It is strategy time for the Initiative Generals who are considering ways to promote their measures while trying to assess what opponents will do. Some of the more obvious maneuvers already on display are counter initiatives—putting up a measure to intimidate or undercut an opponent measure’s appeal

But other strategies are undoubtedly being considered.

Take for example the tax increase proposals that have gotten a lot of play recently in the press.

The property tax increase measure to fund poverty programs came as a surprise. Many anticipated an attempt to raise property taxes on commercial property, not on all kinds of property exceeding a certain value ($3 million).

One of the strongest supporters of raising property taxes in the past, the California Teachers Association, is not so wild about the poverty initiative. Large pieces of the property tax goes into K-12 education locally. The Making Poverty History folks want to set up state programs and direct the money for the programs they believe will eventually change the poverty dynamics in the state.

The teachers union is putting its hopes on a Proposition 30 extension. Prop 30 of 2012 put money into schools and community colleges. The teachers union was just fine with that arrangement and wanted to continue it instead of allowing the measure to expire as promised during the 2012 campaign. Little did they expect that that California Hospital Association and related health care unions also wanted a share of the Prop 30 income tax booty—not on a temporary basis, but permanently.

Suddenly there are three major tax measures proposed, all of which have the resources to qualify for the ballot. A fourth measure to raise cigarette taxes already has millions in the bank and will likely qualify.

If there are too many tax increase measures on the ballot, voters might object. Remember, there is also a statewide school bond initiative already qualified for the ballot.

So the generals are mapping strategies.

Talks are ongoing for a compromise to share the Prop 30 money amongst interested parties. Depending on how big a piece of the revenue that would be shared to the satisfaction of all sides will determine how successful those talks are — and how many Prop 30 extension measures are on the ballot.

Then there is the property tax measure. Not only might a number of tax measures on the ballot wear down voters, but also raising property taxes for poverty programs could undercut those scheming to raise property taxes for schools and other functions in future elections.

Might the CTA make strange bedfellows with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to defeat this poverty property tax measure?

On the other hand, CTA may figure donors opposed to the poverty measure will not be able to fund the campaign against the property tax measure and at the same time fund opposition to the Prop 30 extension, offering supporters of the latter a nearly unobstructed path to victory.

Or is it possible that a “No on All Taxes” campaign could be launched in light of so many tax increase measures while the state is sitting on a bulging surplus and a fattening rainy day fund?

Initiative generals on all sides are now contemplating such intrigues and mapping strategies.