State Measures
Reasons for Yes or No endorsements are highlighted in bold
Proposition 68
Libertarian Party of California Endorses a NO vote
Proposition 68 would authorize $4 billion in general obligation bonds for state and local parks, environmental protection and restoration projects, water infrastructure projects, and flood protection projects. Assuming a 3.5 percent interest rate over a 30-year period, the bond issue would generate $2.53 billion in interest, meaning the state would spend $6.53 billion to pay off the bond issue.
Proposition 69
Libertarian Party of California Endorses a NO vote
Proposition 69 would require that revenue from the diesel sales tax and Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF) be dedicated for transportation-related purposes. As of 2018, the state constitution prohibited the legislature from using gasoline excise tax revenue or diesel excise tax revenue for general non-transportation purposes. The amendment would require the diesel sales tax revenue to be deposited into the Public Transportation Account, which was designed to distribute funds for mass transportation and rail systems. Proposition 69 would require the TIF revenue be spent on public streets and highways and public transportation systems. Although SB 1 requires revenue from the zero-emission vehicles fee to be placed in the Road MaintenReasons for Yes or No endorsements are highlighted in boldance and Rehabilitation Account, Proposition 69 does not contain a provision creating a constitutional mandate for zero-emission vehicles fee revenue.
Proposition 70
Libertarian Party of California Endorses a NO vote
Proposition 70 would require a one-time two-thirds vote in each chamber of the California State Legislature to use revenue from the State Air Resources Board's auctioning or sale of greenhouse gas emissions allowances under the state's cap-and-trade program. To make sure no revenue is spent without the two-thirds vote, the measure would place all revenue from the cap-and-trade program in a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund beginning on January 1, 2024. The vote would take place anytime on or after January 1, 2024. Revenue would collect in this reserve fund until the one-time two-thirds vote occurreBallot Propositionsd. If legislators failed to secure a two-thirds vote, revenue would keep collecting in the reserve fund and the state would be unable to spend the revenue. Between January 1, 2024, and the passage of the spending bill, the measure would also suspend a sales tax exemption for manufacturers, increasing tax revenue about $260 million per year.
Proposition 71
Libertarian Party of California Endorses a NO vote
Heading into 2018, voter-approved ballot propositions went into effect on the day following the election date, unless the ballot proposition's language specified a different date. Proposition 71 would move the effective date of ballot propositions to the fifth day after the secretary of state certifies election results, rather than the day after the election. As of 2018, the secretary of state was required to certify election results no later than the 38th day after the election.
Proposition 72
Libertarian Party of California Endorses a YES vote
Proposition 72 would allow the California State Legislature to exclude rainwater capture systems added to properties after January 1, 2019, from counting as new construction. When a property owner adds new construction to his or her property, the new construction is assessed for taxable value. Adding a rainwater capture system to one's property counts as a new construction. As the ballot measure would exclude rainwater capture systems from the definition of new construction, the taxable value of a property would not increase because the property owner added a rainwater capture system.
San Mateo County Measures
Regional Measure 3
Libertarian Party of San Mateo County Endorses a NO vote
BAY AREA TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN. Shall voters authorize a plan to reduce auto and truck traffic, relieve crowding on BART, unclog freeway bottlenecks, and improve bus, ferry, BART and commuter rail service as specified in the plan in this voter pamphlet, with a $1 toll increase effective in 2019, a $1 increase in 2022, and a $1 increase in 2025, on all Bay Area toll bridges except the Golden Gate Bridge, with independent oversight of all funds?
Local Bond Measures
Central Committee of Libertarian Party of San Mateo County recommends a NO vote on this election's bond measures. Details and our ballot arguments against each measure are given below.
Foster City Levee Bond, Measure P
Libertarian Party of San Mateo County Endorses a NO vote
The City of Foster City realizes its levee needs $90,000,000 of improvements to meet Federal, FEMA, standards. With interest, the City estimates the taxpayers will pay a total of $155,122,284.
These bonds must be repaid by Ad Valorem property taxes. In California, the Ad Valorem taxes are very unequal. Some families must pay many times what neighbors pay, for the very same floor plan. The tax collector does not care.
Foster City does face problems from a once-in-a-100-year flood but is that even the most urgent danger? With the San Andreas fault running straight through the Peninsula and with Foster City built on vulernable fill land, concern for the inevitable earthquake seems more urgent than the slow rise in sea level.
The levee protects about 8,000 properties in San Mateo as well as the 9,000 in Foster City, according to the Daily Journal. Why don't the people in San Mateo who are also protected by this levee pay their share of the $155,122,284? And why don't they get a vote on this important issue?
Slowly rising sea level would surely affect the entire Bay Area. This is a regional problem with regional benefits and costs. In fact, Alameda County expressed concern that Foster City's levee work could negatively impact its communities. Why does Foster City have to do this all alone?
This is a regional problem; it needs a regional solution. Why does Foster City have to pay the $90,000,000 all by itself?
Belmont-Redwood Shores School District, Measure K
Libertarian Party of San Mateo County Endorses a NO vote
With this latest "temporary" parcel tax, the Belmont Redwood Shores School District claims they need more money to continue providing quality education.
The district not only wants the 2013 parcel tax for 10 years they're already getting, they want an increase of $118 per year more for 5 years. And that's on top of 2 bond measures of $48M and $25M funded since 2010.
Have they earned this extension that will cost you $590 over the next 5 years (on top of the taxes you are already paying)?
Let's look at the student test scores for Math learners attaining proficiency:
2015-16 school year results: 74% meeting proficiency
That means 26% do NOT meet standards.
Source: California Department of Education Data Partnership
If you got 74% a test, that would be a C grade, would it not?
Should you, the voters, reward a 26% failure rate with more money?
If no, we encourage you to vote No on Measure K.
Belmont Redwood Shores School District is already spending $10,616 per student. For an average class size of 26 students, that's $270,016 per class per year.
The average salary and benefits for teachers is $92,347 per shortened work year.
Yet they want more of your hard earned money to paid their salaries and fat pension plans.
Tell the Belmont Redwood Shores School District to be fiscally responsible by voting No on Measure K.
If you reward failure, you will get more failure!
Brisbane Elementary School District, Measure L
Libertarian Party of San Mateo County Endorses a NO vote
With this latest "temporary" parcel tax, Brisbane School District claims they need more money to contine providing quality education.
The district not only wants the 2013 parcel tax for 10 years they're already getting, they want an increase of $118 per year more for 5 years. And that's on top of 2 bond measures of $48M and $25M funded since 2010.
Have they earned this extension that will cost you $1,328 over the next 8 years (on top of the property taxes you are already paying)?
Let's look at the student test scores for Math learners achieving proficiency.
2015-16 school year results: 52% meeting proficiency.
That means 48% do NOT meet standards.
Source: California Department of Education Data Partnership
If you got 52% on a test, that would be an F grade, would it not?
Should you, the voters, reward a 48% failure rate with more money?
If no, we encourage you to vote NO on Measure L.
Brisbane School District is already spending $17,019 per student compared to the statewide average of $11,431. That 149% above the average. For an average class size of 26 students, that's $442,494 per class per year.
The average salary and benefits for teachers is $92,347 per shortened work year.
Yet they want more of your hard earned money to pad their salaries and fat pension plans.
The measure says that none of the funds will be used for administration. But funds generated separately from the parcel tax can be used for administation expenses without limits. So that is really an empty promise. Do not be fooled.
Tell the Brisbane School District Board to be fiscally responsible by voting NO on Measure L.
Cabrillo Unified School District, Measure M
Libertarian Party of San Mateo County Endorses a NO vote
Voters already passed Measure S in 2012, authorizing $81,000,000 to "replace or repair leaky roofs" among many other promises. Why does Cabrillo Unified School District need $99,000,000 now, promising again to fix leaky roofs?
Measure M lists so many great things your borrowed money could buy: from modular buildings to computers in 7 schools. But Measure M does not make the Cabrillo Unified School District do all that. The fine print says there are no priorities and no project needs to be actually completed. Will any money rebuild your school? In fact, the only money spent could go for computers, which become obsolete in a few years but the taxpayers will be paying until 2050. All bond money should be used only for buildings and long lasting items, just like a mortgage.
Is this "Project List" a plan or an ad? Measure M even wrote an argument for itself into the law, sneaking more argument text into this ballot pamphlet. Unfair!
These bonds must be repaid by Ad Valorem property taxes. In California, the Ad Valorem taxes are very unequal. Some families must pay many times what neighbors pay for the very same floor plan. The tax collector does not care.
The real solution to government school financing has to come from Sacramento and amend the California Constitution.
Proponents probably told you that by passing Measure M your schools could be better than neighboring districts. That should never be. The 14th amendment guarantees equality; the Serrano-Priest case said government schools should be equal in California.
Is your school really as great as the Cabrillo Unified School District claims? When you want a better product, you shop for it. With government schools, there is only one "store", the school district. Schools will not get better until families have more choices.
Vote "No" on Measure M.
Millbrae School District, Measure N
Libertarian Party of San Mateo County Endorses a NO vote
With this latest "temporary" parcel tax, the Millbrae Elementary School District claims they need more money to continue providing quality education.
Have they earned this additional tax that will cost you $485 over the next 5 years (on top of the taxes you are already paying)?
Let's look at the latest student test scores for Math learners attaining proficiency.
* 2015-16 school year results: 61% meeting proficiency
* That means 39% do NOT meet standards
* Source: California Department of Education Data Partnership
If you got 61% on a test, that would be a D- grade, would it not?
Should you, the voters, reward a 39% failure rate with more money?
If no, we encourage you to vote No on Measure N.
* For English, only 66% met or exceed standards!
No wonder that student enrollment is declining.
Millbrae Elementary School District is already spending $9,900 per student
For an average class of 26 students, that's $259,740 per class per year
The average salary and benefits for teachers is $83,991 per shortened work year
Yet the District administration wants more of your hard earned money to pad their salaries and fat pension plans.
The measure says no funds will be used for administration. But, funds generated separately from this parcel tax can be used for administration expenses without limits. So that is really an empty promise. Do not be fooled.
Tell the Millbrae Elementary School District Board to be fiscally responsible by voting No on Measure N.
If you reward failure, you will get more failure!
Pacifica School District, Measure O
Libertarian Party of San Mateo County Endorses a NO vote
The District has yet another tax increase on struggling Pacifica families. With interest, this is a $110 million tax increase. Residents - both renters and homeowners - will pay most of this because we have few businesses to share the cost. Isn't housing here already too costly?
Pacificans already generously fund schools. We're presently paying on a PSD facilities bond - for another 10 years plus the parcel tax voted in 2016 plus regular property taxes and state apportionments (up 66% since 2012). Why doesn't PSD use those revenues for maintenance?
If Measure O passes, we'd be paying on 6 or 7 tax overrides at once! (see your tax bill)
Property taxes grow 2% compounded annually. Schools get almost half of that.
* There's no senior or low income exemptions
* Property taxes are less deductible under the new tax law
* The low revenue days for schools have passed. They get more each year.
* PSD has no list of projects. It just wants more money.
PSD fails to set aside money for maintenance. Now they want taxpayers to pay extra. Borrowing is expensive. It's bad budgeting to depend on capital outlay bonds for ongoing expenses like painting and patching. PSD must learn to prioritize.
Don't vote to displace families due to higher taxes.
Please vote no on Measure O.
Ravenswood City School District, Measure Q
Libertarian Party of San Mateo County Endorses a NO vote
With this latest "temporary" parcel tax, the Ravenswood City School District claims they need more money to continue providing quality education.
The district just got a $26M bond measure approved in 2016 and now they're back for another $70M bond this election. Plus they want another parcel tax.
Have they earned this extension that will cost you $1,568 over the next 8 years (on top of the taxes you are already paying)?
Let's look at the student test scores for Math learners attaining proficiency:
* 2015-16 school year results: 12% meeting proficiency
* that means 88% do NOT meet standards
* Source: California Department of Education Data Partnership
If you got 12% on a test, that would be an F- grade, would it not?
Should you, the voters, reward a 88% failure rate with more money?
If no, we we encourage you to vote No on Measure Q.
* For English, only 19% met or exceed standards
No wonder that student enrollment is declining.
Ravenswood City School District is already spending $15,924 per student. That's 139% of the California average. Clearly more money equals lower grades!
For an average class of 25 students, that's $398,100 per class per year.
The average salary and benefits for teachers is $81,339 per shortened work year.
Yet the District administration wants more of your hard earned money to paid their salaries and fat pension plans.
The measure says that no funds will be used for administration. But funds generated separately from this parcel tax can be used for administration expenses without limits. So that is really an empty promise. Do not be fooled.
Tell the Ravenswood City School District Board to be fiscally responsible by voting NO on Measure Q.
If you reward failure, you will get more failure!
Ravenswood City School District, Measure S
Libertarian Party of San Mateo County Endorses a NO vote
Ravenswood City School District claims they need $70M (plus 32 years of interest) to "repair more aging buildings", virtually identical to the "repair aging buildings" statement for the $26M bond in 2016.
This begs the question, why are repairs not part of the normal yearly budget?
Just two years ago they wanted to "upgrade school safety_ and now they want to "further upgrade safety." Deja vu all over again?
The district just got a $26M bond message approved in 2016 and now they're back for another $70M bond this election. Plus they want a separate parcel tax.
They want to "improve technology". But most technology is obsolete in 4-6 years yet the interest payments for that technology will continue for 30+ years.
Would you buy a computer and take out a 30+ year loan to pay for it?
That would be nuts, wouldn't it?
But that's exactly what the districts wants and to stick you with the bill!
If you thinks that's nuts, please vote NO on Measure S.
Ravenswood City School District is already spending $398,100 per class per year (25 students x $15,924 per student) Source: California Educational Data Partnership
The average salary and benefits for teachers is $81, 339.
Subtract $81,399 and that's still over $300K per classroom per year.
The administration just wants more of your hard earned money to pad their salaries and fat pension plans.
Tell the Ravenswood City School District Board to be fiscally responsible.
Vote NO on Measure S.
Be the first to comment
Sign in with
Facebook Twitter