Every vote counts (Photo – W.K.).
ColoradoBoulevard.net 2020 proposition and local ballot measure recommendations.
By Editorial Board
Local
Pasadena Measure H: Yes
Pasadena desperately needs rent control. Over 50% of Pasadena Tenants are rent burdened, meaning that they spend over 30% of their household income on rent. 27% of Pasadena’s Tenants spend over 50% of their incomes on rent.
Pasadena Measure L: Yes
“This is not a new tax. The City of Pasadena is asking residents whether they would like to continue the existing source of revenue by voting on Measure L. The Pasadena Library Special Tax generates about $2.8 million locally controlled dollars annually for Pasadena’s libraries.”
~ City of Pasadena
Pasadena Measure PCC: Yes
“This measure will improve student safety and campus security, and bring buildings to current health and safety codes.”
South Pasadena Measure LL: Yes
Without this funding, the South Pasadena Library will make significant cuts to staffing, library hours, and services. Preserving the Library budget costs each property owner about the same as one meal out.
L.A. County
L.A. County Measure A: Yes
“Inadequate civilian oversight of the elected sheriff is a significant, dangerous and immediate problem that needs to be addressed. Voters should support Measure A — and they should be aware that, like it or not, their county government will require additional restructuring.”
~ The Times Editorial Board
State Measure C: No Recommendation
- A “yes” vote supports enacting taxes on marijuana businesses in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, including $10 per square foot for cultivation; a 6% tax on gross retail receipts; a 2% tax on testing facilities’ gross receipts; a 3% tax on gross distribution receipts; and a 4% tax on the gross receipts of manufacturing and other marijuana business facilities.
- A “no” vote opposes enacting taxes on marijuana businesses in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County.
State
State Measure 1: Yes
The California constitution would be changed to expressly include rights to reproductive freedom–such as the right to choose whther or not to have an abortion and use contraceptives.
State Measures 26 and 27: No
“The two gambling measures are confusing and will not benefit most Californians. As to not confuse voters, neither measure should be supported.”
~ The Colorado Boulevard Editorial Board
State Measure 28: Yes
“Music and the arts aren’t just for a select few. Measure 28 would boost arts, music education funding. The measure allocates existing revenue from the state general fund, which currently has a surplus of nearly $100 billion. The amount dedicated to arts and music education under the measure is equal to roughly 1 percent of existing education funding — and is in addition to that funding, not counted towards it.”
~ Russ Sperling, Jeanne Christensen
State Measure 29: No
“Its legitimate to try to unionize. Nobody’s disputing that. But the way they’re doing that by putting patients in harm’s way, that’s unconscionable.”
~ Dr. Bryan Wong, Oakland kidney specialist (LA Times)
State Measure 30: No recommendation
- California Proposition 30, supports increasing the tax on personal income above $2 million by 1.75% and dedicating the revenue to zero-emission vehicle subsidies; zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, such as electric vehicle charging stations; and wildfire suppression and prevention programs.
- Written by Lyft and disguised as an environmental measure.
State Measure 31: No Recommendation
- A “yes” vote is to uphold the contested legislation, Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), which would ban the sale of flavored tobacco products.
- A “no” vote is to repeal the contested legislation, Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), thus keeping the sale of flavored tobacco legal in the state.
> Check our 2022 General Election: Recommendations for L.A. County Superior Court Judges.
Leave a Reply