2020 California Propositions

[nosuchreality]

The bail one (prop 25) is interesting. 

The main arguments against it say that computer algorithms tend to affect certain people more than others.  Basically they say they discriminate.

Really what they want is for judges to discriminate in favor of certain "disadvantaged" groups.  Automation wouldn't allow judges to discriminate.

There isn't an AI/rules system that they haven't found to discriminate.  Maybe it's not discrimination.  Maybe that's just the way things are.  (Not saying that they will use AI.)

The only scary part for me is the Black Mirror stuff. 
- How does it come to it's decision? 
- What variables are fed to the algorithm? 
- Is it smart enough to actually assess the risk?

The only ad I've seen for prop 25 is the class warfare Stanford rapist versus the black senior citizen one.

Both examples highlight the problem isn't cash bail, it's a dumbass judge.

 

[riznick]

Prop 14: No
Prop 15: Yes

• Though I don't know why we constantly need to find more and more money for Education each election.  Where is it all going?

Prop 16: NO
Prop 17: No

• If they can't vote when they are in jail, then why should they be allowed to vote while on parole?  Parole is still part of their punishment sentence

Prop 18: No

• The reason is that a lot of the meat happens in the primaries.  Especially in California.  It is where candidates get weeded out.  It's where you vote for your party's candidate.  We need an age cut off across the board and 18 seems to be the reasonable number.  Often the primaries are more important than the general election because parties normally win the general election regardless of the candidate who is in the party.
• It is pretty short sighted to think that only the November election has consequences.

Prop 19: Yes

• It is certainly a cash grab.  It acts like it's just for people affected by disasters.  In reality, it's about getting more property tax from people who inherit property.
• I am borderline no, just because it is so deceptive. 

Prop 20: Yes
Prop 21: No

• This creates scenarios where people end up locked to their rentals.  It is also unfair to the homeowners.  It is unfair to people who own older homes.
• There are better ways to reduce the # of rentals, if that's a problem we are trying to solve.

Prop 22: N/A

• It's very easy to exploit gig based workers.  Yes, they are free to do what they want, but in plenty of cases that I've seen many make less than min wage. 
• I don't have a problem with Uber/Lift/Doordash however. 

Prop 23: No
Prop 24: No

• I am borderline yes, but the thing is 52 pages of regulation.  There is too much in it.

Prop 25: Yes

• I normally wouldn't vote on something that I am pretty ignorant on.  Oh well.

Feel free to try to change my mind before November.

 

[riznick]

The only ad I've seen for prop 25 is the class warfare Stanford rapist versus the black senior citizen one.

Both examples highlight the problem isn't cash bail, it's a dumbass judge.

Wow, I just watched that commercial.  You are correct.  IMO, it is cringey and uses logical fallacy. 
I also watched another one that says it makes our communities safer.  I don't know about that.  Maybe we are safer from getting stuck with a high bail when we are innocent.  We aren't safer when we release criminals right away, however.  That will happen.
Both those commercials are crap. 

And yet, I tend to lean towards "Yes" on this bill.

I've seen bail get weaponized too many times.  There are plenty of cases where someone gets a million dollar bail and someone else gets a tenth of that for the same crime.  The person with the million dollar bail will often opt to just sit in prison for that time instead.

Also, I feel that bail does restrict our rights, and we do get punished.  Say you are innocent, but now have to pay the interest on the bail.  Say that you get a $100,000 bail.  You are going to pay around $8000 out of your pocket for that if you don't have it.  If you are innocent, you still lose that money.  If you don't have that money then you sit in jail. 

 

[iacrenter]

I'm leaning toward NO on Prop 15. They are attacking Prop 13 one piece at a time. I can seem them coming back next year and redefining "residential property" to carve out another piece to tax. Maybe they will cap the first $1M of assessment at a lower rate or maybe add in income or age cut offs for tax protection. This of course is all done in the good name of "more money for education." I'm tired of this state raising more fees and taxes for education, yet the quality of education hasn't risen at the same rate.

 

[riznick]

I'm leaning toward NO on Prop 15. They are attacking Prop 13 one piece at a time. I can seem them coming back next year and redefining "residential property" to carve out another piece to tax.

A lot of people feel that way.  It is certainly something to be concerned about.  I was hesitant at first for that reason.  I don't think that this will take us down that slope, though. 

Maybe they will cap the first $1M of assessment at a lower rate or maybe add in income or age cut offs for tax protection. This of course is all done in the good name of "more money for education." I'm tired of this state raising more fees and taxes for education, yet the quality of education hasn't risen at the same rate.

True

 

[Kenkoko]

Follow the money 

CA realtors dropping $41 million  >

 

[nosuchreality]

So reading through my ballot, I discovered that the Senior Citizen accused of stealing $5 is named in the for arguments of the proposition.

His initial bail was set at $600,000.  Then reduced to $350K, before the CA Supreme Court kicked it out saying it was unconstitutional.

It also appears that there is more to the story and not just $5. 

Humphrey, 64, is accused of entering his elderly neighbor's home, threatening him and then stealing $5 and a bottle of cologne. He was initially booked into jail last May and charged with burglary, robbery, elder abuse and theft. Humphrey has remained in custody since then.

Even with that, $600K seems gratuitous

Still, reading on in Findlaw,https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1886990.html.

And we blunder into priors (granted more than 14 years ago [assuming that means 15 years ago])

Petitioner, a retired shipyard laborer, is 63 years of age and a lifelong resident of San Francisco. On May 23, 2017 (all dates are in that year), at approximately 5:43 p.m., San Francisco police officers responded to 1239 Turk Street regarding a robbery. The complaining witness, Elmer J., who was 79 years of age and used a walker, told the officers he was returning to his fourth floor apartment when a man, later identified as petitioner, followed him into his apartment and asked him about money. At one point petitioner told Elmer to get on the bed and threatened to put a pillow case over his head. When Elmer said he had no money, petitioner took Elmer's cell phone and threw it onto the floor. After Elmer gave him $2, petitioner stole $5 and a bottle of cologne and left. Elmer did not know or recognize petitioner. While reviewing the surveillance video with front desk clerks, the officers were informed that the African-American person in the video was petitioner, who lived in an apartment on the third floor of the building. The officers went to petitioner's apartment and arrested him without incident. Petitioner was subsequently charged with first degree robbery (Pen. Code, ? 211),3 first degree residential burglary (? 459), inflicting injury (but not great bodily injury) on an elder and dependent adult (? 368, subd. (c)), and theft from an elder or dependent adult, charged as a misdemeanor. (? 368, subd. (d).)

The Initial Setting of Bail

At his arraignment on May 31, petitioner sought release on his own recognizance without financial conditions based on his advanced age, his community ties as a lifelong resident of San Francisco and his unemployment and financial condition, as well as the minimal property loss he was charged with having caused, the age of the three alleged priors (the most recent of which was in 1992), the absence of a criminal record of any sort for more than 14 years, and his never previously having failed to appear at a court ordered proceeding. Petitioner also invited the court to impose an appropriate stay-away order regarding the victim who, as noted, lived on a different floor of the same ?senior home? in which appellant resided.

The prosecutor did not affirmatively argue for pretrial detention pursuant to article 1, section 12, of the California Constitution, but simply asked the court to ?follow the PSA [Public Safety Assessment] recommendation, which is that release is not recommended,? and requested bail in the amount of $600,000, as prescribed by the bail schedule, and a criminal protective order directing petitioner to stay away from the victim.

After indicating it had read the Public Safety Assessment Report on petitioner, the trial court stated as follows: ?I appreciate the fact that Mr. Humphrey has had a lengthy history of contact here in the City and County of San Francisco. I also note counsel's argument that many of his convictions are older in nature; however, given the seriousness of this crime, the vulnerability of the victim, as well as the recommendation from pretrial services, I'm not going to grant him OR [release on his own recognizance] or any kind of supervised release at this time. I will set bail in the amount of $600,000 and sign the criminal protective orders to [stay] away from [the victim].?

 

[riznick]

So reading through my ballot, I discovered that the Senior Citizen accused of stealing $5 is named in the for arguments of the proposition.

His initial bail was set at $600,000.  Then reduced to $350K, before the CA Supreme Court kicked it out saying it was unconstitutional.

It also appears that there is more to the story and not just $5. 

Humphrey, 64, is accused of entering his elderly neighbor's home, threatening him and then stealing $5 and a bottle of cologne. He was initially booked into jail last May and charged with burglary, robbery, elder abuse and theft. Humphrey has remained in custody since then.

Even with that, $600K seems gratuitous

Still, reading on in Findlaw,https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1886990.html.

And we blunder into priors (granted more than 14 years ago [assuming that means 15 years ago])

Petitioner, a retired shipyard laborer, is 63 years of age and a lifelong resident of San Francisco. On May 23, 2017 (all dates are in that year), at approximately 5:43 p.m., San Francisco police officers responded to 1239 Turk Street regarding a robbery. The complaining witness, Elmer J., who was 79 years of age and used a walker, told the officers he was returning to his fourth floor apartment when a man, later identified as petitioner, followed him into his apartment and asked him about money. At one point petitioner told Elmer to get on the bed and threatened to put a pillow case over his head. When Elmer said he had no money, petitioner took Elmer's cell phone and threw it onto the floor. After Elmer gave him $2, petitioner stole $5 and a bottle of cologne and left. Elmer did not know or recognize petitioner. While reviewing the surveillance video with front desk clerks, the officers were informed that the African-American person in the video was petitioner, who lived in an apartment on the third floor of the building. The officers went to petitioner's apartment and arrested him without incident. Petitioner was subsequently charged with first degree robbery (Pen. Code, ? 211),3 first degree residential burglary (? 459), inflicting injury (but not great bodily injury) on an elder and dependent adult (? 368, subd. (c)), and theft from an elder or dependent adult, charged as a misdemeanor. (? 368, subd. (d).)

The Initial Setting of Bail

At his arraignment on May 31, petitioner sought release on his own recognizance without financial conditions based on his advanced age, his community ties as a lifelong resident of San Francisco and his unemployment and financial condition, as well as the minimal property loss he was charged with having caused, the age of the three alleged priors (the most recent of which was in 1992), the absence of a criminal record of any sort for more than 14 years, and his never previously having failed to appear at a court ordered proceeding. Petitioner also invited the court to impose an appropriate stay-away order regarding the victim who, as noted, lived on a different floor of the same ?senior home? in which appellant resided.

The prosecutor did not affirmatively argue for pretrial detention pursuant to article 1, section 12, of the California Constitution, but simply asked the court to ?follow the PSA [Public Safety Assessment] recommendation, which is that release is not recommended,? and requested bail in the amount of $600,000, as prescribed by the bail schedule, and a criminal protective order directing petitioner to stay away from the victim.

After indicating it had read the Public Safety Assessment Report on petitioner, the trial court stated as follows: ?I appreciate the fact that Mr. Humphrey has had a lengthy history of contact here in the City and County of San Francisco. I also note counsel's argument that many of his convictions are older in nature; however, given the seriousness of this crime, the vulnerability of the victim, as well as the recommendation from pretrial services, I'm not going to grant him OR [release on his own recognizance] or any kind of supervised release at this time. I will set bail in the amount of $600,000 and sign the criminal protective orders to [stay] away from [the victim].?

All people read is the $5 bottle of cologne.  Nevermind all the facts.  That's enough to come up with a short sighted, simple minded, ignorant, logical fallacy conclusion.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

I just need a chart to tell me what the fiscal impact is for each prop. If they spend tax money or require additional funding... NO.

 

[nosuchreality]

ROFLMAO, I just saw that Ballotopedia does readability statistics on the Propositions.  The affirmative action one has a grade level of 22 and reading ease of -9, LOL.

 

[riznick]

I just got a call from someone urging me to vote NO on proposition 20 as they said it would remove funding for rehabilitation programs.  I said "Can't they just get that funding elsewhere?" and the campaigner then hung up on me. 

 

[riznick]

At 72% reporting, here are the current results:
Prop 14: Yes ($5.5 BILLION for stem cell research)
Prop 15: No  (Commercial property tax)
Prop 16: No  (End ban on affirmative action) *
Prop 17: Yes (Felons on parole can now vote) *
Prop 18: No  (Allows kids to vote)
Prop 19: Yes (Property tax rules - inheritance/transfers)
Prop 20: No  (Stricter parole/sentencing for crimes like rape) *
Prop 21: No  (Local government rent control) *
Prop 22: Yes (App based drivers are contractors) *
Prop 23: No  (Dialysis Clinic Standards) *
Prop 24: Yes (Consumer privacy expanded with heavy regulations) *
Prop 25: No  (Replacing cash bail) *

* = enough votes to call it

Basically so far, here are the props that passed:
Prop 14: $5.5 BILLION for stem cell research
Prop 17: Felons on parole can now vote
Prop 19: Property tax rules - inheritance/transfers
Prop 22: App based drivers are contractors
Prop 24: Consumer privacy expanded with heavy regulations

 

[daedalus]

Nevermind.