22 MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY OCTOBER 1-7, 2026 www.montereycountynow.com PROP. 37 | HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE | YES Prop. 37 would create a meaningful new $25 billion mortgage loan program for homebuyers earning under 200 percent of area median income, offering fixed-rate second mortgages up to 17 percent of the purchase price on homes under $1.5 million. Qualifying borrowers would have to live in the newly constructed homes. Opponents argue the measure won’t address the underlying reasons that make California housing so expensive, while forcing eligible borrowers deeper into debt. In a problem as complex as California’s housing crisis, there is no silver-bullet solution and this is not one. But it would offer a way into the housing market for qualifying buyers who otherwise may not see a pathway. PROP. 38 | IMMUNOLOGY RESEARCH BOND | NO This would authorize $8.4 billion in bonds for biomedical research on cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s. Worthy causes—yet one nonprofit stands to receive half the money. This is an example of ballot box budgeting, instead of a normal, public, transparent budgeting process. PROP. 39 | VOTER ID | NO This is a manifestation of President Donald Trump’s attack on voting rights here in California. It would require voters to present a government-issued ID when voting in person, or the last four digits of an ID number when voting by mail. California’s elections deserve continued scrutiny, but there are already plenty of security measures in place that work. This costly measure would impose unnecessary obstacles for the many eligible voters who don’t have driver’s licenses. It would disproportionately harm voters with disabilities, who are low-income or have recently moved. It’s a partisan power grab, and Californians should reject this measure to ensure a more inclusive voting process. PROP. 40 | BILLIONAIRE TAX | YES It’s easy to feel disgusted with the growing economic disparity between the rich and the poor, and the hard truth is that a Salinas farmworker pays a higher share of their income in taxes than a Silicon Valley CEO, thanks to the way each is paid and how their money accumulates. The 200-some billionaires living in California pay a mere 0.2 percent of their wealth in state income tax. California can have both the nation’s highest top income tax rate and a billionaire class paying a minuscule share of its appreciating wealth. Relief won’t be coming from the halls of Washington, D.C., nor Sacramento. In last year’s Trump-led “One Big Beautiful Bill,” the federal estate and gift tax exemption increased to $15 million per individual, $30 million for married couples. Any changes coming to the tax system are favoring the rich. Proposition 40 seeks to address this disparity with a 5-percent tax on California’s billionaires, but it’s complicated, largely because the 200-or-so billionaires in our state largely don’t have much taxable income. They hold appreciating assets and borrow against them. Case in point: Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s wealth grew by roughly $6 billion over the past year, while his salary is $1. The idea of taxing the very rich may be right in concept, but we have concerns about how it will work in reality. If it passes and then survives inevitable court challenges, it will generate a huge short-term infusion of cash, mostly funneled to support Medi-Cal. Its ultimate impact remains debatable. The biggest problem with Prop. 40 is the methodology of how to count a billionaire’s wealth. It’s easy when all your assets are publicly reported (as an owner of stock, say), and harder when it’s a private company nobody has put a price on. Prop. 40 leaves the valuing to the billionaires themselves and whoever they hire to do it. Prop. 40 makes a giant splash but doesn’t solve the bigger problem of funding health care in this state. So let’s be plain about what we’re recommending. This measure is messy, and it’s arbitrary—why stop at a billion? Prop. 40 reaches about 200 people and leaves thousands more untouched. The clear winners will be the lawyers. We suggest you vote for it despite its flaws—because nothing to reform our tax system to make it more fair is coming from Washington or Sacramento, and because a tax system this lopsided will not fix itself. Prop. 40 is not the repair. It’s the message that a repair is overdue, and that a country ought to be built on fairness, not on the rich getting richer. PROP. 41 | TAX AUDITS | NO This initiative, promoted by Google executive Sergey Brin, was placed on the ballot to effectively cancel the billionaire tax (Prop. 40). It would make it harder to pass new special taxes by requiring the state auditor to review any special tax proposal before it goes to voters, and require state audits of programs funded by new taxes and apply new-tax revenue to the state spending cap. If both propositions 40 and 41 pass, the one with more votes prevails. PROP. 42 | PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX BAN | NO This is another initiative aimed at undercutting the billionaire tax (Prop. 40), this would prevent new taxes on personal property. The same higher-count rule applies—only Prop. 42 or 40 can prevail at the polls. PROP. 43 | LOCAL SPECIAL TAX THRESHOLD | NO If you’ve read this far, you can see a lot of local jurisdictions are asking voters for a lot of taxes this election. Voters already get to weigh in, and Prop. 43 would make it harder to get taxes approved, raising the threshold for citizen-initiated special taxes from a simple majority to two-thirds. It would limit voters’ ability to decide how much and what to fund. PROP. 44 | CLINIC FUNDING FORMULA | NO This would require federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) to spend at least 90 percent of their revenue directly on patient care, with fines for noncompliance. The measure is unnecessary because community clinics are already heavily regulated by the state and federal governments. In practice, it would mean cuts in necessary expenditures on things like medical equipment or IT systems that serve patients. PROP. 45 | CEQA REFORM | NO The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is the state law designed to ensure any building projects take environmental consequences of development into consideration. And it is the opposite of perfect. It is often abused, misused and helps promote NIMBYism, slowing down or stopping worthy projects. Last year, the State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131, which exempted most qualifying urban infill housing from environmental review, marking the biggest CEQA reform in 55 years. Prop. 45 would go further. Its deadlines would streamline freeway expansions, dams, data centers and subdivisions that pave over farmland. It hands developers a new right to sue cities that impose environmental safeguards. And the Legislative Analyst’s Office pegs implementation costs at up to $100 million a year. Worse, it’s an overshoot written into initiative statute, meaning lawmakers can’t fix it later (voters would have to pass another referendum). DANIEL DREIFUSS Marina City Hall departments operate out of portables. Measure Q is a utility users tax placed on the ballot to help finance new city facilities after a 2024 bond measure failed.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjAzNjQ1NQ==