|
Chamber Takes Positions on Impending Ballot Issues
As an advocate for the business community, the Fremont Chamber of Commerce actively researches and recommends ballot issues that we consider to be "business-friendly" and supportive of a positive business environment.
Ballot Positions:
Proposition 1A – SUPPORT
Local Government Funds and Revenues.
Proposition 59 – NO POSITION
Access to Government Information.
Proposition 60 – NO POSITION
Primary Elections.
Proposition 60A – NO POSITION
Surplus Property.
Proposition 61 – NO POSITION
Children's Hospital Projects. Grant Program. Bond Act. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 62 – NO POSITION
Primary Elections.
Proposition 63 – NO POSITION
Mental Health Services Expansion and Funding. Tax on incomes over $1 Million.
Proposition 64 - SUPPORT
Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 65 – NO POSITION
Local Government Funds and Revenues. State Mandates Initiative. Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 66 – NO POSITION
Limitations on 'Three Strikes' Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 67 - OPPOSE
Telephone Surcharge. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 68 – NO POSITION
Tribal Gaming Compact Renegotiation. Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Revenues, Tax Exemptions.
Proposition 69 – NO POSITION
DNA Samples.
Proposition 70 – NO POSITION
Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State.
Proposition 71 – NO POSITION
Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 72 – OPPOSE
Health Care Coverage Requirements. Referendum.
Measure AA - SUPPORT
BART bond
Measure FF - SUPPORT
Washington Hospital Healthcare District bond
Measure V - OPPOSE
The Utility Users Tax.
November 2004 Ballot Measures
Proposition 1A: Local Government Funds and Revenues
Prop 1A protects local government revenues (property tax, sales tax, Vehicle License Fee revenue) from state takeaways to a greater degree. Funding for local programs would be more stable and reliable. The state would be prohibited from taking away money from local agencies unless the Governor declared a fiscal emergency and 2/3 of both houses of the Legislature approved.
Fremont Chamber position: Support
Arguments for:
1. Provides more protection for local revenues used for vital services from the state
2. Local programs would be more stable and consistently funded
For more information: http://www.yesonprop1a.com/
Arguments against:
1. State funded programs, like education, would see a decrease in funding
2. Local governments would receive additional funding, but would not have any additional accountability or oversight measures
For more information: Carole Migden, Chairwoman, State Board of Equalization
Business Bottom Line…Do you want to increase funding for local governments’ programs while decreasing funding for state programs by an equal amount?
Information on Prop 1A from the Legislative Analyst (impartial, PDF)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/supplemental/vig_sup_1a_entire.pdf
return to top
Proposition 59: Public Records. Open Meetings
Amends the state Constitution to include the public’s right of access to meetings of government bodies and writings of government officials. Preserves specified constitutional rights; retains existing exclusions for certain meetings and records.
Fremont Chamber position: No Position
Arguments For:
1. Californians should have access to information on the governmental activities of the officials who represent them.
2. A government entity should have to demonstrate why information requested by the public should be kept private.
For more information: www.prop59.com
Arguments Against:
1. Access to government information should continue to be governed by existing laws.
2. Proposition 59 does not go far enough to guarantee that Californians have full access to records of governmental workings.
For more information: Gary B. Wesley, Attorney at Law (408) 882-5070
Impartial legislative analysis of Proposition 59 (pdf)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_59_entire.pdf
return to top
Proposition 60: Election Rights of Political Parties
Requires a general election ballot to include candidate receiving most votes among candidates of the same party for partisan office in a primary election.
Fremont Chamber position: No Position
Arguments For:
1. Requires the top vote-getter from each party in a state primary election to advance to the general election.
2. Preserves voter’s right to select political party nominees for public office in direct primary elections.
For more information: www.Yeson60.com
Arguments Against:
1. Does not adequately protect the state’s primary system.
2. Allows members of opposing political parties to determine another party’s nominee.
3. Opens the door for future tinkering with the election system.
No contact information for opposition provided.
Impartial legislative analysis of Proposition 60 (pdf)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_60_entire.pdf
return to top
Proposition 60A: Surplus Property
Dedicates proceeds from the sale of surplus state property to pay off economic recovery bonds. When those bonds are repaid, surplus property sales proceeds will be directed to Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties.
Fremont Chamber position: No Position
Arguments For:
1. Gives voters opportunity to reduce the cost of bonds approved in March to help ease the state’s budget crisis.
2. With more than $1 billion in surplus property in California, Prop. 60A would significantly reduce costs to taxpayers.
No contact information for supporters provided.
Arguments Against:
1. Does not actually force the sale of surplus property.
2. Would be effective only if a sale of property was made.
No contact information for opposition provided.
Impartial legislative analysis of Proposition 60A (pdf)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_60a_entire.pdf
return to top
Proposition 61: Children’s Hospital Projects
Authorizes $750 million general obligation bonds for grants to eligible children’s hospitals for construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, finishing and equipping children’s hospitals.
Fremont Chamber position: No Position
Arguments For:
1. Funds will allow children’s hospitals to increase bed capacity to ensure that sick and injured children have access to a regional facility.
2. Will allow children’s hospitals to purchase the latest medical technologies.
For more information: www.SaveTheChildrensHospital.com
Arguments Against:
1. Calls for borrowing more money at a time when the state has deficits and high debt.
2. Does not address the needs of California’s uninsured children.
For more information: Gary B. Wesley, Attorney at Law (408) 882-5070
Impartial legislative analysis of Proposition 61 (pdf)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_61_entire.pdf
return to top
Proposition 62: Elections, Primaries
Requires primary elections where voters may vote for any state or federal candidate regardless of party registration of candidate or voter. The two primary election candidates receiving the most votes for an office, whether they are candidates with “no party” or members of same or different parties, would be listed on general election ballots. Exempts presidential nominations.
Fremont Chamber position: No Position
Arguments For:
1. Will expand voters’ choices and increase voter participation.
2. Will make state elected officials responsive to all voters.
3. Increases competition and gives voice to more candidates.
For more information: www.openprimary.org
Arguments Against:
1. Only one other state uses this voting format and it has been recently rejected by the state of Washington.
2. In some cases, voters’ only choice may be two candidates from the same party.
For more information: www.Noon62.com
Impartial legislative analysis of Proposition 62 (pdf)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_62_entire.pdf
return to top
Proposition 63: Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes Above $1 Million
Establishes 1 percent tax on taxable income above $1 million to fund expanded health services for mentally ill children, adults and seniors.
Fremont Chamber position: No Position
Arguments For:
1. Requires strict accountability.
2. Individuals earning less than $1 million annually are not taxed.
For more information: www.yeson63.org
Arguments Against:
1. Offers shortsighted substitute for long-term solutions.
2. Relies on narrowly drawn funding structure highly vulnerable to even slight economic changes and drives away the taxpayers it needs for funding.
For more information: www.matsonian.com/chc
Impartial legislative analysis of Proposition 63 (pdf)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_63_entire.pdf
return to top
Proposition 64: Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws
Proposition 64 would amend Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, eliminating the provisions that currently allow for lawyers “acting on the interests of itself, it members or the general public” and replaces that language with “who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of a violation of this chapter.” Provisions allow for the Attorney General or local government prosecutors to retain the ability to sue on behalf of the general public to enforce unfair business competition laws.
Fremont Chamber position: Support
Arguments for:
1. Closes a loophole that allows for lawyers to unfairly sue small businesses, from which the proceeds of the lawsuit the lawyers can keep.
2. Besides the Attorney General or local government prosecutor, only people that have been harmed or wronged by unfair business competition laws can bring suit.
For more information: www.yeson64.org
Arguments against:
1. Limits the enforcement of unfair business competition laws and public interest lawsuits
2. The proposition is being brought by special interests
For more information: www.noonprop64.org
Business Bottom Line…Do you want to limit ways for private citizens or lawyers to sue your business for violations of unfair business competition laws on behalf of the general public?
Impartial legislative analysis of Proposition 64 (pdf)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_64_entire.pdf
return to top
Proposition 65: Local Government Funds, Revenues, State Mandates
Requires voter approval for reduction of local fee/tax revenues. Permits suspension of state mandate if no state reimbursement to local government within 180 days after an obligation is determined.
Fremont Chamber position: No Position
Arguments For:
No argument in favor was presented.
Arguments Against:
1. After Proposition was submitted, a new measure—Proposition 1A—was placed on the ballot to protect funding for vital local services.
Impartial legislative analysis of Proposition 65 (pdf)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/supplemental/vig_sup_65_entire.pdf
return to top
Proposition 66: Limitation on “Three Strikes” Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment
Limits “three strikes” law to violent and/or serious felonies. Permits limited re-sentencing under new definition. Increases punishment for specified sex crimes against children.
Fremont Chamber position: No Position
Arguments For:
1. Restores “three strikes” law to its original intent.
2. Provides tougher one-strike sentences for child molesters.
For more information: www.voteyeson66.org
Arguments Against:
1. Releases thousands of inmates with long records of serious and violent crimes.
2. Judges and attorneys already have the discretion not to prosecute petty crimes as “strike” offenses.
3. Placed on ballot by a wealthy businessman whose son, incarcerated for killing two people, would be freed by passage of the initiative.
For more information: www.noprop66.org
Impartial legislative analysis of Proposition 66 (pdf)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_66_entire.pdf
return to top
Proposition 67: Emergency Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Prop 67 will place a 3% emergency telephone surcharge on top of the existing surcharge on bills for telephone services for calls made within the state. This would generate about $500M annually, possibly increasing in future years. Under Prop 67, residential users would typically be limited to paying 50 cents per month on their phone bills, but cell phones and commercial phone bills would see no such protection. Funds from the surcharge as well as funding from other areas would be used for compensating hospitals, non-profit organizations, and private physicians for uncompensated emergency and trauma care as well as improve 911 response systems.
Fremont Chamber position: Oppose
Arguments for:
1. Prop 67 helps keep emergency services available and open to the public
2. Improvements would be made to the 911 phone system
For more information: http://www.saveemergencycare.org
Arguments against:
1. Enacts a large tax with no limit to the amount businesses and cell phone users can pay
2. Ninety percent of funds would go to special interests and large medical care providers with no increased accountability
For more information: http://www.stopthephonetax.com/
Business bottom line… Do you want your business to pay an additional 3% tax surcharge on phone services, given that there is no cap on how much tax your business or cell phone will be charged with a 50 cent cap per month on private residents, to reimburse hospitals, non-profits, etc. for the emergency care they provide?
Impartial legislative analysis of Proposition 67 (pdf)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_67_entire.pdf
return to top
Proposition 68: Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments. Revenues, Tax Exemptions.
Authorizes tribal compact amendments. Unless tribes amend existing compacts, authorizes casino gaming for 16 non-tribal establishments. Percentage of gaming revenues fund government services.
Fremont Chamber position: No Position
Arguments For:
1. Gives tribes the choice of paying a 25 percent fair share of profits, in return for keeping their gaming monopoly on slot machines.
2. The 25 percent fair share would generate nearly $2 billion revenue annually, which would go to pay for local public services.
For more information: www.fairshareforcalifornia.org
Arguments Against:
1. No revenue will go towards paying off the state deficit, and it exempts non-tribal casinos from paying any future state and local tax increases.
2. If tribes do not comply, would increase the number and size of casinos on non-tribal land, near more than 200 schools.
3. If tribes do not comply, would increase traffic congestion and law enforcement.
For more information: www.stop68.com
Impartial legislative analysis of Proposition 68 (pdf)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_68_entire.pdf
return to top
Proposition 69: DNA Samples. Collection. Databases. Funding.
Requires collection of DNA samples for all felons and from others arrested for or charged with specified crimes, and submission to the state DNA database. Provides for funding.
Fremont Chamber position: No Position
Arguments For:
1. Taking DNA samples during booking process, along with fingerprinting helps police conduct more accurate investigations.
2. Thirty-four states have all-felon DNA database.
3. Funded through a small increase in criminal penalties, not a tax increase or deficit spending.
For more information: www.dnayes.org
Arguments Against:
1. Collects DNA of all arrestees, whether convicted or not, and stores it alongside the DNA of convicted felons.
2. DNA processing errors may become common, as Proposition 69 calls for immediate testing of 500,000 Californians.
For more information: www.protectmydna.com
Impartial legislative analysis of Proposition 69 (pdf)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_69_entire.pdf
return to top
Proposition 70: Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State.
Upon tribe’s request, Governor must execute 99-year compact. Tribes contribute percentage of net gaming income to state funds, in exchange for expanded, casino-style gaming.
Fremont Chamber position: No Position
Arguments For:
1. Casino gaming will be allowed to take place only on tribal lands and nowhere else.
2. Tribes will pay the same amount of state income tax as any other business in the state.
For more information: www.indianfairshare.com
Arguments Against:
1. Gives tribes a 99-year casino gaming agreement with no provision for casinos to be audited, or pay property or income taxes.
2. Destroys agreements made by Governor Schwarzenegger with several gaming tribes that would add $1 billion to the state’s bottom line.
3. Allows tribes to own an unlimited number of casinos with no size limits.
For more information: www.no68and70.org
Impartial legislative analysis of Proposition 70 (pdf)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_70_entire.pdf
return to top
Proposition 71: Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds.
A “yes” vote approves, and a “no” vote rejects legislation mandating employers with 20 or more employees provide health care coverage or pay into government-run health care program.
Fremont Chamber position: No Position
Arguments For:
1. Encourages economic development and supports California biotechnology industry,
2. Will generate new jobs and new state revenues by making California a leader in stem cell research and giving states an opportunity to share in royalties.
For more information: www.yeson71.com
Arguments Against:
1. Could increase the likelihood of human cloning.
2. Bonds should be issued to programs that already have proven to be cost-effective.
For more information: www.noon71.com
Impartial legislative analysis of Proposition 71 (pdf)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_71_entire.pdf
return to top
Proposition 72: Health Care Coverage Requirements. Referendum
A “yes” vote approves, and a “no” vote rejects legislation (SB2 {Burton}) that require employers with over 20 full time employees provide health care coverage or pay into a government-run health care program. If an employer chooses to directly provide health care, that employer will receive a credit against the fee for the state to provide health care. Employers that do not provide health care will have to pay the state system directly. Employers will have to provide at least 80% of health care costs, with employee contributions capped at 20%. Medium employers are 20-199 employees and large are 200 and above. Employees are those working at least 100 hours per month. Medium employers will have to comply by January 1, 2007 and large by January 1, 2006.
Fremont Chamber position: Oppose
Arguments for:
1. Requires large and medium sized employers to provide health care coverage for their employees and, in some cases, their dependents as well.
2. Makes health care more accessible to working families
For more information: www.yesonprop72.org
Arguments against:
1. Would increase costs to California businesses about $7B annually, reducing businesses’ competitive advantage
2. Forces employers to pay 80% or worker’s health care premiums, even if they cannot afford it.
For more information: www.noonprop72.org
Business Bottom Line…Do you want businesses over 20 employees to be required to pay employees’ health care premiums and create a state run health care program to administer it and oversee it?
Impartial legislative analysis of Proposition 72 (pdf)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_72_entire.pdf
return to top
LOCAL BALLOT INITIATIVES
Measure V: Utility Users Tax
Measure V will place, if passed by a majority of the electorate (50% + 1), new utility users tax (UUT) at a rate no higher than 6% on the use of: electricity; natural gas; telephone (wired and wireless); cable television (federal regulations currently preclude taxation of satellite television); water; and sewer. The tax was placed on the ballot by the Fremont City Council because of projected budget deficits in future years, including a $7.9M structural deficit for FY 05-06, and to restore prior cuts to general fund services such as police, fire, maintenance, and other services.
Fremont Chamber position: Oppose
Arguments for:
1. Fremont will be forced to cut additional services that are already low.
2. The tax is not subject to state takeaways because it is locally generated.
3. The City Council can lower or raise the rate as needed
Arguments against:
1. Enacts a tax on Fremont businesses at a time when they cannot afford it.
2. The tax’s revenue cannot be earmarked for any programs or purposes, only deposited into the General Fund, which is spent at the City Council’s discretion.
3. Fremont has out of control costs and is asking for taxpayers to pay for it.
Business Bottom Line… Do you want your business to pay a maximum tax of 6% on the total amount of each utility bill in order to pay for Fremont’s budget gap and additional public safety services?
return to top
Measure AA: BART Seismic Retrofit Bond
Measure AA will issue $980M in general obligation bonds to seismically retrofit the Transbay tube as well as bridges, overhead tracks, and tunnels in San Francisco, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties. Measure AA requires a supermajority of voters (66% + 1 vote) in all three counties combined to pass. This bond is part of a $1.307B seismic retrofit project, which BART needs an additional $50M to complete.
Fremont Chamber position: Support
Arguments for:
1. AA will provide the stable and reliable transportation system that people in the Bay Area in case of a major earthquake.
2. There is minimal cost to property owners in the BART District
Arguments against:
1. Places a large amount of debt ($980M) onto the BART district
2. AA will also not do anything to bring BART to Warm Springs or San Jose
Business Bottom Line… Do you want your business pay $7.04 for every $100,000 of assessed value of any property your business owns to pay for part of BART’s seismic retrofit project?
return to top
Measure FF: Washington Township Health Care District Bond Measure
Measure FF will upgrade and expand Washington Hospital’s facilities to make them more reliable during a catastrophic event like an earthquake, expand the emergency room, ICU, cardiac facilities, lab and x-ray facilities, add patient beds, expand walkways, etc. Measure FF will bring Washington Hospital into compliance with SB 1953, an unfunded mandate requiring California hospitals to be able to withstand a major earthquake by 2030. Measure FF will issue $190M in bonds, roughly 40% of the amount needed to complete the work noted above, to be repaid via a tax on parcels within the Washington Township Health Care District of slightly less than $10 for every $100,000 of assessed value.
Fremont Chamber position: Support
Arguments for:
1. FF will expand Washington Hospital and bring it up to date to meet current needs and future safety requirements.
2. In the event of an earthquake or terrorist attack, Washington Hospital will have the facilities to care for the injured.
Arguments against:
1. AA adds a significant cost burden onto Washington Hospital which will be passed onto the parcel owners.
Business Bottom Line…Do you want your business to pay slightly less than $10 for every $100,000 of assessed value your business owns to fund 40% of Washington Hospital’s capital improvements and earthquake retrofitting?
Link to the Fremont Chamber endorsement page:
http://www.fremontbusiness.com/PublicPolicy/endorsements.htm
Link to the California Secretary of State:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2004General
To see the California Chamber of Commerce's positions:
http://www.calchamber.com/index.cfm?navid=579
To see the official Voter Information Guide:
http://voterguide.ss.ca.gov/
The Fremont Chamber of Commerce is the advocate for the business community in Fremont. We are always seeking input from the business community regarding current and pending legislation. To voice your concerns, become part of a chamber sub committee, or to learn more about how government and businesses can work together, call or email Billy Sandbrink at 510-795-2244, ext 107. bsandbrink@fremontbusiness.com
|
