Does anyone understand Props 98 and 99 for the June primary?

:banghead:

So far I am voting no on both since I do not understand them.

and in this case I think I voted "no" on 98 and "yes" on 99 based on the endorsers (I already voted absentee).

races.

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_98_versus_California_Proposition_99_(2008)

The San Francisco Chronicle on May 4 editorialized against Prop 98, saying it is "disingenuous and dangerous", objecting to the phase-out of rent control and saying 98 could "be used to attack myriad laws that restrict land use or protect land, air and water resources".

The Santa Cruz Sentinel also came out against Prop 98 on May 4, focusing on rent control. "If opponents of rent control want to bring an end to the process, then present the issue openly and fairly and let the debate begin," they write, urging readers to instead vote for Prop. 99.

On May 12, the Los Angeles Times urged a "no" vote on 98, saying that Prop 98 "masquerades as a simple correction to the notorious Kelo ruling, but really carries the long-standing agenda of interests that want to extinguish rent control and block water and air quality laws." The Times encourages its readers to vote "yes" on 99, but they say that it does not go far enough and that further action in the state legislature is needed to prevent Kelo-style private-to-private land transfers.

The Sacramento News & Review editorialized against 98 and for 99 on May 15, calling 98's TV ads "imaginatively deceptive". The Palm Springs Desert Sun said yes to 99 and no to 99 in an editorial on May 20, arguing that 98 is a "wolf in sheep's clothing".

Groups opposed to 98:
http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=List_of_California_Proposition_98_Opposition

Ballot initiatives ought to be understandable and have a single coherent purpose.

98 will end rent control and gut California environmental law.

It's a tough issue because 98 goes way too far, and 99 doesn't go far enough (99 should protect farmers and small businesses).

and Calif Teachers Association say no on 98, yes on 99.

I've lived in the same apartment in Los Angeles for 20 years and if it wasn't for rent control I wouldn't be able to live anywhere in this city. Yet the same greedy goons behind the mortgage fiascos are now wanting to evict thousands of more people. If you think the homeless situation in California is bad now, just wait till landlords start throwing people out en masse and cheating them out of their deposit refunds, which 98 will allow them to do!

- NOT!

:puke:

My husband is a Green party member received a
how to vote card in the mail his says the same thing .

No on 98 Yes on 99

And you better not vote for my rent to go up!!! :evilgrin: :rofl:

:hi:

:rofl:

Hi Kerrytravelers.

:hi:

Yes on 99.

I REFUSE to support anything that Howard Jarvis
is connected to ( Prop 98).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Jarvis

It's all to make the landlords more money and
give them unprecedented power.

As the AARP ad states, it's a deceptive scam.

:(

says, NO on Prop 98 and YES on Prop 99 - is good enough for me!

:hi:

My understanding is that the 98 people and 99 people were working on a bi-partisan initiative when the 98 people broke off and decided to do their own thing.

The initiative process often produces bad law. I listened to an hour long debate on Prop 98 & 99 and decided to vote No on both of them.

98 is the worst of the 2.

as bad as the legislative process is, I'd rather see a law enacted through that process rather than through propositions.

And the Legislative Analyst's opinion.

It does nothing.