Here are my current thoughts on the propositions on my November 2024 ballot in Berkeley, in ballot order.
– You can also read my thoughts on candidates, or see a cheat sheet summary.
State-wide propositions
Yes on 2 (school facilities bond)
I generally vote for this sort of thing. It was near unanimous in the legislature (only 4 no votes across both houses), and my general opinion that the legislature should be able to govern makes me lean towards yes. The main argument against it is literally (and irrelevantly) complaining about healthcare for undocumented immigrants.
YES!!! on 3 (repeal prop 8! protect marriage from SCOTUS!)
In my first statewide general election in California in 2008, the hopeful joy of leaving the Bush era behind was made bittersweet by the awful enshrinement of homophobia into the California constitution by Prop 8.
Prop 8 was effectively overturned by federal courts in 2013 (a case that the Supreme Court ended up letting stand only because California chose not to appeal it), as well as by Obergefell in 2015 which made same-sex marriage the law of the land at the federal level.
But as we all know, the Supreme Court is currently completely unleashed, and several members of the conservative supermajority have explicitly stated that they want to overturn Obergefell. It’s easy to see that happening in the next few years… and if that happens, we do not want Prop 8 to be still on the books. (Heck, even if we could trust the Supreme Court, expunging its language from the California constitution is a worthwhile goal.) Plus it also enshrines interracial marriage into the California constitution, just in case the Supreme Court decides to overturn Loving v Virginia for everyone but Clarence Thomas.
YES ON 3.
Yes on 4 (water and wildfire bond)
I generally vote for this sort of thing, especially when passed by the legislature near-unanimously and only opposed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
YES on 5 (make local housing/infra bonds require smaller supermajority)
In the 70s and 80s, anti-tax zealots got a series of state propositions passed which seriously damaged the abilities of local governments to raise and spend money. 1978’s Prop 13 severely capped the total amount of taxes local governments could raise. 1986’s Prop 46 allowed local governments to raise money for construction via bonds that were repaid by additional taxes, but these bonds required an anti-democratic two-thirds super-majority of voters to approve.
My general opinion is that it raising and spending money via taxes is one of the primarily purposes of the government, and making it significantly hard to do so is a problem. Prop 5 would lower the super-majority requirement for bonds used for some kinds of housing and infrastructure from 67% to 55%. This will make it easier for local governments to take on affordable housing and infrastructure projects. The only opposition is from anti-tax conservatives. (The SF Chronicle appears to be opposed to it on the grounds that its revenue is apparently only usable in certain locations, which I cannot find in the actual text of the bill, and in any case it still is an incremental step in the right direction. Perhaps if the SF Chronicle wanted their endorsements to be more influential, they could remove them from their paywall.)
So this is an easy yes for me.
Yes on 6 (end prison slavery)
This is an easy proposition to support. It passed the legislature near-unanimously (unanimously in the Assembly!) and has no official argument against it.
The most compelling argument for me is that this isn’t California trying some wacky out-there idea: we’re in fact one of only 16 states that haven’t adopted this already!
Yes on 32 (increase minimum wage)
I’m generally in favor of higher minimum wages, and organizations I respect endorse this. It’s a little weird that the change is effective immediately on larger employers, but still seems fine on the whole. Berkeley’s minimum wage is still higher than where this ends up.
Yes on 33 (repeal costa-hawkins to allow more rent control)
I’ve voted for essentially the same proposition when it was Prop 10 in 2018 and a weaker version as Prop 21 in 2020. The points I made there still stand: rent control in most of the state now only applies to buildings that are at least 29 years old, and that’s 45 years in Berkeley, Oakland, and SF! Note that this means that nearly all housing built after the Americans with Disabilities Act (and all such housing in Berkeley, Oakland, and SF) is permanently ineligible for local rent control. A friend filed a lawsuit about this particular point, and this argument is pretty compelling to me. Additionally, rent control without vacancy control incentivizes evictions (or degradation of property quality to inspire tenants to move out).
The main argument I’ve seen in favor of keeping Costa-Hawkins around is that the idea that California’s 2019 statewide rent control law (which unlike Costa-Hawkins, does have a moving window on how old a building has to be in order to be eligible for rent control) is basically good enough and local rent control is unnecessary and purely serves as a way for municipalities to block development. To be honest, I’d slightly prefer a proposition like the 2020 version which places some restrictions on local laws (no rent control on buildings less than 15 years old, vacancy control allowed but with limits, etc). But this is the one we get this year and this is the one I’m going to vote for.
No on 34 (prevent one particular nonprofit from funding ballot measures)
This is a proposition written by the apartment lobby aimed specifically at prevent one organization, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, from funding ballot measures (like Prop 33 on this ballot!). I sometimes appreciate the AHF-backed propositions (like Prop 33), and I sometimes disagree with them. And I kinda wish in general that there were fewer propositions. But just from a procedural standpoint, I can’t vote for a proposition that’s just one group trying to silence their political opponents.
Yes? on 35 (make existing health care tax permanent)
This proposition mostly stops an existing tax from expiring, and has no official opposition. Sounds good at first glance.
That said, it doesn’t just stop the tax from expiring. It also tweaks exactly what it is used for, and it in fact does have some opposition, primarily from smaller community health organizations who may lose funding, as well as from groups like the League of Women Voters who object (among other reasons) to the fact that this is being proposed by petition rather than from the legislature (which is where the original iterations of this tax came from). That is somewhat compelling and I’m reconsidering my initial inclination to just say yes.
NO!!! on 36 (more incarceration for smaller crimes)
This proposition is trying to ride the media crime fearmongering wave to drastically increase penalties for small nonviolent theft and drug crimes. Throwing more poor people in prison for smaller infractions may be a popular way to feel like we’re doing something about crime, but it’s not a serious solution to our society’s woes, many of which are over-exaggerated by the media in the first place. Don’t roll back California’s positive steps towards reducing our country’s obsession with putting people in cages.
Berkeley propositions
Yes on W (maintain and increase high-end real estate transfer tax)
In 2018, I supported raising the tax on properties sold for $1.5 million or more (a target that periodically adjusts to match the top 1/3 of sale prices). This tax will expire in a few years unless extended.
This proposition extends the tax, and raises it a bit more on the top 20% and top 5% of sales.
I liked this the first time, and I don’t want it to expire. I appreciate the automatic rebalancing of the original measure and this one, so that inflation doesn’t lead to this tax affecting more and more sales over time.
YES on X (library tax)
This tax increases funding for our libraries, effectively increasing everyone’s library tax bill by 21%. This is a relatively small tax for the high quality of service provided by the Berkeley Public Library. Recently, our local library added Sunday hours: it’s great to see government agencies increasing services, and I’m happy to appropriately fund these vital services. There is no argument against.
Yes on Y (parks and trees tax)
Like the previous measure, this raises another tax by about 20%. I support our parks and trees, and there is no argument against.
YES on Z (continue soda tax)
Berkeley’s soda tax (started in 2014 right before I moved to Berkeley) is due to expire soon. As far as I can tell, it has been a success: consumption of sugary drinks is down, and the tax funds things I care about like the BUSD gardening program. It’s not hard to convince me to continue existing taxes, and there’s no argument against.
YES on AA (let us spend our budget)
Because the California constitution has been mangled by greedy anti-tax anti-civilization assholes, every city needs to pass this ballot measure every 4 years in order to actually use tax money that has already been voted on. All it does is say “Those taxes you’re paying? We’re allowed to spend that money even though it’s more than our budget was in 1986”. If this fails, we’ll still be paying the same taxes but the city will be forced to sit on part of the money for no good reason. (This answer copied from 2016’s V1 and 2020’s LL and I assume I’ll write it again in 2028.)
Yes on BB (strengthen rent control)
I’m generally in favor of rent control, as described above. The changes in BB generally look positive to me. Honestly, I was going to spend more energy stressing about this one, but the main arguments against rent control that I respect are about its negative impact on housing construction, and if East Bay For Everyone (the local YIMBY group) endorses BB anyway, that’s good enough for me.
No on CC (weaken rent control)
I’m generally in favor of rent control, as described above. This removes a bunch of rent and eviction protections, and for some reason also raises the cap on rent increases from 7.0% to 7.1%, which just seems spiteful.
No on DD (symbolic factory farm ban)
This would ban factory farms that don’t exist in Berkeley from starting here. And it might ban Golden Gate Fields from being reused for its old purpose (which seems unlikely at this point). It seems largely symbolic, unlike the highly contentious similar measure in Sonoma County (which I think I’d probably vote no on if I lived there, but I haven’t fully researched since I don’t have to).
I’m a little suspicious of the motivation behind this measure… I can’t tell if it comes from DxE, the group that ran a sketchy campaign for Berkeley Mayor in 2020 (they certainly support it). It doesn’t seem like it makes a huge difference either way, and I’m probably voting no.
NO!!! on EE (poison pill anti-street-safety trick)
YES!!! on FF (pave streets and make them safer)
This is a pair of propositions that will raise money to repave Berkeley’s streets. At most one can win: if both pass, whichever one gets more votes will win.
Berkeley FF comes from people I know and trust who want to ensure that the overdue repaving prioritizes safety, especially for pedestrians and cyclists.
Berkeley EE comes from people who are either just cheap and anti-tax, or who reflexively oppose anything making life safer and easier for people who aren’t in cars. Their proponents are explicitly opposed to separated bike infrastructure.
The EE materials claim that their measure has better accountability than FF, but this is a lie. In fact, FF has a requirement that the city cannot use it as an excuse to spend less on street maintenance from their existing budget, and EE does not.
I feel very strongly about these measures. My family uses Berkeley’s bike infrastructure extensively, and while it has improved somewhat, it’s far behind what Oakland and SF has done recently. Berkeley passed a bike plan in 2017 that it has barely implemented in the 7 years since. We need funding for these necessary safety improvements… not to mention just generally keeping the road safe. Please vote yes on FF and vote no on EE.
No on GG (natural gas tax)
I think focusing decarbonization efforts on transportation (making getting around without cars easier, safer, and more affordable) rather than natural gas in buildings makes sense, but I still supported Berkeley’s ban on installing natural gas in new constructions (as much as I love cooking with gas). Unfortunately, that ban was overturned by courts. This is a proposed replacement for that policy: a large tax on natural gas use in large buildings.
I’m usually in favor of taxes. That said, this is explicitly a high tax to discourage use. The tax is $2.96 per therm; looking at my latest bill, this is greater than the cost of gas itself (and the “no on GG” folks describe this as a tripling of cost). Prop Z’s soda tax is also a high tax to discourage use, but soda is much less vital than heating. The buildings that will pay this tax cannot transition to electric immediately (or perhaps ever), and the tax goes into effect in January.
I appreciate the underlying goal here, but adding this “sin tax” immediately to existing businesses seems like overkill. If Prop 32 was doubling minimum wage, I’d vote against that too!
No? on HH (municipal building indoor air quality standards)
I definitely support the goals of this proposition. Everyone will be healthier if air quality is drastically improved in the municipal buildings that we need to be in to interact with our city. But I’m not sure that this should be an unfunded requirement from a proposition, with a blanket requirement across all 90+ buildings (including historic landmarks) and a due date of April! I hope that this being on the ballot inspires City Council to do this themselves, and if they don’t, I’ll happily vote for a better version of this in two years.