Skip to main content

RIP Prop 33 😭 What happened?

Why did Prop 33 lose in California? Here are three reasons, although there could be more: 

1) Out of state billionaire real estate special interests, combined with in-state millionaire Landlord orgs, spent over $121,000,000 on telling scary falsehoods to Californians. Like, rent control will cause rents to go up, and affordable housing will disappear. They just needed to cause enough confusion about the meaning of Prop 33 to get the voters – even tenants! – to vote no. 

2) As I explain in a vid on YouTube,* the California Legislative Analyst presented a biased and negative summary of Prop 33 in the Voter Guide. That was sent out to 22M Californians. For many voters, it was the one and only thing they would read about Prop 33. The law requires the Legislative Analyst to suggest the economic impact of a prop for both state and local gov – but only a negative view was given, and only for the state gov – “tens of millions” would be lost in tax revenues, it said. But renters with regulated affordable rents would have more money to spend; hence, a boon to local economies and local govs (see my vid). Although misleading, such a negative report likely resulted 100s 0f 1000s of "no" votes. (I warned Weinstein about this in time to change it, but to no avail.)

3) The organization behind the pro-Prop 33 took a Republican orientation to making their case. They took the rich person’s view of pitying the poor homeless. But to really stimulate renters and Progressive Californians, they should have rallied renters to Fight for their Rights to Affordable Rents. The spokespersons they sent out to the media were nice people, well informed, but not a Fighter among them. The Landlord rep, a guy named Click, could misrepresent Prop 33, and BS the audience with red herrings, and never be confronted by the pro-Prop 33 person.^ Those one minute TV “debates” are on YouTube.

So, Landlords win again. The domination and exploitation that began under Feudalism will continue.


William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.

The Political Science Interpretivist

@InterpretivePo1 

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJUZeAbSB28

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVP2nqEV-ao&t=53s


Comments

  1. William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.November 8, 2024 at 10:52 PM

    Press release says the following, but no details, “Governor Newsom is the main reason that rent control was killed in California," said AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein. "All the polling showed Yes on 33 ahead prior to his becoming the face of the no campaign. Big Real Estate gave him millions over the years, and they called in their chits." https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241106313190/en/Yes-on-33-Fight-for-Justice-for-Renters-Will-Continue

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.November 10, 2024 at 2:16 PM

      Actually, Newsom's popularity hovered around 50% at the time. So his influence probably wasn't all that significant.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How the “But For” Test for Causation in Law can be Adapted to Political Science

For social science, as for law, the concept of “causation” can  take on different forms. These forms of causation are “outside   the box” of the old Newtonian concept of causation. That is, a   one-on-one collision. For example, the “8 ball” in a pool game moved to the corner pocket because the cue ball struck it at the intended angle. The cue ball did that because Minnesota Fats hit the cue ball just right with his pool stick. This is a mechanistic model of causation. In that model, the list of causes prior to Minnesota Fats could go back endlessly; or at least to the Big Bang of 13.8 billion years ago, which, mechanistically, is thought to be the First Cause of everything. However, for the most part, social science, like law, envisions human behavior as conduct for which the actors are responsible. This need not be a “moral” responsibility, for which moral blame is attached. Instead, “causal responsibility” is simply a matter-of-fact, or practical, concept...
Post a Comment
Read more

Executive Immunity – Beyond the Hype

                                           The media and fund raising emailers are having a ball screaming “the sky is falling! The Trump Supreme Court has given Trump ‘absolute immunity’ for whatever he wants to do as President. He’ll kill us all!” But that’s far from true. The United States v Trump The case is known as US v Trump . In its opinion, the Supreme Court didn’t give Trump anything. In fact, the Court remanded the case to the District Court, and told the lawyers for both sides to start all over again. This time, they have to consider three important points. Before explaining these, lets see how the case got to the High Court. As you probably know, Trump was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for several criminal charges alleging a conspiracy to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. (SCt's Opinion, page 2. All references to the Opinion.) In the...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Psychology of the Student Protests

University students have been in the news lately because of their protests on campuses and in the streets. Unfortunately, the mainstream media often convey false impressions about the intentions of the protesters. As a result of such misreporting, the meanings to the students of the encampments is widely misperceived. For instance, I recently heard one misinformed person talk about the encampments as if they were a colony of bonobos doing it all day in those tents. As a political scientist who studies all sorts of political behavior, I would like to add a little clarity to our understanding of the mental state, or intentions, of the protesters. Of utmost importance to keep in mind is that the feeling that is moving the majority of the student protesters is a strong compassion for their fellow human beings who are suffering so much in Gaza. The compassion felt by these protesters includes the feeling of such abhorrence for the slaughter they see going on in Gaza that they must...
Post a Comment
Read more