by the City Council. This Measure bypasses the processes of representative government, imposes a costly election process every time a new building or expansion of an existing structure exceeding the current height limits is proposed and delays proposals that do not occur in election years. This measure serves as a prime example of ballot box planning, a poor form of public policy.

Proposition F: NO
City of Encinitas Transient Occupancy Tax
Proposition F would impose an eight percent Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) on short-term rentals of 30 days or less.  The apparent intent of the measure is to discourage rentals in response to increased complaints regarding noise, parking and trash violations. This is poor public policy that penalizes those property owners that have law-abiding tenants. It is also uncertain that the tax increase will solve the problem the City is attempting to address. The City Council currently has the ability to adopt fines and levies, and should utilize their legislative authority to adopt ordinances that would better address the problem. This measure requires a simple majority for passage.

Proposition G: NO
City of Encinitas Transient Occupancy Tax
Proposition G would impose a two percent TOT on short-term rentals of 30 days or less to fund beach sand replenishment and stabilization projects.  The apparent intent of the measure is to discourage rentals in response to increased complaints regarding noise, parking and trash violations.  This is poor public policy that penalizes those property owners that have law-abiding tenants.  It is also uncertain that the tax increase will solve the problem the City is attempting to address.  The City Council currently has the ability to adopt fines and levies, and should utilize their legislativeauthority to adopt ordinances that would better address the problem. The designation of revenues to a special fund requires a two-thirds majority vote of the people for passage.

Proposition H: Neutral
Oceanside Unified School District Bond Measure
Oceanside Unified School District proposes a facilities bond of $195 million that will extend the current property tax rate of $58.35 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. While the District has a Board-adopted Capital Improvement Plan that details the proposed scope of work for each campus, the ballot language is not project and site specific as outlined in SDCTA's Bond Support Criteria. Specificity regarding the scope of proposed work at each campus in the ballot language creates additional accountability to voters, as Capital Improvement and Facilities Master Plans can be amended by the district after the passage of a facilities bond measure.    

STATE MEASURES

Proposition 98: NO
California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act
Proposition 98 disallows government seizure of property via eminent domain for any purpose other than direct public use, establishes new standards for the compensation of property owners when eminent domain is exercised and disallows the practice of rent control throughout the state. The stringency of the restrictions placed on eminent domain practices by Proposition 98 creates a significant barrier in the (re)development of multiple parcels of land where a viable free-market solution may not exist and potentially increases the costs of certain types of "public" projects.        

Proposition 99: NO
Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act
Proposition 99 offers protection from eminent domain seizures for transfer to a private owner, but only applies to owner occupied homes that have been a primary residence for at least one year. The measure also contains a "poison pill" which cancels the effects of Proposition 98 in the event that Proposition 99 receives more votes. Since government rarely seizes property that would be protected under Proposition 99, the measure does not enact any effective change to current eminent domain practices and may preclude future reform efforts.

FEBRUARY 5, 2008 ELECTION

Click here for a printer-friendly version of SDCTA's ballot measure summaries and recommendations or click on the underlined propositions below for a detailed analysis of the measure. 

LOCAL MEASURES

Proposition C: YES
Poway Unified School District Bond Measure
This is a $179 million bond measure that would be used to replace and modernize facilities within the District.  This measure will not increase the $55 per $100,000 of assessed value that was originally passed by voters in 2002 with Proposition U, but rather extend the increase until the year 2044.  Passage of this measure will allow the District to qualify for $30.5 million in state and matching funds.  The $209 million bond project includes projects at 19 different schools, with all projects scheduled for completion by 2011.

Proposition D: YES
Cajon Valley Union School District Bond Measure
This is a $156.5 million bond measure that would be used to replace and modernize facilities within the District.  District taxpayers would be required to pay an additional $28.21 per $100,000 of assessed value for the next 40 years.  The average homeowner can expect to pay an additional $72.30 per year in property taxes.  This program will address facility needs at 27 campuses throughout the District, including reconstruction of Cajon Valley Middle School, replacement of two 50-year-old elementary schools and construction of three new gymnasiums.

Proposition E: NO
Rancho Santa Fe School Bond Measure
This is a $34 million bond measure that would be used to modernize and replace facilities at the
R. Roger Rowe campus.  District taxpayers would be required to pay $30 per $100,000 of assessed value.  The average homeowner in the District would pay an additional $600 per year in property taxes.  Design estimates have yet to be completed for the projects listed on the ballot, and as a result, it is impossible to determine if the $34 million bond measure is sufficient to pay for the projects being promised to voters.  Furthermore, a facilities needs assessment conducted by the District in 2007 outlined $46 million in total needs for the campus.  It is unclear if the District intends to return to voters in the near future with another tax increase proposal to pay for the remaining projects.  Proposition E does not meet SDCTA's criteria for bond support.

STATE MEASURES

Proposition 91: YES
Transportation Funds. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 91 was originally intended to be placed on the ballot for the November 2006 election as Proposition 1A; instead, the proposal passed by voters was a compromise measure.  Current law requires loans to the General Fund, from taxes and fees dedicated to transportation uses, to be repaid within three years.  This measure would end the practice of loaning revenues generated from sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel to the General Fund, and require all previous loans (approximately $670 million) to be repaid by 2017.

Proposition 92: NO
Community Colleges. Funding. Governance. Fees. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
This measure would change the current minimum education funding requirements for California Community Colleges in the State Constitution.  Passage of this measure would lower community college fees from $20 per unit to $15 per unit, while significantly limiting the state's authority to increase fee levels in the future.  The initiative would cost an estimated $1 billion over the next three years.  It would also increase the membership and administrative authority of an appointed Board of Governors (BOG).  The BOG (rather than the Governor) would appoint and set compensation levels for executive officers and have full control over spending appropriated for administrative expenses in the annual budget, without Governor or Legislature approval.

Proposition 93: NO
Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Currently, an individual cannot serve a total of more than 14 years in the Legislature.  Service is restricted to six years in the Assembly (three two-year terms) and eight years in the Senate (two four-year terms).  Under this measure, an individual could serve a total of 12 years in the Legislature in either house.  For example, an individual could serve six two-year terms in the Assembly, three four-year terms in the Senate, or some combination of terms in both houses.  Although this measure would reduce the total number of years lawmakers could serve from 14 years to 12, the addition of a grandfather clause allowing current members to serve additional terms beyond current law is disingenuous.

Propositions 94-97: YES
Gaming Compacts Between the State and Tribes
The four compacts allow for the minimum payment of $123 million per year to the General Fund until 2020.  As these tribes increase the number of gaming machines within their casinos, a larger percentage of revenues will also be directed to the General Fund.  Compensation for local law enforcement, public safety, emergency medical services and social programs such as gambling addiction programs will be required for all new projects under the amended compacts.  The new compacts require a heightened level of cooperation and agreement between tribes and neighboring cities and counties.  Specifically, the tribes must negotiate and enter into enforceable written mitigation agreements with the county and any impacted city to fully mitigate the impacts of gaming-related projects on the off-reservation environment and government services.