“Here’s the final list of propositions that made the cut for the November election. On the list are proposals to slash the gas tax, re-introduce rent control, absolve major corporations of their legal debt, and borrow billions to fund houses, hospitals, and water canals.

Propositions on the November 2018 California ballot

Reported by Ben Christopher. Interactive by John Osborn D’Agostino.

PROP 1: AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND

WHAT IT DOES

Give the state permission to borrow $4 billion to fund affordable housing construction ($3 billion) and to subsidize home loans for veterans ($1 billion).

HOW IT GOT ON THE BALLOT

In the fall of 2017, state lawmakers went all in on housing, passing a cluster of bills aimed at subsidizing and streamlining new development. This bond, introduced by state Sen. Jim Beall from San Jose, was the product of one of those bills.

ESTIMATED COST

Will increase state costs $171 million per year for 30 years.

SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS

The state faces an unprecedented housing crisis. This money will be used to build and rehabilitate rental units for those making under a certain income, for grants to local governments for the construction of new units around public transit stations, and home loan assistance to Veterans.

OPPOSING ARGUMENTS

This bond will result in a one time boost in housing construction, a blip in supply that will do nothing to combat the long-term and persistent shortage that the state faces. For that minimal benefit, taxpayers will be saddled with billions more in debt.

PROP 2: MENTAL HEALTH MONEY FOR HOUSING

WHAT IT DOES

Give the state permission to borrow $2 billion to fund supportive housing for those suffering with mental illness and to repay the cost of that bond with money set aside for mental health services.

HOW IT GOT ON THE BALLOT

In 2004, voters approved Proposition 63, which hiked the income tax on millionaires by 1 percent in order to fund mental health services and related programs. Twelve years later, state lawmakers passed a bill to spend $2 billion on permanent supportive housing for those suffering from mental illness and to fund it out of the Prop 63 account. But a Sacramento lawyer sued, arguing that voters didn’t sign off on housing construction or servicing new debt in 2004. Counties are now sitting on millions of dollars reserved for the homeless and unsure how to spend it. Rather than wait out the court battle, state lawmakers are taking the question to voters.

ESTIMATED COST

Based on typical long-term bond costs, this will likely increase state costs by an extra 100 million per year for the next 40 years on average.

SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS

Providing housing paired with social and health services is one of the most effective ways to help the chronically homeless who suffer from mental illness. This is entirely within the spirit of Prop 63, which is why the co-author of that proposition, Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, supports this initiative.

OPPOSING ARGUMENTS

If the state wants to fund new supportive housing, it shouldn’t come at the expense of basic mental health treatment. And while supportive housing may be a noble idea in theory, cities often drag their heels when it comes to approving new housing for the mentally ill, making it less likely that the money will be spent on its intended purpose.

PROP 3: ANOTHER WATER BOND

WHAT IT DOES

Give the state permission to borrow $8.9 billion to fund watershed protection, wastewater projects, groundwater management, as well as upgrades and repairs to traditional water infrastructure, like canals and dams.

HOW IT GOT ON THE BALLOT

No, this isn’t déjà vu. On June 5th, California voters passed a $4.1 billion bond to fund water infrastructure improvements, as well as new parks. That proposition was placed on the ballot by state lawmakers in part to discourage outside groups from asking voters for even more money in November. And yet here we are. Unlike the June proposition, this bond is much bigger and its funds will be entirely dedicated to water projects.

ESTIMATED COST

Approximately $435 million per year for 40 years.

SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS

From the Oroville Dam to groundwater depletion in the Central Valley to the Salton Sea, California faces no shortage of water woes. Yes, the state of California has borrowed big to fund water projects in the past. But bonds provide long-term, recession-proof, dedicated streams of cash, exactly what the state needs to upgrade and update its aging infrastructure.

OPPOSING ARGUMENTS

Not only have taxpayers foot the bill for big water bonds in the past, we did it again in early June! The state still hasn’t spent all of the money it borrowed in 2014 with Prop 1. There are additional concerns about how the money will be spent. Why should taxpayers statewide pay for regional projects, like canal and dam repairs, that are usually paid for by local water agencies?

PROP 4: CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL BOND

WHAT IT DOES

Give the state permission to borrow $1.5 billion to renovations, expansions, and upgrades at hospitals that treat children. Most of the funding is reserved for private non-profit hospitals and hospitals run through one of University of California campuses.

HOW IT GOT ON THE BALLOT

The California Children’s Hospital Association regularly turns to the taxpayer for help. In 2004, voters backed a $750-million bond to fund similar infrastructure investments. Four years later, they approved another $980-million in borrowing. This year’s proposal looks pretty similar—only bigger.

ESTIMATED COST

An extra $80 million annually for 35 years.

SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS

Kids deserve the best possible care. Medical technology is constantly changing, but because many of the hospitals are dependent on the low reimbursement rates from Medi-Cal, the state’s public insurance program for low-income residents, they often can’t afford to make these kinds of investments. These bond funds would allow the state’s health care providers to catch up.

OPPOSING ARGUMENTS

If the taxpayer is going to throw more money at hospitals, many of which are privately-owned and operated, why not use existing resources, rather than borrowing even more?

PROP 5: PORTABLE PROP 13

WHAT IT DOES

Allow older or disabled homeowners to take their lowered property tax base with them when they move.

HOW IT GOT ON THE BALLOT

Ever since voters passed Proposition 13 in 1978, property taxes have been calculated based on a home’s purchase price, rather than its current market value. That has kept property tax bills low for longtime homeowners despite skyrocketing real estate prices, but it also discourages people from moving, since selling one house and buying another often means getting stuck with a higher property tax bill. The California Association of Realtors, the folks in the business of selling homes, introduced this ballot measure last fall as a way to address the state’s housing crisis.

ESTIMATED COST

A loss of $2 billion annually in foregone tax revenue for local governments and school districts

SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS

Because homeowners are penalized for moving, many homeowners—particularly empty-nesters—are living in houses and large apartments that no longer meet their needs. There are plenty of first-time homebuyers and young families who would use all that extra space. Encouraging the first group to sell to the second is a win-win.

OPPOSING ARGUMENTS

Of all the ways to address the state’s housing crisis, this is one of the least direct. It doesn’t increase the housing supply. It doesn’t subsidize rents. It merely switches homes from one group to another. Meanwhile, it strips millions of dollars from our already cash-strapped school districts and local governments.

READ MORE

PROP 6: GAS TAX REPEAL

WHAT IT DOES

Repeal a recent increase in the gas tax and other fuel and car fees and require voter approval for all related taxes in the future.

HOW IT GOT ON THE BALLOT

California roads are in rough shape, the product of years of deferred maintanance and recession-era budget cutting. Last year, lawmakers passed a bill to raise the state tax on gasoline for the first time in over two decades to fund repairs and maintanance, along with new transit projects and infrastructure upgrades. The bill also raised taxes on diesel and introduced a new car fee. In June, Republicans and anti-tax advocates successfully campaigned for the recall of Josh Newman, a vulnerable Democratic state senator for Orange County, ostensibly over his support of the transportation bill.

ESTIMATED COST

The loss of nearly $5 billion annually, which is the amount the transportation bill would have raised. There would also likely be longer term fiscal impacts, as state lawmakers would have much more difficult time raising revenue from gas and car-related sources in the future.

SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS

Californians already pay some of the highest taxes in the nation, including one of the highest state gas taxes. Lawmakers should be forced to trim spending and improve efficiency before asking drivers for more money.

OPPOSING ARGUMENTS

California hasn’t raised its gas tax in decades and the state’s transportation infrastructure is crumbling as a result. Conditions are unsafe for drivers and bad for business. Cities and counties are already using this money to improve our streets, highways, and transit system. Taking away the funding without a Plan B is irresponsible.

READ MORE

PROP 7: DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME

WHAT IT DOES

Would repeal the measure Californians passed back in 1949 creating Daylight Saving Time. The Legislature would then be able to determine how the state sets its time—to eliminate moving clocks backward and forward every spring and fall.

HOW IT GOT ON THE BALLOT

Democratic Assemblywoman Kansen Chu of San Jose carried a bill the Legislature passed to place the measure on the ballot. Gov. Jerry Brown’s signing statement declared “Fiat Lux!”—the motto of his alma mater UC Berkeley. It’s Latin for “Let there be light.”

ESTIMATED COST

N/A

SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS

Studies indicate that clock-switching increases traffic accidents, heart attacks, workplace accidents and other hazards as people struggle to adapt to the disruption of their sleep schedules.

OPPOSING ARGUMENTS