Tuesday’s Vote: The Ballot Issues

YES on Prop. 168 (Low-Income Housing) Analysis: Would eliminate provision requiring affected county or city voters to approve construction of any local affordable housing project in which 50% of the units are to be government-subsidized. A “yes” vote allows projects to go forward with local governmental approval.

Conclusion : Plebiscite provision is no longer needed; a “yes” vote would get rid of it and facilitate needed housing.

YES on Prop. 169 (Budget Process) Analysis: Would significantly streamline the annual budget process by consolidating budget implementation or so-called “trailer” bills into a single measure (as long as each provision in such a bill is related to state spending).

Conclusion : Yes--the budget process needs all the help it can get.

YES on Prop. 170 (School Financing) Analysis: Would permit communities to pass local bond measures for school construction by a simple majority, rather than the current requirement of a two-thirds vote.

Conclusion: The two-thirds requirement frustrates the majority will and allows tyranny of the minority; a “yes” vote would aid public schools.

YES on Prop. 171 (Disaster Tax Breaks) Analysis: Would authorize the Legislature to extend property tax valuation provision to rebuilding even in a different county. (Current law allows owners who replace a structure damaged by a natural disaster to pay the same property tax only if they rebuild in the same county.)

Conclusion: Why not?

YES on Prop. 172 (Public Safety) Analysis: Would leave in place a due-to-expire half-cent of the state 7.25% sale tax. The aim is to prevent further cuts in law enforcement and other crucial public safety services.

Conclusion: Yes, please--no more cuts in public safety.

YES on Prop. 173 (Housing Bonds) Analysis: Would allow the sale of already authorized bonds to help 5,000 to 10,000 first-time home buyers, enabling those earning less than $59,000 to buy a home with as little as 3% down.

Conclusion: Doesn’t cost voters any more money--just broadens use of already authorized bond money.

NO on Prop. 174 (School Vouchers) Analysis: Would provide taxpayer-funded vouchers worth up to $2,600 each to primary and secondary school students to attend the private school of their choice.

Conclusion : This is a tough one--some public school systems do need shaking up. But they don’t need destroying. Too risky--vote “no.”

NO on Measure A (Open Space--to be voted on only in Newport Beach) Analysis: This advisory measure would poll voters about the formation of a city-wide assessment district to buy, improve and maintain 138 acres of open space.

Conclusion : Theoretically on the side of the angels, but involves unneeded costs. Lots of preservation measures already are in place. Vote “no.”