2024 General Election
State of California Propositions
San Diego County
City of Oceanside
Elected Officials
Federal
President: Kamala Harris ($685,107,477), Jill Stein ($1,843,054) or Donald Trump ($306,776,892)
US Senator, full term: Steve Garvey ($10,931,701) or Adam Schiff ($38,727,091)
US Senator, partial term: Steve Garvey or Adam Schiff
US Representative, 49th District: Mike Levin ($3,678,903) or Matt Gunderson ($1,793,038)
State
State Assembly, 74th District: Laurie Davies or Chris Duncan
City of Oceanside
Mayor: Ryan Keim ($109,377) or Esther Sanchez ($88,094)
City Clerk: Zeb Navarro ($400)
Treasurer: Jack Fernandes ($42,060), Phyllis Dominguez ($40,092) or Victor Roy ($4,000)
City Council, District 3: Jimmy Figueroa ($58,191), Tom DeMooy ($2,400), Laura Bassett ($95,140)
City Council, District 4: Omar Hashimi ($681), Amber Kae Niuatoa ($13,782), Peter Weiss ($90,351)
Prop 2
School Bonds
Bonds for Public School and Community College Facilities
legislative statute
Official Summary
Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K–12 public schools (including charter schools), community colleges, and career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades. Requires annual audits.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $500 million annually for 35 years to repay the bond.
support: $12,384,248 - CA Teachers Association; CA School Nurses Org; Community College League of CA
oppose: $0 - Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Notes
Prop 3
Right to Marriage
Right to Marriage
legislative constitutional amendment
Official Summary
Amends California Constitution to recognize fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. Removes language in California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Fiscal Impact: No change in revenues or costs for state and local governments.
support: $3,484,280 - Sierra Pacific Synod of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Dolores Huerta Foundation; Equality CA
oppose: $0 - Jonathan Keller, California Family Council; Rev. Tanner DiBella
Notes
Prop 4
Bonds for Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protection from Climate Risks
Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Communities and Natural Lands from Climate Risks
legislative statute
Official Summary
Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for water, wildfire prevention, and protection of communities and lands. Requires annual audits.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $400 million annually for 40 years to repay the bond.
support: $10,850,771 - Clean Water Action; CALFIRE Firefighters; National Wildlife Federation; The Nature Conservancy
oppose: $0 - Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Notes
Spending:
$1.9 billion - increase the amount and quality of water available for people to use
$1.1 billion - reduce the risk of floods, such as by repairing dams and capturing and reusing stormwater .
$800 million - various water resilience activities, such as restoring rivers and lakes.
$1.5 Billion - wildfire prevention
$890 million - restore coastal areas and protect them from the effects of rising sea levels
$310 million - improve ocean habitats and protect fish and other marine wildlife
$1.2 Billion - Land Conservation and Habitat Restoration
$475 million - development of wind turbines off the California coast
$325 million - infrastructure such as transmission lines to carry electricity long distances
$50 million - build large batteries that store electricity for when it is needed
$300 million - expand recreational opportunities at parks or reduce the impacts of climate change on parks
$200 million - grants to local communities to build new parks or renovate existing parks
$200 million - repair state parks and provide nature education
$200 million - activities focused on protecting communities from extreme heat
$100 million - places for people to go during heatwaves or disasters
$150 million - grants for local communities to conduct activities that provide environmental benefits, such as reducing air pollution
$105 million - activities that encourage farmers to improve soil health, reduce air pollution, and use less water
$60 million - support community gardens and farmers’ markets, such as by purchasing shade canopies
$135 million - other activities, such as purchasing vans to transport farmworkers and conserving farmland.
At least 40% of the bond money must fund activities to help communities that are low-income or ones that are more likely to suffer from problems caused by climate change.
Prop 5
Allow Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure
Allows Local Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure with 55% Voter Approval
legislative constitutional amendment
Official Summary
Allows approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians with 55% vote. Accountability requirements.
Fiscal Impact: Increased local borrowing to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, and public infrastructure. The amount would depend on decisions by local governments and voters. Borrowing would be repaid with higher property taxes.
support: $11,223,847 - California Professional Firefighters; League of Women Voters of California; Habitat for Humanity California
oppose: $28,547,776 - California Taxpayers Association; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Women Veterans Alliance
Notes
Lowers the voting requirement needed to approve local general obligation bonds if they would fund housing assistance or public infrastructure from two-thirds to 55 percent.
Prop 6
Eliminates Involuntary Servitude for Incarcerated Persons
Eliminates Constitutional Provision Allowing Involuntary Servitude for Incarcerated Persons
legislative constitutional amendment
Official Summary
Amends the California Constitution to remove current provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish crime (i.e., forcing incarcerated persons to work)
Fiscal Impact: Potential increase or decrease in state and local costs, depending on how work for people in state prison and county jail changes. Any effect likely would not exceed the tens of millions of dollars annually.
support: $1,549,675 - Assemblymember Lori Wilson
oppose: $0 - none
Notes
Roughly one-third of people in prison work. Many of these workers are paid less than $1 per hour. People who refuse to work or do other activities can face consequences such as losing the ability to make regular phone calls.
Prop 32
Raises Minimum Wage to $18
Raises Minimum Wage
initiative statute
Official Summary
Raises minimum wage as follows: For employers with 26 or more employees, to $17 immediately, $18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, to $17 on January 1, 2025, $18 on January 1, 2026.
Fiscal Impact: State and local government costs could increase or decrease by up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. State and local revenues likely would decrease by no more than a few hundred million dollars annually.
support: $11,765,683 - none
oppose: $677,436 - CA Chamber of Commerce; CA Restaurant Association; CA Grocers Association
Notes
California’s minimum wage currently is $16 per hour
Prop 33
Local Government Authority to Enact Rent Control
Expands Local Governments' Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property
initiative statute
Official Summary
Repeals Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently prohibits local ordinances limiting initial residential rental rates for new tenants or rent increases for existing tenants in certain residential properties.
Fiscal Impact: Reduction in local property tax revenues of at least tens of millions of dollars annually due to likely expansion of rent control in some communities.
support: $47,664,137 - CA Nurses Assoc.; CA Alliance for Retired Americans; Mental Health Advocacy; Coalition for Economic Survival; TenantsTogether
oppose: $115,728,327 - CA Council for Affordable Housing; Women Veterans Alliance; CA Chamber of Commerce
Notes
About one-quarter of Californians currently live in communities with local rent control.
In addition to local rent control laws, a state law prevents most landlords from increasing a tenant’s rent by more than 5 percent plus inflation (up to a total of 10 percent) in a year. This law lasts until 2030.
Currently Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins), limits local rent control laws in three main ways.
rent control cannot apply to any single-family homes.
rent control cannot apply to any housing built on or after February 1, 1995
rent control laws rent control can only limit how much landlords increase rent for existing renters
Proposition 33 eliminates Costa-Hawkins so cities and counties can enact laws to control rents for any housing and can limit how much a landlord may increase rents when a new renter moves in.
Prop 34
Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues
Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues by Certain Health Care Providers
initiative statute
Official Summary
Requires certain providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Authorizes statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs, likely in the millions of dollars annually, to enforce new rules on certain health care entities. Affected entities would pay fees to cover these costs.
support: $41,795,742 - The ALS Association; California Chronic Care Coalition; Latino Heritage Los Angeles
oppose: $15,741,006 - National Org. for Women; Consumer Watchdog; Coalition for Economic Survival; AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Dolores Huerta
Notes
Opponents of this proposition say it is a revenge proposition intent on punishing supporters of Prop 33, in particular it would affect AIDS Healthcare Foundation who sponsored Prop 33.
Affected health care entity:
participates in federal drug discount program
has/had a license to opwerate in CA as a health plan, pharmacy or clinic or has had certain contracts with Medi-Cal or Medicare
Has 10 year period where it spent more than $100 million on purposes other than direct patient care
owns & operates multifamily housing units with at least 500 severity level “high” violations
The affected entities would have to report how much revenue they earned in California and nationwide from the federal drug discount program and how they spent this revenue.
Providers tend to earn net revenue from the federal drug discount program. They do so by charging payors of health care (such as private health plans and government programs) more than the cost to provide the drugs. However, providers generally do not earn net revenue on these drugs in Medi-Cal. This is because state law bans providers from charging Medi-Cal more than the discounted price of the drug.
Penalties established would include (for 10 years):
entity loses CA tax exempt status
entity loses license
entity cannot receive state and local government contracts or grants
entity’s leaders cannot serve leadership roles in a California health plan, pharmacy or clinic
Prop 35
Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal
Provides Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services
initiative statute
Official Summary
Makes permanent the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans, which, if approved by the federal government, provides revenues to pay for Medi-Cal health care services.
Fiscal Impact: Short-term state costs between roughly $1 billion and $2 billion annually to increase funding for certain health programs. Total funding increase between roughly $2 billion to $5 billion annually. Unknown long-term fiscal effects.
support: $53,734,990 - Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA; American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists; American Academy of Pediatrics, CA
oppose: $0 - none
Notes
Expiring in 2026, there is currently a Managed Care Organization Provider Tax on certain health plans, resulting in $7 to $8 billion each year used for existing costs in the Medi-Cal program and increasing funding for Medi-Cal and other health programs.
This proposition makes the tax permanent, pending federal approval.
There are some changes to what expenses are eligible for increases. Currently eligible but would become ineligible: nonemergency medical transportation, private duty nursing, certain long term supports, continuous Medi-Cal coverage for children up to 5 yrs old. And currently ineligible but would become eligible: specified hospital services, outpatient facilities, behavioral health facilities, doctor postgraduate training programs.
Prop 36
Allows Felony Charges and Increased Sentences
Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes
initiative statute
Official Summary
Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions.
Fiscal Impact: State criminal justice costs likely ranging from several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Local criminal justice costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually.
support: $17,575,355 - Crime Victims United of CA; California District Attorneys Association; Family Business Association of CA
oppose: $7,436,047 - Diana Becton, District Attorney Contra Costa County; Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice
Notes
In 2014, Proposition 47 changed some theft and drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. For example, shoplifting (stealing items worth $950 or less from a store) and drug possession generally became misdemeanors.
This proposition:
increases punishment for some theft and drug crimes
theft of items worth $950 or less is a felony if the person has two or more past convictions for certain theft crimes (such as shoplifting, burglary, or carjacking). The sentence would be up to three years in county jail or state prison.
allows felony sentences for theft or damage of property to be lengthened by up to three years if three or more people committed the crime together
requires sentences for selling certain drugs (such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine) be served in prison instead of county jail
allows people who possess illegal drugs to be charged with a “treatment-mandated felony,” instead of a misdemeanor for those that possess certain drugs (such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine) and have two or more past convictions for some drug crimes. Those who finish treatment would have their charges dismissed. Those who do not finish treatment could serve up to three years in state prison.
requires courts to warn people that they could be charged with murder if they sell or provide illegal drugs that kill someone.
Measure G
Half-Cent Sales Tax for Transportation
Fund San Diego County Transportation, Infrastructure, and Safety Projects through a Half-Cent Sales Tax
institute tax
Official Summary
To repair/upgrade roads, bridges, storm drains, rail lines, and prevent railway bluff collapse; reduce traffic congestion; improve pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver safety; improve public transit; protect wildlife habitat/air quality; and fill potholes; shall the measure authorizing a half-cent sales tax raiseing $350,000,000 annually until ended by voters, requiring citizen oversight, public spending disclosure, and independent annual audits be adopted?
Notes
Use of funds:
50% for
upgrades to I-5 North Coast Corridor rail line to prevent bluff collapse, and to increase rail route safety and reliability
rail connector to San Diego International Airport
rail system extension from South County to Kearny Mesa
infrastructure upgrades for express service on South County rail lines
creating a system of rapid routes/transit commections between population and job centers including Mission Valley, Sorrento Valley, La Mesa, Escondido, South County and the Border
road and highway grade separations, pedestrian safety, stormwater infrastructure, active transportation, habitat preservation and climate mitigation projects
safety, mobility, amenities and secutiy enhancements at transit stops
27% on:
fire evacuation routes on SR67 and other roadways in fire prone areas
bridge safety repair and retrofits
highway maintenance, improvements and connectivity projects on SR 56, 76, 78, 94, 125 and Interstates 5, 8, 15, 805.
HOV lanes and traffic conhgestiuon reduction programs throughout the County
Expanding electric vehicle infrastructure, including electric vehicle charging stations, and acquisition of electric zero emission buses
road and highway grade separations, pedestrian safety, stormwater infrastructure, active transportation, habitat preservation and climate mitigation projects
12% for MTS and NCTD
keeping fares affordable for seniors, youth, disabled, and veterans
frequency and service enhancements on bus routes and rail transit services
enhancing transit stop safety and sanitation
3.5% for local streets, roads maintenance and active transportation,
3.5% to cities within the County (based on population) for local road projects including repaving, potholes, storm drains and active transportation projects
2% for repair, rehab and replacement required to maintain reliable, safe effective and efficient rail transit services
no more than 2% on admin
Measure X
Extend Half Cent Sales Tax
Extend Half-Cent Sales Tax
To continue providing funding to maintain and improve general city services in Oceanside, including: road repairs, infrastructure maintenance, safe parks, beach and habitat restoration, fire, paramedic, and 911 emergency response, police patrols, crime prevention, and addressing homelessness, shall the City of Oceanside extend the existing ½ cent sales tax at the current rate (no increase) for 10 years, providing approximately $19,000,000 annually for general government use, with citizen oversight, independent audits, and all funds controlled locally?
support: $211,000 - Oceanside Firefighters Association
oppose: $0
Notes
Measure’s purpose is to extend the 1/2 cent sales tax until April 1, 2036. It was originally enacted in 2019 and is set to expire April 1, 2026.
Development Stuff
Here in Oceanside CA there are lots of development projects in the pipeline. I’m trying to understand what constraints are put upon developers, and how there might be opportunities to connect to influence development projects to fit with the neighborhood in terms of scale and scope and support the residents as well as any visitors.
State of California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
SB-330 Housing Crisis Act of 2019
Intent:
Suspend certain restrictions on the development of new housing during the period of the statewide emergency (in effect until January 1, 2025).
Work with local governments to expedite the permitting of housing in regions suffering the worst housing shortages and highest rates of displacement.
“Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” means that either
at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. Housing cost does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income
or
100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or Section 65008 of this code. Housing cost does not exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of area median income
San Diego County
City of Oceanside
2022 General Election
State of California Propositions
San Diego County Proposition
Elected Officials
Federal
US Senator, partial term: Mark P Mueser or Alex Padilla
US Senator, full term: Mark P Mueser or Alex Padilla
US Representative, 49th District: Brian Maryott or Mike Levin
State
Governor: Gavin Newsom or Brian Dahle
Lieutenant Governor: Eleni Kounalakis or Angela E Underwood Jacobs
Secretary of State: Shirley N Weber or Rob Bernosky
Controller: Lanhee J Chen or Malia M Cohen
Treasurer: Jack M Guerrero or Fiona Ma
Attorney General: Nathan Hochman or Rob Bonta
Insurance Commissioner: Ricardo Lara or Robert Howell
State Board of Equalization, 4th District: Mike Schaefer or David Dodson
State Senator, 38th District: Catherine Blakespear or Matt Gunderson
State Assembly, 74th District: Laurie Davies or Chris Duncan
San Diego County
Board of Supervisors, District 5: Jim Desmond or Tiffany Boyd-Hodgson
Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk: Barbara Bry or Jordan Marks
District Attorney: Summer Stephan
Sheriff: Kelly Anne Martinez or John Hemmerling
Treasurer/Tax Collector: Dan McAllister or Greg Hodosevich
City of Oceanside
City Council, District 1: David Turgeon or Darin Selnick or Alvin L McGee or Eric Joyce or Kori Jensen
Judicial
Chief Justice of California: Patricia Guerrero
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: Goodwin Liu
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: Martin J Jenkins
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: Joshua P Groban
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 1: Judith McConnell
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 1: Truc T Do
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 1: Martin N Buchanan
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 2: Manuel A Ramirez
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 2: Michael J Raphael
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 2: Carol D Codrington
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 2: Frank Menetrez
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 3: Kathleen E O’Leary
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 3: William W Bedsworth
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 3: Maurice Sanchez
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 3: Eileen C Moore
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 3: Joanne Motoike
Judge of Superior Court, Office 35: Mike Murphy or Rebecca Kanter
Judge of Superior Court, Office 36: Peter Singer or Pete Murray
Schools
State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tony K Thurmond or Lance Ray Christensen
County Board of Education, 5th District: Rick Shea or Emily Ortiz Wichmann
Oceanside Unified School District Governing Board Member Trustee, Area 1: Allyson Mineau or Nancy Licona
Proposition 1
Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom
legislative constitutional amendment
Official Summary
Existing California laws provide that every individual has a fundamental right to privacy in their personal reproductive decisions, which includes the fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.
This measure would amend the California Constitution to expressly include these fundamental rights and prohibit the State from denying or interfering with an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions.
This amendment is intended to further the existing California constitutional rights to privacy and equal protection, and does not narrow or limit these rights.
Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect because reproductive rights already are protected by state law.
support: $9,180,211 - Planned Parenthood, Toni Atkins
oppose: $69,682
Notes
Proposition 26
Allows In-Person Roulette, Dice Games, Sports Wagering on Tribal Lands
initiative constitutional amendment and statute
Official Summary
Allows federally recognized Indian tribes to operate roulette, dice games, and sports wagering on-site on tribal lands, if authorized by gaming compacts approved by the State.
Allows sports wagering at certain licensed horseracing tracks in four counties for persons 21 years and older, and imposes 10% tax on sports-wagering profits at these tracks; directs revenues to state General Fund (70%), problem-gambling programs (15%), and enforcement (15%).
Prohibits marketing of sports wagering to persons under 21.
Allows private lawsuits to enforce certain gambling laws.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues, possibly reaching the tens of millions of dollars annually, from racetrack and tribal casino sports betting payments and gambling penalties. Some of these revenues would be a shift from existing state revenues.
Increased state costs to regulate in-person sports betting, possibly reaching the low tens of millions of dollars annually. Some or all of these costs would be offset by the increase in state revenues.
Increased state costs to enforce gambling laws, not likely to exceed the low millions of dollars annually. Some of these costs could be offset by the increase in state revenues.
support: $123,398,220
oppose: $49,044,673
Notes
In
Proposition 27
Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering Outside Tribal Lands
initiative constitutional amendment and statute
Official Summary
Legalizes online and mobile sports wagering for persons 21 years and older.
Such wagering may be offered only by federally recognized Indian tribes and eligible businesses that contract with them.
Individuals placing bets must be in California and not located on tribal lands.
Requires licensing fees and imposes 10% tax on sports-wagering revenues.
Directs tax and licensing revenues first to regulatory costs, then remainder to homelessness programs (85%) and nonparticipating tribes (15%).
Specifies licensing, regulatory, consumer-protection, and betting-integrity standards for sports wagering.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues, possibly in the hundreds of millions of dollars but likely not more than $500 million annually, from sports betting payments and penalties. Some of these revenues would be a shift from existing state revenues.
Increased state costs to regulate online sports betting, possibly reaching the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually. Some or all of these costs would be offset by the increased revenues.
support: $169,248,331
oppose: $214,617,866
Notes
Proposition 28
Provides Additional Funding for Arts and Music Education in Public Schools
initiative statute
Official Summary
Provides additional funding for arts and music education in all K–12 public schools (including charter schools) by annually allocating from state General Fund an amount equal to 1% of required state and local funding for public schools.
Allocates greater proportion of the additional funds to schools serving more economically disadvantaged students.
Schools with 500 or more students must spend at least 80% of the funding to employ teachers and remainder on training, supplies, and education partnerships.
Requires audits and limits administrative costs to 1% of the funding.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $1 billion annually, beginning next year, for arts education in public schools.
support: $9,868,119
oppose: none
Notes
Proposition 29
Requires On-Site Licensed Medical Professional at Kidney Dialysis Clinics and Establishes Other State Requirements
initiative statute
Official Summary
Requires physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant, with six months’ relevant experience, on site during treatment at outpatient kidney dialysis clinics; authorizes exemption for staffing shortage if qualified medical professional is available through telehealth.
Requires clinics to disclose to patients all physicians with clinic ownership interests of five percent or more.
Requires clinics to report dialysis-related infection data to state.
Prohibits clinics from closing or substantially reducing services without state approval.
Prohibits clinics from refusing to treat patients based on source of payment.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local government costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually.
support: $7,509,562 - Unions
oppose: $86,333,867
School Bonds