Pasadena Chamber Board of Directors Positions on November California Ballot Measures

First, some voting information:

The Pasadena Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, acting upon recomendations from its Legislative and Government Affairs Committee, considered all the statewide ballot measures facing Californians on November 3, 2020. After discussion and deliberation, the Board took supporting or opposing positions on some measures and chose to take no position on others. 

Here are their recommendations on the statewide November ballot initiatives: 

A. Proposition 14:  THE BOARD TOOK NO POSITION ON THE MEASURE THAT AUTHORIZES BONDS TO CONTINUE FUNDING STEM CELL AND OTHER MEDICAL RESEARCH BY INITIATIVE STATUTE. The measure authorizes $5.5 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund grants from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine to educational, non-profit, and private entities for: (1) stem cell and other medical research, therapy development, and therapy delivery; (2) medical training; and (3) construction of research facilities. Dedicates $1.5 billion to fund research and therapy for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, epilepsy, and other brain and central nervous system diseases and conditions. Limits bond issuance to $540 million annually. Appropriates money from General Fund to repay bond debt, but postpones repayment for first five years. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: State costs of $7.8 billion to pay off principal ($5.5 billion) and interest ($2.3 billion) on the bonds. Associated average annual debt payments of about $310 million for 25 years. The costs could be higher or lower than these estimates depending on factors such as the interest rate and the period of time over which the bonds are repaid. The state General Fund would pay most of the costs, with a relatively small amount of interest repaid by bond proceeds. The Board took no position due to lack of relevance to Pasadena business community. The Board recognized the increased bonding by our state is a burden on taxpayers, however.

B. Proposition 15: THE PASADENA CHAMBER BOARD STRONGLY OPPOSES THE MEASURE WHICH INCREASES FUNDING FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. THE INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT undermines Prop 13 protection by creating a split roll property tax system where commercial properties are taxed at a much higher rate than residential properties.ncreases funding for K-12 public schools, community colleges, and local governments by requiring that commercial and industrial real property be taxed based on current market value. Exempts from this change: residential properties; agricultural properties; and owners of commercial and industrial properties with combined assessed value of $3 million or less. Increased education funding will supplement existing school funding guarantees. Exempts small businesses from personal property tax; for other businesses, it exempts $500,000 worth of personal property. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Net increase in annual property tax revenues of $7.5 billion to $12 billion in most years, depending on the strength of real estate markets. After backfilling state income tax losses related to the measure and paying for county administrative costs, the remaining $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion would be allocated to schools (40 percent) and other local governments (60 percent). The Board strongly opposes Proposition 15 because it creates a two tiered property tax system, undermines Prop 13 and would be excessively burdensome on business and commercial interests. Rents for businesses would increase at a time when many, especially small businesses that lease space, cannot afford any increased costs. 

C. Proposition 16: THE BOARD VOTED TO SUPPORT the measure that repeals Proposition 209 (from 1996), which prohibited the state from considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting. The Board felt the measure would help provide more opportunity for young people of color to get ahead. It would provide for educational and work opportunities for more diverse people and help correct previous inequities experienced by people of color. 

D. Proposition 17: THE BOARD TOOK NO POSITION on the inititive that restores the right to vote to
people convicted of felonies who are on parole. There were no local business impacts seen as a result of passage or failure of the measure.

E. Proposition 18: THE BOARD TOOK NO POSITION ON THE MEASURE that would allow 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primaries and special elections. While there are pros and cons to the measure, the Board struggled to find an impact on our local business community.

F. Proposition 20: THE BOARD TOOK NO POSITION ON THE INITIATIVE THAT RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR NON-VIOLENT OFFENDERS. IT AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. Imposes restrictions on parole program for non-violent offenders who have completed the full term for their primary offense. It expands list of offenses that disqualify an inmate from this parole program and changes standards and requirements governing parole decisions under this program. Authorizes felony charges for specified theft crimes currently chargeable only as misdemeanors, including some theft crimes where the value is between $250 and $950. Requires persons convicted of specified misdemeanors to submit to collection of DNA samples for state database. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state and local correctional costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, primarily related to increases in penalties for certain theft-related crimes and the changes to the nonviolent offender release consideration process. Increased state and local court-related costs of around a few million dollars annually related to processing probation revocations and additional felony theft filings. Could lead to increased state and local law enforcement costs not likely to exceed a couple of million dollars annually state-wide related to collecting and processing DNA samples from additional offenders. Undermines some previous initiatives. Proponents say we will be safer because some crimes re-instated as felonies. DNA database enhanced.

G. Proposition 21: The BOARD STRONGLY OPPOSES THIS INITIATIVE THAT EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS' AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE. The initiative amends state law to allow local governments to establish rent control on residential properties over 15 years old. Allows rent increases on rentcontrolled properties of up to 15 percent over three years from previous tenant’s rent above any increase allowed by local ordinance. Exempts individuals who own no more than two homes from new rent-control policies. In accordance with California law, provides that rent-control policies may not violate landlords’ right to a fair financial return on their property. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Potential reduction in state and local revenues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or more. The Board recognized that rent control depresses housing production and drives market rate rents up. It becomes an entitlement for those in controlled units. Experience across the US shows that rent control does not create new affordable housing.

H. Proposition 22: THE BOARD SUPPORTS THE INITIATIVE THAT CHANGES EMPLOYMENT CLASSIFICATION RULES FOR APP-BASED TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY DRIVERS. The iniative establishes different criteria for determining whether app-based transportation (rideshare) and delivery drivers are “employees” or “independent contractors.” Independent contractors are not entitled to certain state-law protections afforded employees—including minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation. Instead, companies with independent-contractor drivers will be required to provide specified alternative benefits, including: minimum compensation and healthcare subsidies based on engaged driving time, vehicle insurance, safety training, and sexual harassment policies. Restricts local regulation of app-based drivers; criminalizes impersonation of such drivers; requires background checks. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increase in state personal income tax revenue of an unknown amount. Step to undermining state rules on contractors. Specific to app-based services. Funded by Uber and Lyft, etc. to perpetuate the current system in response to AB5 and the state supreme court ruling on independent contractor status.

I. Proposition 23: AUTHORIZES STATE REGULATION OF KIDNEY DIALYSIS CLINICS. ESTABLISHES MINIMUM STAFFING AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. THE BOARD TOOK NO POSITION on the measure that equires at least one licensed physician on site during treatment at outpatient kidney dialysis clinics; authorizes Department of Public Health to exempt clinics from this requirement due to shortages of qualified licensed physicians if at least one nurse practitioner or physician assistant is on site. Requires clinics to report dialysis-related infection data to state and federal governments. Requires state approval for clinics to close or reduce services. Prohibits clinics from discriminating against patients based on the source of payment for care. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased state and local health care costs, likely in the low tens of millions of dollars annually, resulting from increased dialysis treatment costs. Proponents claim passage would provide for a safer environment for patients and less profit for companies doing dialysis. The Board expressed concerns about the underlying intent of the measure and the proponents, we have no Chamber members strictly in dialysis business and our healthcare providers would not be subject to the regulations as they do not provide dialysis to patients in a way that would be subject to the measure. The Board chose to take no position. 

J. Proposition 24: THE BOARD VOTED TO SUPPORT THE MEASURE THAT AMENDS CONSUMER PRIVACY LAWS BY INITIATIVE STATUTE. After discussion and deliberations the Chamber Board spports the intitiative that permits consumers to: (1) prevent businesses from sharing personal information; (2) correct inaccurate personal information; and (3) limit businesses’ use of “sensitive personal information”—such as precise geolocation; race; ethnicity; religion; genetic data; union membership; private communications; and certain sexual orientation, health, and biometric information. Changes criteria for which businesses must comply with these laws. Prohibits businesses’ retention of personal information for longer than reasonably necessary. Triples maximum penalties for violations concerning consumers under age 16. Establishes California Privacy Protection Agency to enforce and implement consumer privacy laws, and impose administrative fines. Requires adoption of substantive regulations. Summary of estimate by the Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased annual state costs of roughly $10 million for a new state agency to monitor compliance and enforcement of consumer privacy laws. Increased state costs, potentially reaching the low millions of dollars annually, from increased workload to DOJ and the state courts, some or all of which would be offset by penalty revenues. Unknown impact on state and local tax revenues due to economic effects resulting from new requirements on businesses to protect consumer information. Could increase consumer protections and privacy but also cost businesses and restrict information sharing.

K. Proposition 25: THE BOARD TOOK NO POSITION ON THE REFERENDUM TO OVERTURN A 2018 LAW THAT REPLACED MONEY BAIL SYSTEM WITH A SYSTEM BASED ON PUBLIC SAFETY RISK. Requires a majority of voters to approve a 2018 no money bail state law before it can take effect. The 2018 law replaces the money bail system with a system for pretrial release from jail based on a determination of public safety or flight risk, and limits pretrial detention for most misdemeanors. There was no consensus on the measure and the Board struggled to find relevance to our local business community?