RobynNordell.com Conservative Election Recommendations

Robyn Nordell's Conservative California Election Website

Currently-Posted Recommendations were for the June 3, 2014 CA Primary Election

Coming in Oct 2014…
Recommendations for the November 4, 2014 CA General Election
 
CALIFORNIA STATE PROPOSITION INFORMATION
For the June 3, 2014 California State Primary Election


Additional Proposition Information will be added as it is received.

ROBYN RECOMMENDS:
NO on PROP 41
YES on PROP 42

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES

Orange County Register, Opinion Editorial: "Prop. 42 preserves open government, May 2, 2014"

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association's Proposition Recommendations for the JUNE 3, 2014 CA State Primary

SaveCalifornia.com's Proposition Recommendations for the June 3, 2014 CA State Primary

Christian Citizenship Council/Frank Kacer's Proposition Recommendations for the June 3, 2014 CA State Primary

CFRW-California Federation of Republican Women's Proposition Recommendations for the June 3, 2014 CA State Primary

Fullerton City Council Member Bruce Whitaker's Proposition Recommendations for the June 3, 2014 CA State Primary

Official State of California Voting Info on Propositions
Text of Propositions and Official Arguments For/Against the Propositions


SaveCalifornia.com's Proposition Recommendations for the June 3, 2014 CA State Primary

SaveCalifornia.com's Recommendation
PROP 41-NO
"Increases what every taxpayer owes -- bonds are more expensive than a tax"

Making California families pay $750 million more for another government program
No matter how good the government makes something sound, or how much it pulls at the heartstrings, the fact is that passing bonds like Prop. 41 will make California families go deeper into financial bondage to big, wasteful government. The Democrat politicians who wrote the ballot argument in favor of Prop. 41 deceptively claim, "This act doesn't create new taxes or add new debt to California." They're technically correct – because a) Prop. 41 is more expensive than a direct tax, and b) the State of California won't incur additional debt, but the taxpayers certainly will!

If Prop. 41 passes, working families will have to pay out more ($750 million), and that's always bad, because the more financial pressure, the less time that parents spend with their children or with each other. Realize a bond is more expensive than a direct tax because borrowing money requires paying back the principal and interest. And consider that the mental challenges of transients won't be solved by more government housing projects. How about tax credits for businesses that provide job training for veterans or cash payouts to Christian homeless shelters for every transient military veteran they turn around?

From the California Legislative Analyst: "This measure allows the state to sell $600 million in new general obligation bonds to fund affordable multifamily housing for low-income veterans. The general obligation bonds authorized by this measure would be repaid using state tax revenue, meaning that taxpayers would pay for the new program...the cost to taxpayers to repay the bonds would average about $50 million annually for 15 years. Vote No on 41".

SaveCalifornia.com's Recommendation
PROP 42-YES
"A small step for local government -- letting them pay for open books"

Making local governments shoulder the cost of providing public access to records and meetings
This constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by the California Legislature would do two simple things:

1) Make it a local government responsibility, not a state government responsibility, to make copies of documents upon request and show citizens records, etc. – which helps get us closer to "open government."

2) Make stronger (by placing it into the California Constitution) the current statutory requirement that local governments follow the Public Records Act (public access to government documents) and the Brown Act (public access to public meetings).

The result would be higher costs to local governments and savings to the state government. This is more efficient than the current method of local governments overbilling the state and then the state having to reimburse. Prop. 42 will actually motivate local governments to be more efficient in maintaining an open government, because they will be "paying" for this public service themselves. And importantly, never again can local governments refuse to provide information to the public by claiming a lack of state reimbursement. Vote Yes on Prop. 42."


Christian Citizenship Council/Frank Kacer's Proposition Recommendations for the June 3, 2014 CA State Primary

Prop 41 (Bond): Veterans Housing and Homeless Prevention Bond Act of 2014
Christian Citizenship Council's Recommendation

NO on 41

"Consider:
Original Veteran's Bond Act of 2008 approved the selling of $900 Million in general obligation bonds to purchase homes on behalf of veterans. Through monthly payments by veterans to the state, bond investors would be repaid without use of any tax revenue. This Proposition would re-purpose the voter approved Veteran's Bond Act of 2008 to allow $600 Million of unused bond authorization to acquire affordable: multifamily housing to relieve homelessness; transitional housing; rental housing; and related facilities for low income veterans; homeless and at risk veterans.

Concerns:
Every prior Veterans Bond Act to purchase homes on behalf of veterans was repaid by veterans at no expense to the taxpayer. This Proposition would re-purpose $600 Million in future state bond indebtedness to be paid back by tax revenues, not loans. Government debt (not living within means) is unwise at best, and beholding to investors in future budget obligations (Proverbs 22:7). Re-purposing debt from being tax neutral to tax dependent, no matter how noble, is a form of bait and switch (Proverbs 20:14) that sets a bad precedent for other bond authorizations to be re-purposed instead of eliminating indebtedness. Debt presumes upon the future (James 4:13-14) and is not a healthy government practice. Living within means (1 Timothy 6:10), saving for the future (Proverbs 13:11), and providing for veterans through budget tradeoffs is the proper approach by government."

Prop 42 (C): Public Records, Open Meetings, State Reimbursement to Local Agencies – Christian Citizenship Council's Recommendation
NO on 42

"Consider:
Existing California law (Public Records Act & Brown Act) requires local governments (city; county; school, community college districts, special districts) to provide access for public scrutiny of all meetings and related writings. In addition, when the state legislature changes the requirements of the Public Records Act it must compensate local government for any increased costs. This proposed Constitutional change would allow the state to impose new public records access requirements without compensating local governments for any additional costs.

Concerns:
The state Constitution already requires access to records and meetings of public officials and agencies to be open to public scrutiny (Luke 8:17; 12:2-3). If today these requirements are not consistently being fulfilled due to cost issues, new laws restating the requirements will have no real effect. If local elected representatives are not abiding by existing laws, they're not due the respect normally warranted (Romans 13:7) and need to be held accountable. Removing state responsibility to pay for mandates removes any incentive to minimize new, bureaucratic, and even politically biased requirements from being forced onto local governments. Requiring the state to compensate local governments ensures financial debate and some accountability."


CFRW-California Federation of Republican Women's Proposition Recommendations for the June 3, 2014 CA Primary Election

CFRW's Recommendation
PROP 41-NO

"After extensive research and analysis, the CFRW has come out against Prop 41.
Prop 41 is titled the Veterans Housing and Homeless Prevention Bond Act. Taken at face value, this would seem like a proposition we should support. But upon further review and analysis, Prop 41 does little to fix the homeless veteran problem and actually does more harm to veterans looking to purchase homes. Prop 41 would take $600 million away from the CalVet program, a $900 million bond program passed by voters in 2008, and instead uses that money to build multifamily, low income housing for homeless vets. The original CalVet program helped vets secure loans for purchasing property, homes, and farms. This new prop is leaving only $300 million for those vets and instead using $600 million in bond money to support approximately 19,000 homeless vets in the state of California. California has almost 2 million vets living here, yet we are shifting 2/3rds of already approved bond money to help 1% of vets in the state. We believe that the homeless vets should be helped- with a hand up, not a hand out. Prop 41 would build all new multifamily, low income housing, which is why labor unions are big supporters of the bill. But Prop 41 would also create a new tax liability for Californians, averaging in at least $50 million annually in new costs over the next 15 years. Prop 41 would also create new bureaucracies for its implementation, many of these overlapping with already established state and federal programs for our homeless vets. This creates more waste and unnecessary spending when this bond money could be better spent to help our vets. We believe that our vets deserve creative solutions. A robust economy and affordable, competitive college programs would help Californian veterans. How about tax credits for businesses that employ vets? Or reworking the CalVet program for better loan options for vets to purchase property themselves.

Prop 41 is the easy answer, not the right answer. We OPPOSE Prop 41!"

CFRW's Recommendation
PROP 42-YES

"By contrast, Prop 42 is a straightforward bill.
The CFRW Voting Body voted to SUPPORT Prop 42. Prop 42 is called the California Compliance of Local Agencies with Public Records Act. It would require that all local agencies comply with the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and the Brown Act. A good question would be: why weren't localities already complying with these important transparency acts? Prop 42 would guarantee a private citizen's right to open, public records and to attend public meetings. This could save the state millions of dollars by eliminating the requirement that the state reimburse local agencies for compliance with these laws. Now the local agencies must comply with these transparency laws and will be incentivized to keep costs down since the state will no longer reimburse costs. In an increasingly paperless world, most local agencies should make their records available online to keep costs low and transparency high. We SUPPORT Prop 42!"


Conservative Fullerton City Council Member Bruce Whitaker's Proposition Recommendations for the June 3, 2014 CA State Primary

Councilman Whitaker's Recommendation
PROP 41-NO


Proposition 41
I recommend a NO vote. California does not need any more general obligation debt. I do not support State or Local government intrusion into or expansion of attempts to create affordable housing. Using the natural affinity of the public to support veterans is a reprehensible tactic to obtain new funding, or offload current funding responsibilities. If Governor Brown would put away his HSR boondoggle, potential long term savings would yield more "budget dust" than this proposal would generate.

Councilman Whitaker's Recommendation
PROP 42-A STRONG YES


Proposition 42
A strong YES vote for Prop 42. Prevent the inflated costs of providing records/information to the public by putting the cost burden where it belongs. Unfortunately, League of Cities types are trying to reframe this Proposition as a State vs. Local government cost shift, calling it an unfunded mandate. However, nothing could be further from the truth. By forcing local governments to shoulder the costs of their lack of transparency or refusal to make information available . . . this proposition does make management of this compliance fully within LOCAL control. Bravo!


Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association's Proposition Recommendations for the June 3, 2014 CA Primary Election

BALLOT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TAXPAYERS
"The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association takes positions on issues of direct concern to taxpayers. We also may take positions on ballot measures that will impact the economy. This is because, as taxpayers, we know from painful experience that when the economy turns sour and tax revenues go down, governments' usual first reaction is to reach for the taxpayer's wallet."

HJTA Recommendation
PROP 41-NO


Prop. 41 Veterans Housing Bonds

"PLEASE NOTE: HJTA has changed its position on these bonds after additional information was brought to our attention by several alert HJTA Members.

Usually veterans bonds provide low interest mortgage loans to those who served our country. These bonds are repaid by the veterans themselves and Howard Jarvis always supported these bonds. However, a more detailed review shows that Prop. 41 bonds will be used to construct low income housing and the costs will be paid by state taxpayers.
VOTE NO!"

HJTA Recommendation
PROP 42-YES


Prop. 42:
"Requires local governments to comply with Brown Act and Public Records Act regardless of whether or not they are reimbursed by the state. Very important to guarantee that local taxpayers have access to public records.
VOTE YES!"