OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

Posts Tagged ‘Measure R’

OC GOP Endorsements So Far

Posted by Chris Nguyen on September 1, 2016

wpid-ocgop-logo-1_400x400.jpgThe Republican Party of Orange County Central Committee met on August 15 and August 31 to consider endorsements for local offices and ballot measures. Further endorsements will take place on September 19 (and possibly more after that).

OC Political live-blogged the August 15 meeting and the August 31 meeting, but by popular demand here is the list of endorsements so far:

  • City Councils and Mayors
    • Aliso Viejo City Council: Mike Munzing
    • Anaheim City Council, District 4: Lucille Kring
    • Anaheim City Council, District 5: Mark Lopez
    • Costa Mesa City Council: Allan Mansoor, Steve Mensinger, Lee Ramos
    • Dana Point City Council: Michelle Brough
    • Fountain Valley City Council: Steve Nagel
    • Fullerton City Council: Larry Bennett, Bruce Whitaker
    • Garden Grove Mayor: Steve Jones
    • Huntington Beach City Council: Patrick Brenden, Joe Carchio, Lyn Semeta
    • Irvine Mayor: Don Wagner
    • Irvine City Council: Anthony Kuo, Christina Shea
    • La Habra City Council: Tom Beamish, Dawn Holthouser, Tim Shaw
    • Laguna Hills City Council: Janine Heft
    • Laguna Niguel City Council: Laurie Davies, John Mark Jennings, Jerry Slusiewicz
    • Lake Forest City Council: Francisco Barajas, Dwight Robinson
    • Los Alamitos City Council: Dean Grose
    • Newport Beach City Council, District 5: Lee Lowrey
    • Newport Beach City Council, District 7: Will O’Neill
    • Orange City Council: Mark Murphy
    • Rancho Santa Margarita City Council: Tony Beall, Carol Gamble
    • San Clemente City Council: Dan Bane
    • Tustin City Council: Allan Bernstein, Austin Lumbard, Charles Puckett
    • Westminster City Council: Kimberly Ho
    • Yorba Linda City Council: Tara Campbell, Gene Hernandez, Craig Young
  • College Districts
    • North Orange County Community College District, Trustee Area 7: Ryan Bent
    • Rancho Santiago Community College District, Trustee Area 5: Steven Nguyen
  • School Districts
    • Capistrano Unified School District, Trustee Area 1: Wendy Shrove
    • Capistrano Unified School District, Trustee Area 2: Jim Reardon
    • Capistrano Unified School District, Trustee Area 3: Laura Ferguson
    • Capistrano Unified School District, Trustee Area 5: Jake Vollebregt
    • Santa Ana Unified School District: Angie Cano
  • Water Districts
    • Orange County Water District, Division 6: Cathy Green
    • Mesa Water District, Division 2: James R. Fisler
    • Moulton Niguel Water District, Division 6: Duane Cave
    • Yorba Linda Water District: Ric Collett, Andy Hall
    • No on the Yorba Linda Water District Recall of Directors Bob Kiley and Gary Melton
  • Ballot Measures
    • No on Measure J – Anaheim Elementary School District $318 Million Facilities Bond
    • No on Measure K – Brea-Olinda Unified School District $148 Million Facilities Bond
    • No on Measure M – Capistrano Unified School District $889 Million Facilities Bond
    • No on Measure N – Centralia Elementary School District $49 Million Facilities Bond
    • No on Measure O – Fountain Valley School District $63 Million Facilities Bond
    • No on Measure P – Garden Grove Unified School District $311 Million Facilities Bond
    • No on Measure Q – Huntington Beach City School District $159.85 Million Facilities Bond
    • No on Measure R – Ocean View School District $169 Million Facilities Bond
    • No on Measure S – Orange Unified School District $288 Million Facilities Bond
    • No on Measure T – Westminster School District $76 Million Facilities Bond
    • Yes on Measure U – Anaheim 2/3 Vote of the Council to Propose Taxes (Instead of Simple Majority)
    • No on Measure Y ­ Costa Mesa initiative to amend Municipal Code to require voter approval of certain changes in land use, retroactive to July 17, 2015
    • No on Measure HH – Fountain Valley 1% Sales Tax Increase (from 8% to 9%)
    • No on Measure JJ – La Palma 1% Sales Tax Increase (from 8% to 9%)
    • No on Measure LL – Laguna Beach 2% Hotel Tax Increase (from 10% to 12%)
    • Yes on Measure MM – Newport Beach 5/7 Vote of the Council to Propose Taxes (Instead of Simple Majority)
    • No on Measure OO – San Clemente 3% Hotel Tax Increase (from 10% to 13%)
    • No on Measure PP – Santa Ana 700% Pay Raise for City Council (from $125/mtg to $1000/mo for Council and $200/mtg to $1000/mo for Mayor)
    • Yes on Measure QQ – Stanton 1% Sales Tax Repeal (from 9% to 8%)
    • No on Measure SS – Westminster 1% Sales Tax Increase (from 8% to 9%)

Posted in Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Anaheim City School District, Brea Olinda Unified School District, Capistrano Unified School District, Centralia School District, Costa Mesa, Dana Point, Fountain Valley, Fountain Valley School District, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Garden Grove Unified School District, Huntington Beach, Huntington Beach City School District, Irvine, La Habra, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Los Alamitos, Mesa Consolidated Water District, Moulton-Niguel Water District, Newport Beach, Ocean View School District, Orange, Orange County Water District, Orange Unified School District, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, Santa Ana, Santa Ana Unified School District, Stanton, Tustin, Westminster, Westminster School District, Yorba Linda, Yorba Linda Water District | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Field Poll: Brown Tax Leads, Even Split on Munger & Steyer Taxes, High-Speed Rail Decreases Support for Brown Tax

Posted by Chris Nguyen on July 9, 2012

Since you’re reading this post, you obviously passed the test we posted on Friday to avert being knocked off the Internet.

Three tax measures have qualified for the November ballot, sponsored by Governor Jerry Brown, multimillionaire heiress attorney Molly Munger, and billionaire businessman Tom Steyer, respectively.

Ballot Measure Proponents Jerry Brown, Molly Munger, and Tom Steyer

Munger Sues State

The battle between Munger and Brown on ballot measure numbering has a hearing scheduled today at 9:00 AM. (Munger asked the court to delay the hearing for another nine days, stating the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters had refused to supply documents or completely answered questions, but was apparently unsuccessful in getting the delay.)  For more details on the suit, read my post from last Monday (note that on Thursday, the Legislature approved legislation moving the water bond from the 2012 ballot to the 2014 ballot; the water bond would have been Proposition 30 regardless of Munger’s lawsuit, so when reading that post, just remove Proposition 30 and subtract one from the numbering of all the other measures; other than that, everything in the post is still current information).

If Munger prevails, her ballot measure will be Proposition 36 rather than Proposition 38, Brown’s ballot measure will be Proposition 37 rather than Proposition 30, and Steyer’s will be Proposition 38 rather than Proposition 39.  In other words, if Munger prevails, the ballot order will be six other measures, the Munger measure, the Brown measure, the Steyer measure, and two other measures.  If Brown prevails, the ballot order will be the Brown measure, seven other measures, the Munger measure, the Steyer measure, and the Senate redistricting referendum.

Brown’s Income and Sales Tax Increase Measure Leads, But is Threatened by High-Speed Rail

The latest Field Poll finds Governor Jerry Brown’s income and sales tax increase ballot measure leads 54%-38%, with 8% undecided.  (The poll found a similar result in May, with the measure leading 52%-35%, with 13% undecided.)   Brown’s tax increase ballot measure leads among every demographic and geographic group, as well as liberals, moderates, Democrats, and independents.  Only conservatives and Republicans oppose the measure.  However, not all is rosy for the Brown tax increase measure…

21% of the measure’s supporters indicated that they would be less inclined to support the Brown tax increase if the high-speed rail funding bill was approved.  Conversely, only 5% of the measure’s opponents indicated that they would be more inclined to support the Brown tax increase if the high-speed rail funding bill was approved.

(The poll was completed shortly before the Senate passed the high-speed rail funding bill 21-16 on Friday and the Assembly passed the bill 51-27 on Thursday.  Brown is expected to sign the bill this week.)

The high-speed rail bill’s approval may very well endanger Brown’s tax increase initiative.  Ballot measures typically lose support as campaigns wear on, and the high-speed rail may send support for Brown’s tax increase measure under 50%, making it that much more difficult to pass once the campaign season begins in the fall.

Voters Evenly Split on Munger Income Tax Increase Measure

Molly Munger’s income tax increase ballot measure has voters perfectly split, with 46% supporting it and 46% opposing it.

Republicans oppose the Munger income tax increase, Democrats support it, and independents are evenly split.  Conservatives and moderates oppose it while liberals support it.  Men oppose it while women support it.  Whites oppose it, Latinos support it, and other ethnic groups were split.

Voters under 40 support the Munger income tax increase measure while voters over 40 oppose it.  Union households support it while non-union households were split.  People making less than $40,000 support it while voters making more than $40,000 oppose it.

As expected, San Francisco Bay Area voters support the Munger income tax increase measure while other Northern Californians oppose it.  Strangely, Los Angeles County voters are evenly split on the measure while other Southern Californians were supportive, upending the typical result of LA County being less tax-averse than other Southern Californians (in this same poll, on the Brown and Steyer measures, the more-expected result of LA County being less tax averse than the rest of Southern California occurred).

Voters Evenly Split on Steyer Singles Sales Factor for Business Income Tax Calculation Measure

Tom Steyer’s measure requiring the singles sales factor for business income tax calculation has voters effectively split, with 44% supporting it and 43% opposing it.

Conservatives and Republicans oppose the Steyer single sales factor measure while independents, moderates, Democrats, and liberals support it.  While both genders were split within the margin of error, men were more likely to oppose while women were more likely to support.  Whites oppose the measure, Latinos support it, and other ethnic groups were evenly split.

Voters under 40 support the Steyer singles sales factor measure, voters over 65 oppose it, while middle-aged voters were even split.  Union households were supportive while non-union households were evenly split.  Voters making making $40,000-$99,999 support the measure while those making more than $100,000 oppose the measure.  Oddly, those making less than $40,000 were evenly split.

The San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County support the Steyer single sales factor measure while the rest of Northern and Southern California oppose it.

Will the LA County Measure R Sales Tax Extension Accidentally Kill All the Tax Measures?

In 2008, LA County voters approved Measure R, a 0.5% sales tax increase to fund transportation projects that took effect July 1, 2009, and expires 30 years later in 2039.  Inexplicably, the LA Metropolitan Transportation Authority voted to place an extension of Measure R on the November 2012 ballot to add 30 years to the 0.5% sales tax increase making it expire in 2069.

Just four years into a thirty-year tax, voters are being asked to make it a sixty-year tax.  If approved, nearly all people who vote on this ballot measure will be dead by the time the tax expires.

It seems strategically odd to ask for an extension so soon after the initial passage.  It would have seemed more strategically sound to wait until 2030 or so when Measure R was nearing expiration.

The placement of the Measure R extension on the November ballot means LA County voters will be faced with four tax measures on their ballot.  Voter tax fatigue will take its toll in LA County.

Why does LA County tax fatigue matter to the rest of the state?  Well, 1/4 of all Californians live in Los Angeles County.

Look at Prop 29: it failed by 0.6%.  The San Francisco Bay Area went overwhelmingly for it.  Most of Northern and Southern California went overwhelmingly against it.  Los Angeles County narrowly went against Prop 29.

This Measure R extension may be the inadvertent death knell of the tax-related statewide ballot measures in November.

LA County support is pivotal for any tax measure hoping to pass in California.

What the Three State Ballot Measures Would Do

For those of you who are wondering what the three state ballot measures would do…

Brown’s measure (likely Proposition 30 or Proposition 37, it is officially titled, “Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. “) would increase personal income taxes for amounts above $250,000 per year for seven years and raise the state sales tax by 0.25% for four years. Specifically, income taxes on amounts:

  • between $250,000-$300,000 would increase by 1% to 10.3%
  • between $300,000-$500,000 would increase by 2% to 11.3%
  • above $500,000 would increase by 3% to 12.3%

Sales taxes in OC would climb to 8%, except in La Habra, where it would go to 8.5%. LA County sales tax would go up to 9%.

For seven years, 89% of the tax money is allocated to K-12 schools with 11% to community colleges. On a permanent basis, 1.0625% sales tax would be permanently removed from the Prop 98 education funding formula to fund local public safety realignment programs.

Click here for the Legislative Analyst Office’s official fiscal analysis of the Brown measure.

Munger’s measure (likely Proposition 36 or Proposition 38, it is officially titled, “Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.”) would increase personal income taxes on nearly all Californians for twelve years.  Specifically, for individuals who are not heads of households, income taxes on amounts:

  • between $7,316-$17,346 would increase by 0.4% to 2.4%
  • between $17,346-$27,377 would increase by 0.7% to 4.7%
  • between $27,377-$38,004 would increase by 1.1% to 7.1%
  • between $38,004-$48,029 would increase by 1.4% to 9.4%
  • between $48,029-$100,000 would increase by 1.6% to 10.9%
  • between $100,000-$250,000 would increase by 1.8% to 11.1%
  • between $250,000-$500,000 would increase by 1.9% to 11.2%
  • between $500,000-$1,000,000 would increase by 2.0% to 11.3%
  • between $1,000,000-$2,500,000 would increase by 2.1% to 11.4%
  • above $2,500,000 would increase by 2.2% to 11.5%

For heads of households, income taxes on amounts:

  • between $14,642-$34,692 would increase by 0.4% to 2.4%
  • between $34,692-$44,721 would increase by 0.7% to 4.7%
  • between $44,721-$55,348 would increase by 1.1% to 7.1%
  • between $55,348-$65,376 would increase by 1.4% to 9.4%
  • between $65,376-$136,118 would increase by 1.6% to 10.9%
  • between $136,118-$340,294 would increase by 1.8% to 11.1%
  • between $340,294-$680,589 would increase by 1.9% to 11.2%
  • between $680,589-$1,361,178 would increase by 2.0% to 11.3%
  • between $1,361,178-$3,402,944 would increase by 2.1% to 11.4%
  • over $3,402,944 would increase by 2.2% to 11.5%

For the first four years, 60% of the tax money is allocated to K-12 schools, 10% to early childhood programs, and 30% to repaying state debt. For the remaining eight years, 85% of the tax money is allocated to K-12 schools and 15% to early childhood programs.

Click here for the Legislative Analyst Office’s official fiscal analysis of the Munger measure.

Steyer’s measure (likely Proposition 38 or Proposition 39, it is officially titled, “Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.”) would permanently impose the single sales factor calculation on income taxes for multistate businesses.

For five years, $550,000,000 would be allocated from the state General Fund into the “Clean Energy Job Creation Fund,” which would be used for energy efficiency retrofits and alternative energy installations in government buildings, local government energy retrofit financial assistance programs, and job training and workforce development programs.

Click here for the Legislative Analyst Office’s official fiscal analysis of the Steyer measure.

Posted in California | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »