This measure will rework the property tax rates set in 1978 for both residential and commercial property by Proposition 13. Commercial and industrial property would now be taxed based on fair market value. Rather than setting tax rates based on the age of the company, Proposition 15 will tax businesses based on size and income. Those with values of less than $3 million plus all residential properties (apartments), and agricultural operations will retain Proposition 13 valuations and rates. In addition, small businesses at set income levels will be exempt from personal property tax. The new revenues, estimated to bring $6.5-11.5 billion annually, will fund K-12, community colleges, and local governments with emphasis on improving older, more deteriorated school systems in low-income areas. ​

​This resolution, only nine words long, repeals Proposition 209 (1996) that prohibited the state from considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting. Rather than creating the “color blind” society promised, Proposition 209 prohibited all considerations of race and other attributes thus enabling discrimination to re-expand. Race, gender, etc., and the experiences produced in life because of them are part of the holistic experience of any person. Quotas and “point” systems remain unconstitutional. Affirmative action was meant to give equal consideration to people whose contributions to society are based in part on these ascriptive life experiences. If Prop. 15 passes, that can be restored.

​This measure restores the right to vote to people on parole. Those on probation, who avoided prison, keep their right while on probation. Those on parole, the status that comes after prison release, do not. Those opposing voting rights for former convicts say it gives voting rights to those who may reoffend, and to violent criminals. However, if the parole board sees fit to release someone to return to productive society, that restorative action must include the full rights and responsibilities of the society.

​

This measure would allow 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primaries and special elections. The argument for this measure is that it would engage youth in greater likelihood of voting in general elections. Voting is essential, and we support the sentiments embodied in former President Barack Obama’s eulogy for Rep. John Lewis, champion of the Voting Rights Act: “...we (must) remember what John [Lewis] said: ‘If you don’t do everything you can to change things, then they will remain the same. You only pass this way once. You have to give it all you have.’ As long as young people are protesting in the streets, hoping real change takes hold, I’m hopeful; but we cannot casually abandon them at the ballot box...We cannot treat voting as an errand to run if we have some time. We have to treat it as the most important action we can take on behalf of democracy.”

​A similar measure was defeated in 2018 but has been rewritten. The measure helps qualified homeowners who are “house rich, income poor,” while it prevents use of low-tax-rate property for income generation. By terms of Proposition 58 (1986), property with low tax rates due to age of purchase could be transferred to children and grandchildren with the same rates and valuations. In many instances wealthy individuals use that property as rental income far exceeding the tax rates paid. Proposition 19 does expand the use of existing low rates for seniors, those with disabilities, victims of wildfire or natural disaster, allowing transfer or senior rates to any county and allowing the transfer three times v. once. However, it bars inherited property from being used for income generation and requires it must be used as the primary residence by those who inherited it. All such rental properties will be reassessed upward to full market status thus generating new tax revenue. This impacts 40-60,000 taxpayers. 75% of new revenues will be assigned to the Fire Protection Fund, 25% to County Revenue Protection Fund for any possible loss of tax revenue. Every older property released for actual sale will also generate higher tax rates and more revenue for the county.

​This proposition makes changes to policies related to criminal sentencing charges, prison release, and DNA collection. It would reclassify many misdemeanors as “wobblers,” permitting crimes to be either misdemeanors or felonies. These would include firearm and vehicle theft, and unlawful use of a credit card as well as serial crime, regardless of content, and organized retail crime. The proposition would prohibit early release by reclassifying crimes as “violent.” Other crimes, committed prior to 2014 reforms, would require the perpetrator to have his or her DNA on file. Furthermore, rather than having the parole board consider applicants on the basis of fulfilling their sentences and in-prison behavior, this proposition directs the parole boards to consider the person’s age, employment prospects, etc. In sum, a person could remain in prison, regardless of compliance, if he or she were poorly educated and less employable; often racially biased. This proposition will undermine past sentencing reform measures passed by voters in recent elections. Crime is significantly lower in the past few years per the Public Policy Institute of California. These new standards would not stop crime but will swell our prison population through reclassification of offenses, to no discernable public benefit.

​Expands local governments’ ability to implement rent control on some housing now covered by the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act. Under the CHA, rent control cannot be implemented for housing built or occupied after 1995. Rent control cannot be used on dwellings with distinct titles such as single-family homes, condos, townhouses, etc. In light of the soaring rents in every part of California, this year’s Proposition 21 would allow local governments to abolish some CHA provisions. It upholds the bar on property first occupied in the past 16 years owned by natural persons (not those owned by corporations) with no more than two separate units, e.g., single family, condos, duplexes, subdivided units such a cooperative and community apartments. In all other eligible properties, local governments can limit rent increases to 15% during the first three years after a vacancy. While it does nothing to reduce current rental rates, it would slow the further rate increases for new tenants. Because the decision will remain in local control, it gives voice to local citizens based on perceived differences in their own communities, housing stock, and rental demand.