Our Take: NO – Santa Cruz City High School District Bond Measure
There are already SIX bond measures on our property tax bill for this district. Now is definitely not the time to be asking for an additional $249 million (which will turn into a payback of $413.2 million) on our already overburdened residents. It seems greedy and poorly managed projects continue to cost us over and over. We do not need to pass this expense along to further generations – it’s just bad business and the wrong time to be asking.
Our Take: NO – Santa Cruz City Elementary School District Bond Measure
This is the same argument as Measure K – it is too much, too soon and a very bad time to be asking for money. This Elementary Bond is asking for $122 million that will cost us over $201.6 million to pay back. It is just irresponsible and wrong. With all of the state excess, it’s time to find other solutions to update our schools.
Our Take: NO – Loma Prieta Joint Union Elementary School District Parcel Tax Measure
Measure M was placed on the ballot by the Board of Trustees asking for $348 annually for eight years. This just isn’t the time to increase any tax on our overburdened tax base and although we like the sunset, what are they going to do to find the $640,000 then. Why don’t they figure that out today? No new taxes. Period.
Our Take: NO – Empty Home Tax
This is just a blatant overreach and intrusive, extreme and ridiculous approach to hurt homeowners. Nobody should have a say on what a property owner does with their own property. Who is going to provide the audits? Neighbors turning each other in? This is shamefully close to something that would happen in communist countries, and makes a shamble out of our freedom in this one.
Our Take: NO – Santa Cruz Downtown General Plan Amendment Initiative
On paper it seems like this is a good idea, but as we dug in, our committee decided to take a NO stance on Measure O. There is a parking need downtown and it seems like the plan that has existed for a long time to build the parking garage should continue. Although in a perfect world, the library would stay where it is, the funding appears to be in place to move it.
Our Take: NO – The way that this is written would appear to be funding for everything lacking in our area currently at the expense of people who don’t live here. However, it is a crafty way to say the money will be added to the General Fund so the Santa Cruz City Council can spend it however they want to. It’s trendy to tax people who come to cities to visit; although it is also greedy and another way to mismanage budgets. If you think this won’t deter folks from coming here to spend their money at our restaurants and attractions, you’re wrong. With the economy as it is, people aren’t traveling as much, so many of these properties will go vacant and our tourists will find somewhere else to go where the homeless aren’t preying on land and cities have responsible leaders. Property owners already pay taxes to the city, and now this overreach. Enough is enough!
Our Take: Neutral – Watsonville Planned Growth
Our Take: NO – City of Watsonville Community Investment Tax Measure
At a time when people are struggling the most, adding a .5% sales tax to a community that is suffering just seems wrong. No more taxes!
Our Take: Neutral – City Watsonville Planning for Watsonville’s Future
Our Take: NO – Boulder Creek Recreation and Park District Parcel Tax Measure
This appears to be fairly benign at first read ($25 per parcel), but has an annual increase of 3%, which could translate a 44% increase in the life of this tax. The Rec Department already receives quite a bit of taxpayer money – if they require more, maybe they can take it up privately or a one-time fee if it is capital improvements they need. People are hurting – adding this to the pile of add-on money is just wrong.
Our Take: NO – Allows Late-Term Abortions Without Restrictions at Tax-Payer Expense
Proposition 1 was put on the ballot by Governor Gavin Newsom and Legislative Democrats
California state law already allows access to abortion, and contraception, but Prop. 1 is so extreme it will allow unrestricted late-term abortions that will end up costing taxpayers millions.
And despite record inflation and a soaring cost. of living, Sacramento Democrats have already committed over $200 million of taxpayer money this year to expand abortion and
reproductive services – including tens of millions to pay the expenses for. abortion seekers from other states.
Our Take: NO – A Massive Expansion of Sports Gambling in California
The proponents of Prop 26 want you to believe this measure is just about sports wagering, but don’t be fooled.
While Proposition 26 would authorize in-person sports wagering at tribal casinos and horse racetracks, this massive expansion of gaming also changes state law to give private trial lawyers the powers of the Attorney General – allowing them to file endless and frivolous lawsuits against the proponents’ card club competition.
If Proposition 26 puts card clubs out of business, communities across California would lose 32,000 jobs and $1.6 billion in wages.
Our Take: NO – Deceptive Scheme by Out-of-State Online Gambling Corporations
Decades ago, gaming companies passes the California Lottery with misleading promises of massive new revenues for schools. Now, out-of-state gambling corporations are using similar bait-and-switch tactics to promote Prop 27 as a solution to homelessness with no accountability measures in place to protect taxpayers.
California has spent over $30 billion to address homelessness in the last 5 years, but things have only gotten worse.
Rather than legalize this massive expansion of online gambling, we should more effectively manage the billions the state is already spending as well as any new funding needed in the future.
Our Take: Neutral – Dedicates Funding Specifically for Arts Education in Public Schools
The California Republican Party did not take a position on Prop 28. The proposition allocates from the state General Fund an amount equal to one percent of required state and local funding for public schools – approximately $1 billion annually – for additional funding of arts and music education in K-12 Public Schools.
Our Take: NO – Creates New Dialysis Bureaucracy that Increases Healthcare Costs
Despite two measures that were identical to Proposition 29 that were overwhelmingly rejected by voters in 2018 and 2020, labor unions are going back to the ballot box for a third time with their obviously flawed proposal.
If passed, Proposition 29 would increase the cost of healthcare while lessening the quality of service our most vulnerable patients receive.
We were right to oppose this before, and we are right to oppose it again. Vote NO on this disastrous measure.
Our Take: NO – Raises Income Taxes by Up to $100 Billion
The California Air Resources Board (CARB ) issued a new mandate requiring 90% of miles logged by rideshare drivers be in electric vehicles by 2030. Now one company – Lyft – is proposing Prop 30, a massive $4.5 billion tax increase, so they can use taxpayers hard earned money to build more electric vehicle infrastructure and meet CARB’s new mandate.
This comes at a time when Californians already pay among the nation’s highest gas, income and sales tax while grappling with a soaring cost of living thanks to record inflation. Now is the worst possible time to saddle taxpayers with $4.5 billion in additional taxes to double down on the failed energy policies of Governor Newsom and Sacramento Democrats.
Our Take: NO – Bans Certain Tobacco Products and Costs Taxpayers $1 Billion
The Sacramento politicians who wrote Prop 31 say it will reduce underage tabacco use – but it’s already illegal to sell any tobacco product to anyone under the age of 21 in California.
Furthermore, research shows nearly half the cigarettes smoked in California are from illegal sources, making prohibition an even less effective approach. Prop 31 will increase illegal smuggling and counterfeit markets and force even more tabacco sales into underground markets controlled by organize criminal gangs.
California should not abandon what is clearly working and replace it with a failed policy of the past – prohibition – that will increase crime.
CANDIDATES ENDORSED BY THE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE
- CA Board of Equalization: Peter Coe Verbica
- Pajaro Valley School District Board : District 1 – Natalain Schwartz
- Scotts Valley School Board: Patricia Adams
- SLV School Board: District Trustee Area 4 – Ryan Lipert
- Scotts Valley City Council: Jim Reed – (we are encouraging people to only vote for Jim even though there are two seats)
- Soquel Creek Water District Director: Corrie Kates and Kris Kirby (we are encouraging people to only vote for these two even though there are three seats)
- Congressional District 18: Peter Hernandez
- Congressional District 19: Jeff Gorman
- Assembly District 28: Liz Lawler
- Assembly District 29: Stephanie Castro
- Assembly District 30: Vicki Nohrden
- Governor: Brian Dahle
- Lt. Governor: Angela Underwood Jacobs
- Secretary of State: Rob Bernosky
- Attorney General: Nathan Hochman
- State Controller: Lanhee Chen
- Insurance Commissioner: Robert Howell
- Treasurer: Jack Guerrero
- Superintendent of Public Instruction: Lance Christensen
- US Senate: Mark Meuser (both terms)