Michael Taylor
If you’re as confused about all these ballot measures as I was, you’re not alone. I’ve gone through every one of them, looking at what each measure actually does, what it could cost taxpayers, and the arguments on both sides.
Having spent decades in Nevada County—and a good deal of time involved with local government, construction and permitting, housing issues, budgets and elections—I’ve seen firsthand how decisions made in Sacramento and at the ballot box eventually affect us here at home.
What follows is where I landed and how I’m voting. I’ve linked each proposition to California’s official voter guide so you can do your own research, consider both sides and reach your own conclusions. You may not agree with all of mine, and that’s OK. My goal is simply to explain how I got there.
California has a serious housing affordability problem, but borrowing $11.25 billion is not the solution I support. The state estimates repayment will cost roughly $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years. We need to reduce the underlying costs and regulatory barriers to building housing rather than continually borrowing more money.
I support saving for difficult economic times and paying down debt. But after reviewing this measure, I’m voting no. California needs genuine spending discipline and responsible budgeting, not simply another constitutional adjustment to how Sacramento handles its money.
This measure would make permanent higher income-tax rates that are currently scheduled to expire in 2031. “Temporary” taxes should not quietly become permanent taxes.
This would allow state and local governments to establish programs using public money to finance political campaigns. I don’t believe taxpayers should be required to help finance politicians or candidates they may strongly oppose.
California’s existing recall process gives voters a direct voice not only on whether a statewide official should be recalled but also on who should replace that person. I see no compelling reason to take that second decision away from voters.
Helping middle-income families buy homes sounds attractive, but Proposition 37 would authorize up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to finance homebuyer loans of up to 17% of a qualifying new home’s purchase price. The program is designed so homeowners’ payments repay the bonds, and the Legislative Analyst estimates no direct state or local government costs.
My concern is that giving buyers access to more financing doesn’t address why California homes cost so much in the first place. I worry it could allow buyers to borrow more, support higher home prices and ultimately benefit developers and sellers more than homeowners. I’m also uncomfortable with the downside risk if California experiences another severe recession and housing collapse like 2008–09, when falling home values, unemployment and mortgage defaults can occur together. For those reasons, I’m voting no.
I’m fiscally conservative and generally opposed to new taxes and government bonds. While this $8.4 billion medical-research bond has bipartisan support and includes taxpayer safeguards such as independent audits, administrative spending limits and potential revenue sharing, I remain concerned about the financial commitment. Approximately $4.2 billion would be directed to a single, relatively new research institute, while California taxpayers would remain responsible for repaying the bonds regardless of whether the research generates sufficient revenue. I support medical research, but California needs greater fiscal discipline and accountability, not another multibillion-dollar bond. For those reasons, I’m voting no.
I believe election integrity requires protecting both sides of the equation: every eligible citizen should be able to vote, and we should have reasonable safeguards confirming the identity and eligibility of those casting ballots. Requiring government-issued identification is a reasonable safeguard in my view.
This imposes a one-time tax of up to 5% on certain taxpayers with covered assets valued above $1 billion. My objection goes beyond who pays it. Taxing accumulated wealth rather than income creates difficult questions about valuing privately held businesses, investments, intellectual property, art and other assets while establishing a precedent I don’t support.
I am very skeptical of new or special taxes. But if government is going to collect them, taxpayers deserve meaningful independent audits and accountability for how that money is spent. Proposition 41 also restricts new state taxes from excluding their revenues from California’s constitutional spending limit.
This measure would prohibit new state personal-property taxes, including taxes on financial assets, business interests and intellectual property, and prohibit certain retroactive state taxes. I oppose wealth taxes on accumulated property, so I support putting that limitation into California’s Constitution.
A special tax dedicated to a particular purpose should require broad voter agreement. Proposition 43 would require voter-initiated local special taxes to receive two-thirds voter approval rather than a simple majority. I believe the threshold for a special tax should not depend on who put it on the ballot.
Requiring covered nonprofit community health clinics to spend at least 90% of their revenue on program services sounds appealing, but operating a health-care organization also requires administration, technology, facilities, regulatory compliance and financial reserves. I’m uncomfortable imposing a one-size-fits-all spending formula through a statewide ballot initiative.
California has made it too difficult, expensive and time-consuming to build housing and essential infrastructure. I agree with the California Association of REALTORS® and contractor and building-industry organizations supporting Proposition 45: reasonable deadlines for environmental review and permitting can reduce delays, uncertainty and costs while still requiring environmental review. We need to protect our environment, but we also need to actually build housing, water systems, wildfire protection, hospitals, schools, energy and transportation projects.
And Three Local Measures
Not every Nevada County voter will see these measures. They apply only to voters living within the jurisdictions involved.
I was initially skeptical of another $19.8 million Pleasant Ridge Union School District bond and the property-tax assessment that comes with it. As a fiscal conservative, I generally oppose new taxes and government bonds. However, Measure M includes important taxpayer safeguards, including independent audits and citizens’ oversight, with the money remaining local and none going toward administrator salaries. Surprisingly, it also has bipartisan support, something increasingly uncommon in today’s political environment. After looking beyond the word “bond” and reviewing the accountability provisions and projects the money would fund, I’m voting yes on Measure M.
Measure P — I’ll Leave This One to the Community
I’m fiscally conservative and strongly opposed to new taxes and government bonds unless there is a compelling, clearly demonstrated need, responsible spending and meaningful taxpayer accountability. However, Measure P concerns the Tahoe Truckee Unified School District, a community where I neither live nor have children attending school. I believe this decision belongs to the residents who will bear the financial responsibility, particularly parents whose children attend these schools. They are in a much better position to evaluate the district’s needs, priorities and proposed costs. This is outside my area of direct involvement, and I respect the community’s responsibility to make that decision. I’ll leave this one to them.
Nevada City’s Measure Q would replace the existing residential short-term-rental registration system with a more restrictive permitting framework. My concern is that I have not seen an economic-impact study examining what reducing the number of legally permitted STRs could mean for local businesses, tourism or city revenues, nor an analysis of the economic consequences of the proposed 300-foot spacing requirement in downtown neighborhoods.
Before restricting an existing economic activity, I believe those impacts should be understood. Nevada City should also address the larger issues of housing supply, density and thoughtful expansion rather than assuming further restrictions on STRs will solve its housing problems.
Do Your Own Homework
These are my choices—not instructions for yours.
With 14 statewide propositions plus local measures, I encourage everyone to spend some time reading before voting. I’ve provided links to neutral government information because I would rather have someone disagree with me after doing their own research than simply vote based on a television commercial, political mailer, social-media post or political party.
Read the measures. Look at who supports and opposes them. Follow the money. Consider the costs and unintended consequences. Then make up your own mind.
Whatever conclusions you reach, please vote.
