Statewide

No on Proposition 1:  “Proposition 1 on the March 5 ballot is a costly bureaucratic power grab that robs counties of mental health services funding and saddles taxpayers with $6.38 billion in debt for what amounts to a bloated version of Project Roomkey and L.A.’s Measure HHH.”

Los Angeles County

Elect Nick Melvoin to the House in District 30: “If voters want sensible, scandal-free and balanced representation, Nick Melvoin is an excellent choice.”

Re-elect Kathryn Barger to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors: “For us, her fiscal discipline is an absolute necessity on the board, a counter-punch to any free-spending tendencies of her four Democratic colleagues.”

Re-elect Imelda Padilla to the Los Angeles City Council: “She is continuing to engage all stakeholders in the community, including the business sector, in order to improve a district that her predecessor clearly neglected.”

Re-elect John Lee to the Los Angeles City Council: “John Lee has provided a touch of much needed balance. We hope he is able to tap the brakes on more of the failed policies that have led to economic stagnation and greater poverty in Los Angeles.”

Elect Dan Chang to the LAUSD school board: “Rarely have voters in the Los Angeles Unified School District had a chance to elect a school board candidate as qualified and potentially impactful as Dan Chang, and we heartily endorse his candidacy for Seat 3 in the San Fernando Valley on March 5.”

No on Measure HLA in Los Angeles: “Measure HLA would add costs and delays to street maintenance, worsen traffic, and invent yet another way for the city of Los Angeles to be sued by activists.”

No on Measure RW in Long Beach: “Voters in the city of Long Beach will weigh in March 5 on a union-backed proposal to raise hotel workers’ minimum wage to a startling $29.50 an hour within four years — with the absurd proviso that the edicts of this Measure RW would not affect hotels whose workers are already unionized and have a collective bargaining agreement.”

Orange County

No on Measure E in Westminster: “Westminster needs to tighten its belt and pass pension and other employee compensation reforms. On March 5, voters need to say: Read our lips, no new taxes.”

No on Orange Unified recall: “Is this necessary to protect the public, or are the issues motivating the activists ones better left for the normal election cycle? With regards to the Orange Unified School Board recall on the March ballot, we believe the answer lies in the latter.”

No on Huntington Beach charter amendments A, B and C: “Vote ‘no’ on all three to encourage the council to get back to governing rather than political theater.”

Elect Janet Nguyen to the Orange County Board of Supervisors: “Given the options, it’s not a difficult decision to make.”

Re-elect Don Wagner to the Orange County Board of Supervisors: “While Wagner has quietly pushed to improve county government, Khan has championed high-profile progressive priorities. Wagner is the clear choice — and it’s much clearer considering a Khan victory would give Democrats a 4-1 board majority.”

Re-elect Jorge Valdes, Tim Shaw and Ken Williams to the Orange County Board of Education

Riverside County

Elect Angelo Farooq to California State Senate in District 31: “His agenda is a modest one based on the actual needs of constituents. He’s not an ideologue. And he’s not just in this for a career. We can’t say the same for Sabrina Cervantes.”

Elect Jose Medina to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors: “Medina is clear on what he wants to do. He wants to see the coroner’s office split from the sheriff. He wants to see an oversight body put in place and an inspector general installed to see to it that things are going as they should. Richard Roth, by contrast, is beholden to the same deputies union that recruited Sheriff Chad Bianco to run for sheriff in the first place.”

Elect Jack Guerrero to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors: “No other candidate or member of the board will be able to match his financial acumen, which is why we take seriously his warnings about the fiscal trajectory of the county. Guerrero will put considerations of the county’s finances first and foremost, especially the county’s still-massive pension obligations.”

Re-elect Patricia Lock Dawson as mayor of Riverside: “She is a sensible and pragmatic leader who understands the need to balance the demands of the city’s unions with the fiscal realities of the city and the pocketbooks of taxpayers.”

Elect Sean Mill to the Riverside City Council: “Instead of virtue-signaling, Mill wants the council to focus on making sure Riverside residents get the services they deserve at the best possible cost. That sounds like common sense to us.”

Elect Warren Avery to the Riverside City Council: “Warren Avery’s practical approach is no doubt why he touts the broader range of endorsements, with supporters as varied as former Democratic Mayor Rusty Bailey and conservative Assemblyman Bill Essayli.”

Elect Hasaranga Ratnayake to the Riverside City Council: “We think the city of Riverside could benefit from having someone from outside of the political machine.”

San Bernardino County

Re-elect Dawn Rowe to the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors: “She knows how to work across the aisle and will continue to do so for the betterment of San Bernardino County.”

Re-elect Kimberly Calvin to the San Bernardino City Council: “Kimberly Calvin’s voice on the council is badly needed to keep the city moving in the right direction.”

Supervisor seats are officially nonpartisan, but one needn’t look deeply to find usual partisan battle lines. Wagner, who was elected to the board in 2019, is a Republican who served in the California Assembly from 2010-2016 and as Irvine mayor. Khan is a Democrat, a relative newcomer who was elected to Irvine City Council before becoming mayor.

We often disagree with Wagner, but given the choices, we think Orange County will be better off with Wagner on the board than with Khan on the board. Wagner isn’t the most charismatic figure, but has spent years dealing capably with the nuts-and-bolts of county governance. In our Editorial Board interview, he explained the county has made progress on dealing with homelessness, has kept crime rates low and maintained tight reins on the budget. Maintaining that restrained approach to county government is what Wagner offers and has demonstrated.

Whereas Wagner is a conservative problem-solver, Khan tilts left and has a penchant for attracting controversy. In our interview, she focused on some issues we like (e.g., promoting market-based housing), but her bio and track record is full of mostly predictable left-wing positions. This includes her efforts to promote “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion,” “carbon neutrality” and “hero” pay for workers. She championed a nanny-state smoking ban in Irvine. She’s backed by unions and the usual progressive coalition.

A key role of supervisors is negotiating with powerful public-employee unions. Yet as mayor Khan promoted union-only Project Labor Agreements that drive up the cost of public projects. She has been an outspoken supporter of the county’s disastrous public-power agency, which has been slammed for a lack of transparency.

On the point of transparency and ethics, we’re not particularly pleased with how Wagner has handled the fallout around revelations about his colleague and council ally Andrew Do. Do, it has been learned, steered millions of dollars of public funds to a nonprofit led by his daughter without disclosing his daughter’s position in the nonprofit. Wagner has given mixed messages about whether he even thinks Do did anything wrong, but recently blocked a proposal by Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento to require disclosure.

But we have the choices we have.

While Wagner has quietly pushed to improve county government, Khan has championed high-profile progressive priorities. Wagner is the clear choice — and it’s much clearer considering a Khan victory would give Democrats a 4-1 board majority. We don’t care about partisan labels per se, but dropping a fiscally conservative supervisor to create a supermajority with an expansive view of government would be a costly mistake.

In District 1, incumbent Jorge Valdes is being challenged by Beatriz Mendoza. Mendoza describes herself on her campaign website as “a non-profit executive, longtime community volunteer, education policy expert, former city commissioner, and mother of three.”

In District 3, incumbent Ken Williams Jr. faces Nancy Watkins, a lifelong educator. 

In District 4, incumbent Tim Shaw goes against David Johnson, a management consultant and current trustee on the board of the Westminster School District.

Although the posts are nonpartisan, the races are similar with generally conservative incumbents opposed by generally liberal challengers endorsed by the powerful California Teachers Association. Interviews with the six candidates revealed virtually identical talking points among the two sides. The incumbents emphasized school choice and the rights of parents, while the opponents emphasized district control over charter schools and criticized the board for wasting money on lawsuits and obsessing over culture wars. 

We have two main issues we’re watching. First is fiscal responsibility, especially with the state budget deficit projected to be at least $38 billion. We look for a government body’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, which is an audit, not a speculative budget proposal; specifically, the Unrestricted Net Position number. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, the Orange County Department of Education’s UNP was an impressive $167,327,724 in the positive. By contrast, the ACFR for the equivalent Los Angeles County Office of Education, the UNP was in the negative: -$34,277,810. And for Johnson’s Westminster SD, it also was in the negative: -$124,586,452. 

On that front, then, the Orange County Department of Education is on solid financial footing.

The second issue is the matter of school choice. Allowing competition among different schools gives parents options. Charters also often specialize, stressing arts, science or other fields more tailored to individual interests and needs of students. While both major parties once championed charter schools, Democrats have increasingly succumbed to the oppositional rhetoric of teachers unions which view them as threats to their power.

The board incumbents – Valdes, Williams and Shaw – have been strong backers of charters. If an application to a new charter is denied by one of OC’s 28 school districts, the OCBE can take up an appeal. Sometimes they approve it, and sometimes they don’t. 

The challengers in this case want the board to mostly defer to the decisions of local school boards. But we question the wisdom of doing so, given the influence of teachers unions over local school boards.

Actually, charters also are public schools, paid for by tax dollars. Some are so popular they have long waiting lists. As to “rigor and standards,” a main value of charters is they work mostly outside the “California Education Code, 2023 Edition,” which runs to a labyrinthine 2,000 pages.

Moreover, several new laws in recent years tightened charter regulations, such as Assembly Bill 1505 from 2019, which mandated charter teachers must have state credentials. And in OC charters are just 5% of total enrollment, compared to 11% statewide. We hope OC’s number goes higher.

In our interviews, incumbents Valdes, Williams and Shaw impressed us with their fiscal prudence and backing of more charter schools. We don’t dispute the qualifications of the challengers, but we fear what an Orange County Board of Education with outsized teachers union influence would look like. 

To be sure, we don’t agree with everything the board does. They’ve spent, for example, too much time on culture war spats. When they focus on their core functions, they’re at their best. The OC Department of Education is fiscally sound and the board members are champions of school choice. That merits our endorsement. Accordingly, we endorse them for re-election.

Project Roomkey was the pandemic program of placing homeless individuals in hotel rooms with optional supportive services. Measure HHH was a $1.2 billion bond for homeless housing that has cost as much as $800,000 per unit.

Proposition 1, which will appear on the March 5 ballot that mails out to voters statewide by February 5, is being marketed by Gov. Gavin Newsom as a “transformational” solution to the mental health crisis, alcohol and drug addiction, and homelessness. Don’t fall for it.

In addition to adding $6.38 billion to the state’s $80 billion bond debt, Proposition 1 permanently raids the funding for mental health services that voters approved in 2004 with Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act. That measure put a 1% tax on incomes over $1 million, and it typically generates between $2 billion and $3.5 billion per year. By law, 95% of the money goes to the counties for mental health services and the state takes 5% for mental health programs.

But Proposition 1 would change that. The state would take 10% of the money, leaving less for the counties to cover the cost of existing programs. In addition, the measure requires the counties to spend about 30% of their Prop. 63 funds on housing programs. Not only does that leave less for mental health services, it forfeits federal matching funds for health care by spending the money on housing instead.

Politics is baked into Proposition 1. It establishes mental health and behavioral health services “oversight and accountability” commissions with a total of 43 voting members, variously appointed by the attorney general, the superintendent of public instruction, Assembly and Senate committee chairs and the governor.

That’s a concern because, according to the Legislative Analyst, “The types of places that would be built with bond funds would depend on future decisions by the state.” Voters are being asked to sign a blank check to spent $4.4 billion on unspecified “places” for mental health care and drug and alcohol treatment.

Proposition 1 requires “streamlined, ministerial” approval of such housing projects, which must comply with “prevailing wage” requirements. Community input will be limited but costs will not be.

The $6.38 billion will build only 4,350 housing units and enough “places” to accommodate only 6,800 people for mental health care or drug or alcohol treatment at any one time, according to the Legislative Analyst. California’s homeless population as of January 2022 was 171,500, including 10,400 veterans.

Not only would counties lose a significant portion of the funding for mental health services they are currently providing, they would incur new costs to operate the “places” for treatment that the state chooses to build.

Vote no on Proposition 1. It’s no solution.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s January budget proposal for fiscal year 2024-25, which begins on July 1, statewide would cut $1.2 billion from homeless programs and $2.9 billion from climate programs, among other reductions and delays. The board will be wrestling with other counties to get its fair share of these and other funds.

We believe Janet Nguyen is the best candidate to put on the board. Currently a state senator who previously served on the board and in the Assembly, she is well-suited to lead the county through these and other challenges. Most importantly, she brings to the table substantive ideas on how to best govern the county.

At the outset, Nguyen vows to push for greater transparency on county spending, including opening up for audit and review past county spending, with more information readily available to the public so they can determine the appropriateness of how county supervisors are spending their money.

She called for a tighter watch on how money intended to address homelessness is spent, always with the aim of ensuring the goal of effectively getting people off the streets and on the right track is achieved. “With all due respect to the nonprofits, and they do a phenomenal job, but we’re not here to keep them afloat,” she said. “We’re here to solve problems.”

She also has been a major force in pushing Orange County Animal Care to allow visitors to the kennels unescorted to search for lost pets. The policy was instituted during the pandemic and should have been rescinded long ago. On Jan. 1 the Register published an op-ed by her condemning the way the county has done things, calling the shelter a “disaster.” Her op-ed was widely read and spurred much discussion. The shelter relented and began allowing visits on Jan. 17.

Among Nguyen’s opponents in this race is Van Tran, who previously served in the Assembly. A big concern of ours is his current position as chief-of-staff to Andrew Do, the current District 1 supervisor, who is leaving due to term limits. Do’s ethical problems, including failing to disclose he voted to give millions to a nonprofit headed by his daughter, led us to call for him to resign. More than once, actually. 

“Andrew and I, actually, don’t even work together,” Tran explained to us. “And we’re actually in opposition with each other politically.” Yes, if that explanation sounds odd to you, it sounds odd to us, too. He added, “But I can tell you personally, throughout my public life, there has never been an issue or complaint about me.”

Also running is Frances Marquez, a Cypress councilmember, associate professor of government and former legislative director for now-retired Rep. Alan Lowenthal. Although this is a nonpartisan post, she is a Democrat, while Nguyen and Tran are Republicans. While we appreciate Marquez’s vow to root out corruption in county government, beyond that issue she gave us little reason to think she’d be a particularly effective county supervisor.

When asked multiple times in our interview about how she proposed to pay for her proposals, her go-to answer was that she’d ask the federal government for money. Other times, she said she didn’t know exactly what she’d do until she got elected. 

Given the options, it’s not a difficult decision to make. Elect Janet Nguyen to serve as First District supervisor.

Allied with elected City Attorney Michael Gates, they have downplayed the usual work of local government: infrastructure, budgets and public services. Instead, they’ve sued the state over laws that allow more housing construction, removed hate-crime references from a human-dignity statement, opposed mask and vaccine mandates, and censored library books.

City Council is “standing up” for common sense, a combative Van Der Mark told us. Aside from amassing legal expenses in quixotic fights and getting praised in The Epoch Times, it’s unclear what exactly the majority is standing up for. On March 5, voters will consider three charter amendments that represent the next stage in the majority’s political plans.

Measure A centers on this provision: “The city may verify the eligibility of electors by voter identification.” This demand for voter ID conforms to the demands of Trump-supporting voters who still claim – despite all evidence to the contrary – that U.S. elections are swamped with fraud. Van Der Mark told our editorial board that while there was no evidence of election fraud in Huntington Beach, the measure was justified because it would boost public confidence in local elections.

But the measure is in obvious conflict with state and federal election laws – something Van Der Mark wouldn’t address during our interview. California’s attorney general and secretary of state already put the city on notice that they “stand ready to take appropriate action to ensure that voters’ rights are protected.” It’s another rookie error that will lead to court rebuke.

Measure B is their convoluted way of stopping the city from flying LGBTQ flags by limiting official flag-waving to mostly governmental flags. Aside from imposing obstacles to, say, flying a sister-city or high-school flag, it’s just posturing. Council already has a reasonable flag policy. There’s no need to enshrine a flag policy in the city charter. Members of the council are adults who can figure out among themselves if or when to fly particular flags. 

Measure C would create two-year budget cycles, which is fine. It requires any council vacancy be filled only until the next election – not for the remainder of the term. That’s a good change, but can be fixed in other ways. But this measure includes a poison pill – a rule letting the mayor unilaterally cancel council meetings, which can be misused to reduce public access and limit dissent.

Vote “no” on all three to encourage the council to get back to governing rather than political theater.

While this Editorial Board agrees with Johnson in spirit, we don’t agree with every effort by the public to recall its politicians. We try to answer a simple question for each one: Is this necessary to protect the public, or are the issues motivating the activists ones better left for the normal election cycle?

With regards to the Orange Unified School Board recall on the March ballot, we believe the answer lies in the latter. Recall supporters raise concerns about Board President Rick Ledesma and Trustee Madison Miner, some of which are legitimate. But there’s no reason these issues shouldn’t have waited.

Supporters express concern about the firing of the superintendent, decisions regarding school-repair funds and the sale of a school site to a charter. They blame these trustees for an exodus of principals. The details are hard to sort through, which confirms they involve the normal day-to-day activities of a board responsible for managing a decent-sized district.

Teachers’ union support for the recall also gives us pause.

A successful recall creates another mess for determining replacements (via special election, appointment or waiting until the next election, per district bylaws). So why not just wait anyway?

School-board elections have largely operated under the radar, for better or worse. After COVID closures – and the reluctance of unions and administrators to reopen schools – the state faced a record number of recall attempts. We were sympathetic to most of these given the time-sensitive nature of the problem. In this case, not so much.

We urge a “no” vote.

This year’s initiative will be for an additional 0.50%. If it passes, that will be 1.5% of taxes OK’d in 16 months. The city’s tax rate then would rise from the current 8.75% to 9.25%. The measure was put on the ballot by a 4-0 vote of the City Council: Mayor Chi Charlie Nguyen and Councilmembers Amy Phan West, Carlos Manzo and Kimberly Ho. Vice Mayor NamQuam Nguyen was not present.

“As a 35-year resident and for as far as I can remember, the city has always been at a financial disadvantage,” Manzo told us. “We have a low property tax rate that cannot be changed, and funds taken away by the state have left us in financial crisis. We have always known that 1% was never enough to make us whole, but we are at risk of losing this half cent to another agency. If this happens, we lose our opportunity to finally flourish as a city.”

Currently, California imposes a 7.25% statewide sales tax, and allows another 3.5% maximum added by cities and counties; or 10.75% total. Orange County adds just 0.50% for local Measure M transportation funds, giving us the current county rate of 7.75%. Because O.C. votes still largely are anti-tax, and there are no proposals to increase the county tax, the idea Westminster could “lose” the potential to increase taxes doesn’t fly. As to the state not returning revenues, most of that was from ending disastrous redevelopment programs.

The city does have financial problems. According to former state Sen. John Moorlach’s June analysis of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports of O.C.’s 34 cities, Westminster ranked 28th, with an unrestricted net deficit of $1,067 per capita. But Huntington Beach was 30th, at $1,132; and Costa Mesa was 34th, last, at $2,026. Moorlach told us, “Westminster is not at the very bottom and their per capita ranking is half that of Costa Mesa. Yet I don’t see Costa Mesa crying.”

And consider city salaries. According to Transparent California, tops in 2022 was Deputy Police Chief Cameron Knauerhaze at $487,769 in pay and benefits. Eight other officers that year were above $400,000, what President Biden makes. 

Westminster residents also will be paying more in 2024 for state gas and income taxes. And inflation still is digging in. The city is far from going bankrupt. It needs to tighten its belt and pass pension and other employee compensation reforms. On March 5, voters need to say: Read our lips, no new taxes.

Editor’s note: This editorial has been corrected to identify Measure Y as the measure approved in 2022, a continuation of Measure SS.

Measure S in Laguna Beach on the Nov. 8 ballot would increase the minimum wage for hotel employees to $18 per hour. Starting in 2027, the wage would be increased further based on the consumer price index of the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County metropolitan area – which could be a hefty amount if today’s 8.3 percent annual inflation continues. And the measure would establish new “workplace standards” for employees.

In their ballot arguments, proponents argue inflation means hotel worker wages ought to rise. True enough, but they already do. The California minimum wage will rise to $15.50 an hour on Jan. 1.

Related: Measure S in Laguna Beach considers city law for $18 an hour pay for hotel workers

And California Labor Code section 1182.12 mandates future yearly adjustments based on “the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics nonseasonally adjusted United States Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.”

We also see all over Orange County fast-food restaurants and other establishments hanging out signs reading, “Help Wanted. Starting at $17.” As to workplace standards, California already closely regulates labor conditions in all industries, especially hospitality.

Higher costs do have consequences. Voters should think how they use online apps to find a hotel or motel, based on the cost. If Laguna Beach raised the cost to tourists, those tourists will look for cheaper lodgings in neighboring cities. Bookings will drop and hotel workers will be laid off, or transfer to hotels in other cities. Laguna Beach will lose tax revenues.

The Register reported Measure S is “sponsored by Unite Here Local 11.” According to the website of the Los Angeles-based union, it “represents over 32,000 workers employed in hotels, restaurants, airports, sports arenas, and convention centers throughout Southern California and Arizona.”

No wonder Measure S also stipulates the minimum-wage requirement “may be waived pursuant to a bona fide collective bargaining agreement” with a union. That is, Measure S really is just a union power grab.

With inflation worsening and a recession digging in, companies do not need regulations that increase their costs. Nor should they be victim to power-hungry unions abusing the initiative process for their own ends.

Voters should dump Measure S in the Pacific Ocean. Vote No.

Measure Y is nonsense on steroids, an evisceration of private property rights which imposes an unjustifiable hurdle before developers trying to meet market needs. The results have been predictable, as development has been stifled in the city. And like it or not, the measure makes it harder for the city to meet the state’s housing goals. The failure to meet those those goals carries tangible penalties to the city.

On the ballot this Nov. 8 is Measure K, which falls short of repealing Measure Y, but does carve out certain commercial and industrial areas of the city from the public vote requirement. Opponents of Measure K trot out the usual NIMBY talking points. They complain it “will not lower housing costs,” because it doesn’t “provide housing for working families” and “does not stop evictions or rent hikes.”

While Measure Y should be totally repealed, a partial carve-out is what is on the table. That’s preferable to what supporters of the status quo would rather have, which is an artificial barrier to construction simply because they don’t like the idea of more people being able to live in Costa Mesa and because they don’t like apartments.

We encourage Costa Mesa residents to respect private property rights and pass Measure K to give the market more of a chance to work and provide homes and jobs for future Costa Mesa residents.