Ballot Recommendations for November 2020 Statewide Measures
Read our recommendations on the November ballot measures and VOTE with the Ventura
County Taxpayers Association.
No on 14 Why we're against it In 2004, California voters authorized $3 billion in bonds to create and fund the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine to support stem cell research. The money is gone and the CIRM wants voters to approve another $7.8 billion including interest. Today, there are billions of venture capital and corporate dollars actively seeking to invest in stem cell research, thereby negating the proponents' arguments that $5.5 billion is required to fund the CIRM's efforts and overhead for the next 15 years. Ventura County Taxpayers Association (VCTA) opposes this measure. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 14. No on 15 Why we're against it This is the treacherous "split roll" property tax, a direct attack on Proposition 13. Proposition 15 would repeal part of Prop. 13 and require reassessment to market value of business properties. It would raise taxes on supermarkets, shopping malls, office buildings, factories, movie theaters, hotels, restaurants, sports stadiums, warehouses, self-storage facilities, major retailers and other businesses where Californians work or shop. Even the smallest businesses that lease space will face higher rents, or will have to pay the higher property taxes as part of their "triple net" lease agreement. Those higher costs are passed on to consumers. Proposition 15 would raise prices, increase the cost of living and put countless jobs at risk as companies cut back or leave the state. The proponents of this measure are seeking to weaken Proposition 13, and we can guess why. They could come after homeowners next. Ventura County Taxpayers Association urges you to Protect Prop. 13. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 15. No on 18 Why we're against it Proposition 18 would change the voting age in California to allow 17-year-olds to vote in primaries and special elections if they will turn 18 by the date of the next general election. While some states allow this, California is different from other states because under Prop. 13 and Prop. 218, tax increases must go on the ballot for voter approval. These proposed tax increases are frequently on primary and special election ballots. Proposition 18 would allow high school students to vote on tax increases. This is unwise. The voting age in California should not be changed. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 18. No on 19 Why we're against it Proposition 19 takes away important taxpayer protections that have been enshrined in the State Constitution since 1986. That's when 76% of voters approved Proposition 58 to allow parents to transfer a home and limited other property to their children without an increase in property taxes. Proposition 19 eliminates Proposition 58 and a similar measure, Proposition 193, which gives the same protection to transfers between grandparents and grandchildren if the children's parents are deceased. Proposition 19 would require property transferred within families to be reassessed to market value as of the date of transfer, resulting in a huge property tax increase for long-held family homes. The only exception is if the children move into the home within a year and make it their principal residence. This is a billion-dollar tax increase on California families. Proposition 19 contains other provisions to expand the opportunities for older homeowners to transfer the base-year value of their home (under Prop. 13) to a replacement home. This was on the ballot in November 2018 as Proposition 5, but voters rejected it. Now, with a massive tax increase added, the price is too high. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 19. No on 21 Why we're against it Proposition 21 would change state law to allow radical rent control laws to be passed in cities that are already suffering from an inadequate supply of housing. In 2016, California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office issued a report that found that expanding rent control "likely would discourage new construction" by limiting the profitability of new rental housing. Under current law-the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act-housing providers have the right to raise the rent on a vacant unit to market value after a tenant moves out. The same law also bans rent control on units constructed after February 1995 and on single-family homes and condos. Proposition 21 would repeal this law and allow unelected rent boards (or elected rent boards) to impose radical rent control and regulations, even on single-family homes. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 21. Yes on 22 Why we're for it This ballot initiative, if passed would consider app-based drivers to be independent contractors and not employees or agents. Therefore, the ballot measure would override Assembly Bill 5 signed in September 2019, on the question of whether app-based drivers are employees or independent contractors. The ballot initiative would define app-based drivers as workers who (a) provide delivery services on an on-demand basis through a business's online-enabled application or platform or (b) use a personal vehicle to provide prearranged transportation services for compensation via a business's online-enabled application or platform. More than one million Californians are affected by AB5. By a 4-to-1 margin, independent surveys show these app-based drivers overwhelmingly prefer to work as independent contractors with flexibility and control of their schedules. Eighty percent (80%) of app-based drivers work only part-time and rely on flexible work to supplement income and provide for their families. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 22 No on 23 Why we're against it The main provision of the ballot measure mandates that each of the roughly 600 dialysis clinics in California have a physician on the premises during all operating hours, in a non-caregiving, bureaucratic role. This provision alone would result in increased state and local health care costs, resulting from increased dialysis treatment costs. These increased costs will be passed on to all of us in the form of higher insurance premiums and higher taxes for government-sponsored health care. The increase of patient costs and burden to the insurance systems may create a cascading affect resulting in numerous clinic reductions of services and closures. These reductions would put an increased pressure on the remaining, operating dialysis clinics. Further, This proposition will take thousands of practicing doctors away from their current patients and push them into bureaucratic roles at the 600 dialysis clinics across California - making it harder for all of us to get appointments with our doctors and treatment at our hospitals. It makes no sense to require a full-time physician to sit around in a dialysis clinic in a non-care role, at a time when our doctor shortage is only projected to worsen. Ventura County Taxpayers Association (VCTA) opposes this measure. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 23.
The Ventura County Taxpayer Association is made up people who recognize the importance of government to our communities. Government should be efficient, effective and always transparent. If you would like to support our efforts, please click here to go to our website and join us. Thank you.