Below find the fourth issue of the 2018 California Initiative Editorial Scorecard.
Forward Observer and Klink Campaigns developed the 2018 California Initiative Editorial Scorecard to keep track of editorials for and against the 11 statewide initiatives on this November’s ballot. We will update the scorecard weekly with ballot measure endorsements (pro and con) from the top 20 California newspapers by circulation. The fourth edition of the California Initiative Editorial Scorecard is based on 158 editorials thus far.
The following excerpts are from endorsement editorials that appeared online or in print since our last edition:
Proposition 1
Los Angeles Times – Yes
“As we’ve observed before, the state needs to build 3.5 million homes by 2025 to satisfy pent-up demand for housing and to stabilize prices. To even get close to that number would require a building boom unlike any California has seen since the 1960s. Proposition 1 is a necessary step, even if it’s not a sufficient one.” Link
San Jose Mercury News and East Bay Times – Yes
“Prop. 1 can’t possibly solve the state’s housing crisis on its own. But it’s an essential piece of the puzzle, designed to work with Prop. 2, the mental health housing measure on the same ballot, and local and federal housing programs to offer critical funding for the state’s most needy residents.” Link
Santa Rosa Press Democrat – Yes
“Why is it necessary? California needs about 180,000 new housing units every year to keep up with population growth, but only about half of that has been built over the past decade. The results include average homes costing 2½ times the national average, rents running 50 percent above the national average – and people being priced out of the market.” Link
Modesto Bee – Yes
“Proposition 1’s $4 billion sets aside $1.5 billion to provide loans to renovate or build more rental housing. Millions more would go toward grants to build or improve sewers, roads and water systems in cities.” Link
Proposition 2
Modesto Bee – Yes
“Many believed that Proposition 63 addressed a portion of this crisis through its “No Place Like Home” program, which authorized $2 billion in bonds to build short-term housing. But that program has been tied up in lawsuits. The money has been collected and allocated, but can’t be spent. Proposition 2 would put a stop to the legal maneuvering and allow the money to be used as voters originally decreed.” Link
Proposition 3
Santa Rosa Press Democrat – Yes
“Much of the money will be distributed as grants by state agencies, and Sonoma County Water Agency officials anticipate funding from several categories, including wastewater recycling, urban and agricultural water conservation, flood control and storm water management. Small water systems throughout the region also could qualify for funding.” Link
Proposition 4
Santa Rosa Press Democrat – Yes
“Together, these hospitals treat 2 million children every year, including many of the most complicated cases – pediatric organ transplants, traumatic injuries and cancer. Many of these young patients are covered by Medi-Cal, meaning the hospitals are reimbursed at low rates for the care they provide. Proposition 4, a $1.5 billion bond act, would help these hospitals add capacity and acquire the latest medical technology and life-saving equipment for their mission – providing children with the health care that they need.” Link
Proposition 5
Los Angeles Times – No
“California is in the midst of a serious housing crisis, and the California Assn. of Realtors would like voters to believe Proposition 5 is part of the solution. But in fact it would create not a single new unit of housing. It is a false promise; it should be rejected.” Link
Proposition 6
Orange County Register, The Riverside Press-Enterprise, Los Angeles Daily News, Torrance Daily Breeze, Long Beach Press Telegram, San Bernardino Sun, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin – Yes
“Proponents of SB1 argued that the cost of repairing vehicle damage from potholes and broken roads was greater than the cost of the tax. But this argument was disingenuous-much of the revenue from the tax increase is going to projects that that don’t fix potholes or cracked pavement.” Link
Proposition 10
Santa Rosa Press Democrat – No
“Faced with rent control, many landlords turn apartments into for-sale condominiums or convert their property to other uses. In San Francisco, a Stanford University study found, 15 percent of rental units were removed from the market after rent control was implemented. Santa Monica, West Hollywood and other cities that enacted rent control lost units, too. Rent control – or the threat of price controls – also is a disincentive for anyone contemplating construction of new rental housing.” Link
Ventura County Star – No
“The main reason for California’s affordable housing shortage is simple: too much demand and not enough supply. Prop. 10 does nothing to address that disparity and indeed could make it worse. For that reason and others, we urge you to vote no on Proposition 10.” link
La Opinión – No
“Hay iniciativas electorales que tienen la buena intención de resolver un problema serio como la crisis de vivienda en California. La Proposición 10 es una de ellas, sin embargo a la larga su impacto es más perjudicial que beneficioso por su efecto no intencionado.”
“There are electoral initiatives that have the good intention of solving a serious problem like the housing crisis in California. Proposition 10 is one of them, but in the long run its impact is more harmful than beneficial because of its unintended effect.” Link