• Prop.1 - NO

  •  

  • Prop.2 - NO

  •  

  • Prop.3 - NO

  •  

  • Prop.4 - NP

  •  

  • Prop.5 - YES

  •  

  • Prop.6 - YES

  •  

  • Prop.7 - NO

  •  

  • Prop.8 - NO

  •  

  • Prop.10- NO

  •  

  • Prop.11- YES

"You can not help men permenatly by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves"

              - Abraham Lincoln

Prop. 10

PROP 10: ALLOWS EXPANDED RENT CONTROL

 

WHAT IT DOES

Allow cities to introduce new restrictions on market rents or expand existing rent control policies.

HOW IT GOT ON THE BALLOT

The California legislature passed the Costa-Hawkins Act in 1995, which placed a statewide moratorium on rent control laws. It also banned cities from applying existing rent regulation ordinances to new units. Now that the state is facing an affordable housing crisis, some housing advocates want to give cities a tool to put a legal lid on rents.

ESTIMATED COST

It depends. If cities across the state enact new rent control laws or expand old ones, that could result in reduced property values and less construction, resulting in lower tax revenue. It could also allow existing tenants who save on lower rent to spend more on consumer goods, resulting in higher sales tax. And then again, it's possible that very few cities will respond with new laws at all, in which case the effect will be negligible.

SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS

The rent is too damn high! California renters are being priced out of the state's big cities, driving them out into the suburbs, out of state, or onto the street. This is a crisis that needs an immediate solution, even as lawmakers work on a longer term fix.

OPPOSING ARGUMENTS

If rents are kept artificially low, it becomes less profitable to build new units or maintain and improve old ones. That's counterproductive: a shortage of housing is how we got into this mess to begin with.

 

The Los Angeles Hispanic Republican Club asks you to Vote No on Prop 10.

The rents are high due to the financial burdens placed on Housing Providers by Politicians.

Clear example is the Exclusive Commercial Trash Franchise forced on Housing Providers in Los Angeles. A Housing Provider with a four-unit building was paying $74.00 per month for Trash Pick Up. Under the Franchise the rate is $474.00. That 400.00 increase is passed onto the Renter. The money is not kept by the Housing Provider, it goes to trash company!

The City gave the Monopoly Style Exclusive Rights to the Hauler. Then the City takes 12% of the Gross.  Over and over the cost of Housing is created by politicians and policy makers.

Do not reward those who are driving up the cost of Housing by giving them more power over Housing and placing even more burdens on those who provide housing, the Housing Provider.

 

Vote No on Prop 10.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Los Angeles Hispanic Republican Club request a Yes Vote on Prop 6.

 

While those opposing the measure say there has been no tax increase in decades, this only applies to California State Taxes. Federal Taxes , City Taxes and increased gasoline prices have skyrocketed as a direct result of policies imposed by the State of California.

 

In addition to the increased costs, the funding diverted from the existing tax revenue stream is a major factor for the unsound condition of the roads.

 

We have already seen as much as 30% of the Gas Tax Funds diverted to non-roadway projects under the guise of “transportation” ie the High Speed Rail Project and Bike Lanes.

 

State Legislators with a real commitment to repair the roads have proposed a sound strategy  to address the issue without placing this unfair burden on the middle class and working poor.

 

Vote Yes on Prop 6.

PROP 6: GAS TAX REPEAL

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.

 

The Los Angeles Hispanic Republican Club asks that you vote Yes on Prop 5.

 

This will go along way in making affordable housing available. As this applies only to those who are already protected, it is a net 0 loss in revenue to the State.

 

Do not penalize Seniors and retirees and forced them to lose their Prop 13 protection.

 

 

Vote Yes on Prop 5.

Site designed by Art of the Light