One of four housing measures on the ballot.

It's supposed to help the mentally ill, but does housing count?

Environmental bond

funding for renovations and new construction.

The idea is to free up housing. Will it work?

And future gas tax increases must be approved by voters.

If this passes, Congress still needs to approve it.

Is this for patients or is it political?

A wild proposition by a VC. Alas, it's been removed from the ballot.

Does it help or hurt to have cities regulate rents?

Should paramedics be required to respond to calls if they're on break?

Guess what 1 square foot looks like relative to a chicken.

Prop 3 issues $8.9B for water projects

Failed

Voters rejected a $8.9B bond measure that would've funded water and environmental projects in inland CA.

Have we met before?

Possibly. This June, we passed Prop 68, a $4.1B bond measure that funds water and environmental projects in CA. Prop 3 is another $8.9B general obligation bond measure that funds water-related improvements across the state. Both measures add up to a grand total of about $13B.

Wow, we really care about our water

Oh definitely, and especially farmers and agricultural water suppliers. Prop 3 would specifically improve the conditions of watershed lands ($2.5B), drinking water ($2.1B), fish and wildlife habitats ($1.4B), canals and water facilities ($1.2B), groundwater ($1.1B), and flood protection ($500M). The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that repaying Prop 3 would cost about $430M a year for the next 40 years, totaling $17.3B with interest, which is about 1/3 of one percent of CA’s General Fund budget.

Still sounds like a lot of money

Critics of Prop 3 agree. Unlike Prop 68, which was put on the ballot by the state legislature, Prop 3 is on the ballot because the authors gathered enough signatures. Opponents say it's a “pay-to-play” ballot measure that not only lacks administrative oversight, but also funds projects that directly benefit those who backed the campaign. Prop 3 has raised about $3.4M from notable donors, including Land O' Lakes and Wonderful Orchards (the producers of POM juice and FIJI water). The owners of Wonderful Orchards, for instance, have farmland that sits in Kern County, of which $750M of Prop 3 would go towards fixing a damaged canal that waters the region.

On the other hand, supporters argue that Prop 3 is a bipartisan initiative that doesn’t just focus on urban, coastal water problems like Prop 68, but commits significant funding and resources to inland California. Local water authorities along with agriculture and conservation groups also support Prop 3 saying it’s a critical step to upgrading CA’s water system.

A typical IM convo

Drought, wildfires, earthquakes, CA is F'd

Chillll. Did you read about Prop 3?

Yea who paid for this one? 🙄

Lots of agribusinesses (Yes, that's a word)

🤓

Some are calling it "pay to play", like farmers paying for Prop 3 to get their canal fixed.Did you see that it doesn't go through CA's annual budgetary process either. Kinda sketch.

Yea, but the prop requires an independent spending audit every three years.

And doesn't that Friant-Kern canal need fixing? The Oroville dam definitely does.

Why do I have to pay for a canal in central valley?

People pay for things that don't directly affect them all the time.

I mean, clean drinking water is important

Yea, but usually people who use the resource pay for its repair, not all of CA.

Prop 3 authors: “Typically, in polling usually what polls well is safe drinking water, clean water in rivers and streams and water supply that’s resistant to drought".

You know what else polls well?

Covfefe?