The team at Kindman & Co. got together for a little proposition party—members of our team researched propositions and made recommendations for how to vote, based on our shared values of increasing social justice, humanity, equity, and community. Below are brief summaries of the ballot measures as well as a recommendation from the team member who researched them. We hope this helps you feel more informed about our statewide and local issues as you cast your vote in this election!

Proposition 2:

Prop 2 would supplement local bond funds, authorizing $8.5 billion in state bonds for K-12 schools and $1.5 billion to community colleges to renovate, fix, and construct facilities. If passed, school districts would individually raise money for Prop. 2 funding and be able to apply for the state to contribute 50-55% of construction projects’ costs and 60-65% of modernization projects’ costs. This model brings in more money overall to fix and modernize school facilities, which is especially important as currently, 38% of students attend schools that don’t meet the state’s minimum safety standards.

Recent research indicates a correlation between the modernization of school facilities and higher attendance rates, better test scores, and lower suspension rates. Unfortunately, this model of state cost-matching disproportionately benefits more affluent districts, as districts’ “bond capacity” (maximum amount a school district can raise for a state match) is based on property taxes in the district. As a result, property-rich districts could access more funds than property-poor districts, which could worsen school inequities. Despite proposing an imperfect model, I still recommend voting yes on Prop 2, as no funding would hurt all students. - Logan

Proposition 3:

Proposition 3 would ensure the right to same-sex marriage into the California constitution, repealing Proposition 8—a measure approved by voters in 2008 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. My recommendation would be to VOTE YES.- Caitlin

[“No” means that the state constitution language will remain unchanged and out of date with current federal law.] 

[Source: By Way of Us x Laura Herrera:  Back to the Ballot ]

Proposition 4:

Prop 4 Authorizes bonds for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, and protecting communities and Natural lands from climate risks. The California Legislative Analysis Office outlines, “Voting yes on this measure means we could borrow $10 billion to fund various activities aimed at conserving natural resources, as well as responding to the causes and effects of climate change. “ - I recommend voting on Prop 4. -Dani

Proposition 5:

Prop 5 would lower the supermajority vote requirement from two-thirds (66.67%) to 55% for local jurisdictions to issue bonds for affordable housing, supportive housing, and public infrastructure. This would enhance local governments’ abilities to secure funding through local borrowing for projects, including housing developments that are affordable for lower and middle-income households, downpayment assistance programs, permanent supportive housing, school upgrades, and public health, street/highway, public transit projects, among others. I recommend voting yes on Prop 5 in order to reduce barriers to addressing communities’ most urgent housing and infrastructure needs. - Logan

Proposition 6:

Prop 6 would prohibit forced labor as punishment for a crime. Given that the BIPOC populations are imprisoned in greater numbers than white folks, continuing to force folks to work even as punishment for committing a crime is a continuation of the cruel legacy of America’s history of enslavement. In the spirit of Ta-nehisi Coates recent interview on CBS Morning News, you either think that enslavement is wrong or you don’t. I think it’s wrong, so I recommend voting Yes on Prop 6. -Steve

Proposition 32:

From a values standpoint, this is an easy choice. When you consider the functional impact, this becomes a more complex one! Prop 32 would increase the statewide minimum wage from $16  to $18 per hour in 2025, and raise it to $17 for the rest of 2024. (Yay!) Small businesses with 25 or fewer employees would be required to start paying at least $17 next year, and $18 in 2026. If voters pass 32, California will have the nation’s highest state minimum wage!

Arguments For: California is incredibly expensive, and so many residents struggle with increasing costs of rent, groceries, utilities, etc., which disproportionately impacts restaurant, service, and retail workers because they’re most likely to be paid minimum wage. Supporters argue the money would reduce the use of low-income benefits and increase residents’ ability to afford basic necessities, which would also increase their purchasing power in the CA economy. Higher wages have also made it easier for employers to fill vacancies from post-pandemic staffing shortages. If Prop 32 passes, it will give raises to 2 million Californians. 

Arguments Against: The opposition argues that employers already face increased costs from inflation and that many businesses still haven’t recovered from the pandemic. Opposition references surveys commissioned by the city of West Hollywood, where the city’s $19.08 minimum wage increase resulted in a number of businesses laying off staff, cutting hours, or closing entirely. The key argument against 32 is that this will force businesses to lay off employees and/or increase the costs of goods and services for businesses to be able to afford the wage increase. 

Ultimately, California is really, really expensive and we need to help people afford to live here and provide more access to housing, food, etc. that would meet people’s most basic needs. I do worry about some of the consequences of passing 32, for small businesses especially, and it seems very likely that we’ll see more services and goods prices increase to help offset the cost of minimum wage and/or see some small businesses close. That being said, of course, we want to see that minimum wage increases and Californians are paid fairly for their labor–this is an important step towards a living wage. Despite the complexities here, I recommend voting yes.-Kaitlin

Proposition 33:

California has had an extensive and complicated history of rent control attempting to balance tenant protections and housing market dynamics. The state’s current rent control laws emerged in response to increasing rents and a housing crisis with the goal of creating stable and affordable housing for low and middle-income residents. Prop 33 is aimed to refine these protections, with proponents arguing it could be a major step forward for housing security, while opponents believe it could negatively impact the rental market and new housing development.

The modern wave of rent control began in the 1970s with local ordinances in cities like Berkley, Santa Monica, and Los Angeles. The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 was a significant turning point and limited the scope of rent control by prohibiting cities from capping rent on buildings constructed after 1995 and eliminating vacancy control (which would have kept rent prices fixed between tenants). More recently, the state has experienced a dramatic rise in the cost of living and rental prices reigniting interest in rent control measures. Proposition 10 in 201 and Proposition 21 in 2020 sought to repeal or reform the Costa-Hawkins Act but were both unsuccessful. In response to the ongoing housing affordability crisis, proposition 33 has been introduced as a new attempt to expand rent control for California cities.
Proposition 33 proposes to modify and expand rent control across the state, by allowing local governments more freedom to implement controls on rent for newer buildings and limiting large rent increases. Here’s what supporters and opponents are saying.

Arguments for: Advocates believe Prop 33 is crucial for helping tenants stay in their homes amid rising rents by expanding rent control on newer buildings, helping the costs for residents struggling to make ends meet. By allowing local governments to prevent large rent increases Prop 33 could prevent displacement of families and individuals creating stability in communities which supporters argue would create healthier communities and a more predictable market. In the same vein, decreasing the risk of displacement will prevent new folks from falling into homelessness (especially here in Los Angeles).

Opposing arguments: Critics argue that expanded rent control could discourage developers from building new rental housing, which would exacerbate supply issues. Opponents also argue Prop 33 could negatively impact small landlords who may not have the resources to manage reduced rental income. They also suggest that broader rent control could lead landlords to increase rents in areas or properties not subject to rent control (because Prop 33 doesn’t mandate cities to expand rent control, only provides them the authority) potentially hurting renters who do not benefit from this new regulation.

With California’s population in need of both affordable and sustainable housing voters will need to weigh the potential for increased stability and affordability against the risk of reduced investment in rental housing. Although Prop 33 is not a fix-all and there are concerns about how local governments will act on it I believe this is the next step forward in stronger policies that support rental stability and affordability locally. I recommend voting Yes on Prop 33. - Clarissa

Proposition 34:

Prop 34 sounds reasonable on paper—why not use prescription drug profits on direct services? But after taking a closer look, Prop 34 targets one (one!) specific non-profit organization, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, in order to stop them from using their resources for political advocacy. AHF regularly sponsors rent control reform ballot measures (See Prop 33), and while it is an imperfect and sometimes harmful organization (some have called its leader a “safety net scammer”), using a ballot measure to block a single entity from using its resources is wrong. Proponents of Prop 34 are various landlord organizations who have banded together to create this revenge initiative. I recommend voting No on Prop 34. -Paul

Proposition 35:

Proposition 35 is billed as providing permanent funding for Medi-Cal health services. Like everything health insurance-related, this feels incredibly confusing with obvious answers. There are a lot of supporters, including a lot of medical associations and providers. This proposition locks in a tax that is due to expire soon and guarantees the funds from that tax go to funding Medi-Cal. If this doesn’t pass, it would likely be renewed by lawmakers in Sacramento. This is where details get tricky. If passed, there are lots of restrictions on how this money is used.

Because it feels like a priority for lawmakers, it seems that either way, this funding is likely to be assured. I’m siding with The Knock LA’s voter guide on this one and voting No because budgeting issues can be handled through the state legislature (and likely will anyway), and deciding this at the ballot box creates restrictions which mean less future flexibility to adapt if healthcare priorities need to change. -Steve

Proposition 36:

Allows felony charges and increased sentences for certain drug and theft crimes. Currently, Prop 47, a reform passed in 2014 changed some theft and drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. Namely, theft of $950 or less and drug possession generally both became misdemeanors. Changing the dynamics of the three-strike law. Prop 36 makes several distinct changes resembling a reversal of the 2014 Prop 47. Prop 36 would turn the theft misdemeanor (items worth ($950 or less) into a felony when the individual has two or more past convictions. It would also allow 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. lastly, Prop 36 would consider an individual’s criminal history when sentencing certain drug felonies and would generally be served in prison. Currently, these sentences are served in county jail, again, depending on the individual’s criminal history.

Prop 36, in addition to the above, would allow a sentence for possession of illegal drugs to be a ”treatment-mandated felony.” It could mean their charges would be dismissed if they finished mental health or drug treatment or serve up to 3 years in prison. Lastly, it would require a warning to people who sell or provide illegal drugs that kill someone. The warning would be given to those who are convicted of selling or providing drugs, making it likely for them to be convicted of murder if they later sell or provide drugs to someone who dies.

While Prop 36 emphasizes treatment, it fails to provide a comprehensive plan for funding and expansion of these services. Many facilities and programs are overburdened and unstably funded, and without proper infrastructure, diverting offenders to treatment may be ineffective.

Although Prop 36 is aimed at decreasing incarceration rates, it will likely perpetuate disparities in how different communities experience drug enforcement and treatment access. If treatment programs are not equitably distributed or culturally competent, it’s also likely marginalized communities will continue to face challenges receiving support, thus leading to unequal outcomes. I recommend voting No on Prop 36. - Jesse.

Measures

Measure A:

Measure A would repeal and replace the existing 1⁄4 cent sales tax to fund homelessness that was approved by voters in 2017 and replace it with a 1⁄2 cent sales tax that funds both the homeless response as well as critical affordable housing and tenant protections that serve a larger population of County residents.

 [“No” means Measure H would stay in place as a 1⁄4 cent sales tax used to fund homelessness and will expire in 2027.]

[Source: By Way of Us x Laura Herrera:  Back to the Ballot ]

A significant portion of the funding will go directly to the LA County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency, a new and little-noticed but extremely powerful board that has the ability to buy or even build new affordable housing, including social housing. Measure A will provide essential new funding and new tools to make a major difference in the lives of tens of thousands of people.
 [Source: The Knock LA Progressive Voter Guide]

My recommendation would be to VOTE YES. -Caitlin

Measure E:

Measure E authorizes an annual parcel tax of $0.06 per square foot of most parcel improvements, generating an estimated $152 million per year that has to be used to hire new first responders and upgrade emergency infrastructure.

[“No” means that The County will not raise the annual parcel tax and funding for the fire department remains funded solely within the current general fund budget.]

[Source: By Way of Us x Laura Herrera:  Back to the Ballot ]

Why? [Source: The Knock LA Progressive Voter Guide]

Measure E proposes a parcel tax of $0.06 per square foot to raise an estimated $152 million per year. LA County Fire Department is short-staffed, needs equipment upgrades, and is one of the busiest 911 systems in the world. They could use the money.

The LA County Board of Supervisors could choose to prioritize fire and rescue services without imposing new taxes. $152 million is not that significant in relation to a $45.6 billion annual budget. Unfortunately for us, LA County opted to award a whopping $4 billion to the infamous LA Sheriff’s Department, more than double the paltry $1.5 billion allocated to a department facing increasing demand and challenges in a region that grows hotter and drier each year.

In effect, we’re being asked to approve more tax revenue to fix a problem that the county could solve with better spending priorities. My recommendation would be to VOTE YES- Caitlin.

Measure G:

Currently, Los Angeles has a Board of Supervisors that includes 5 elected supervisors. The LAist points out our system has “remained mostly unchanged since 1912… when our population was roughly 500,000.” Los Angeles County today has 10 million residents. Measure G will create an elected county executive, add four more supervisors for a total of nine elected supervisors, and create an independent Ethics Commission to increase restrictions on lobbying and investigate misconduct. I’d like to see a number of elected supervisors that truly reflect the number of its constituents, but I’ll take the baby step. We recommend voting Yes on Measure G.

Measure US:

Local Public Schools Safety and Upgrades Measure. This measure asks voters to approve a bond that would provide $9 billion to LAUSD for renovations and repairs of public school facilities that are outdated and deemed unsafe. The district shares the following as urgently needing upgrades: cooling and heating systems, roofing repairs, plumbing repairs, energy efficiency, added greenscapes, and modernized technology. The district has estimated it costs property owners that live within LAUSD’s boundaries an average of $25.04 per $100,000 assessed value per year (LAist). It would be paid back through a property tax that could last up to 35 years. If Prop 2 passes as well, LAUSD could receive an additional $700 million of state funding. With updated educational facilities, we could see attendance increase, community morale and pride increase, and overall better student well-being and learning. We recommend voting Yes on measure US.

GET HELP NOW

If you are interested in therapy with Kindman & Co. and would like to learn more about the services we have to help you, follow these quick & easy steps:

1. Schedule a free 20-minute phone consultation with our Care Coordinator.

2. Get matched with the therapist who’s right for you.

Start feeling more supported and fulfilled in your life and relationships!

THERAPY SERVICES AT KINDMAN & CO.

We are here for your diverse counseling needs. Our team of therapists provides lgbtqia+ affirmative therapy, couples therapy & premarital counseling, grief & loss counseling, group therapy, and more. We have specialists in trauma, women's issues, depression & anxiety, substance use, mindfulness & embodiment, and support for creatives. For therapists and practice owners, we also provide consultation and supervision services! We look forward to welcoming you for therapy in Highland Park and online.