©Chuck Savadelis 1996
A Sunnyvale voter goes to the polls.
By KATHERINE PETERSEN
Twelve state propositions face scrutiny from Sunnyvale voters on the March 26 ballot. Some of the initiatives directly affect the city of Sunnyvale, and others indirectly affect the city because they could have an impact on the state's economy.
The Sun recently asked proponents and opponents of each proposition to clarify their positions and to explain how and what affect each may have on Sunnyvale. In addition, the Sunnyvale City Council on March 5 voted to take formal positions on some of the initiatives. Their responses appear below.
This is the second of two parts.
Proposition 198
Passage of Prop. 198 would allow voters who are registered as independents or in minority parties to participate in primary elections.
Lynda Rice, campaign manager for Californians for an Open Primary, said such a primary would allow people to vote based on candidates rather than party affiliation. She said that giving the 1.5 million registered independents a vote in primaries would increase turnout at these elections.
She said that opening primaries to independents would encourage more moderate candidates to run and would give all voters more choices.
Yet Bob Mulholland, campaign adviser for the California Democratic Party, said that since the Elks Club doesn't allow the Lions Club to vote in its board, so independents should not vote for Democrats or Republicans in primary elections. He said that turnout during the past 16 primaries, when the current primary system began, has been 3 percent higher than the 16 primaries previous to the current system.
Mulholland also believes the current primary system protects minor parties. "We can't become the nominee of the Reform or Libertarian parties," he said.
The City Council has taken no position on this proposition.
Proposition 199
Prop. 199 would phase out local rent-control laws on mobilehomes and prevent new state and local laws.
Denis Wolcott, spokesman for Californians for Mobilehome Fairness, said rent control limits park owners' ability to pay back bank loans, which in turn curbs new park construction. He added that many people, such as young families, look to mobilehome communities for an affordable first home.
In Sunnyvale, which has no rent-control laws, the threat of rent-control laws can make investors in new parks leery of not getting a return, Wolcott saids. People who are searching for mobilehome spaces have fewer choices than they should have.
Ron Gray, a campaign consultant for the Golden State Mobilehome Owners League Inc., said Proposition 199 should be called "the widow and seniors' eviction act." He said that revoking rent control laws will make mobilehomes unaffordable because rents could skyrocket.
"With or without rent control laws in California, mobilehome parks continue to be a very good investment with a very high profit margin for investors," he said.
While Sunnyvale currently has no rent-control laws in place, this proposition will take away the right to impose such laws in the future, Gray said.
The City Council opposes this proposition.
Proposition 200
Prop. 200 would require that an insurer pay benefits regardless of who is at fault in most motor-vehicle accidents. Lawsuits against another driver would be prohibited unless a specified crime has been proven. The proposition requires insurance benefits for medical and rehabilitation costs, wage loss, replacement services and death. Insurance companies must pay within 30 days or pay 2 percent more each month.
Tupper Hull, a spokesman for the Alliance to Revitalize California, said that Prop. 200 will take $2.5 billion in legal and $3 billion in fraud out of the auto insurance arena by getting lawyers out, which may lower insurance rates by 17 percent to 35 percent. He added that under the current system of liability insurance, people usually need to hire lawyers and many people fake injuries.
"Proposition 200 will skip the lawyers. Your insurance company will pay your bills and, if they don't, the next step is arbitration," he said.
He said claims can still be taken to court after arbitration and plaintiffs would be entitled to punitive damages.
Hilary McLean, spokeswoman for Consumers and their Attorneys against Propositions 200, 201 and 202, said Prop. 200 will raise insurance rates, lower benefits and double the paperwork to filled out.
"No fault is no fair," she said.
All states with no-fault insurance have seen their rates climb an average of 40 percent. The cheapest policy is $50,000, which may not be enough to cover serious injuries. After the $50,000 has been spent, the consumer is on his or her own.
"If you're in a wheelchair for life, there's no accountability for a reckless driver who ran into you," McLean said. She added that this proposition does not cover the cost of fixing the car.
The City Council opposes this proposition.
Proposition 201
Prop. 201 would require the losing party to pay the winning party's reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses in shareholder actions against corporations and in class-action lawsuits. The court may require the plaintiff to furnish a bond for the defendant's estimated fees and expenses, unless the plaintiff owns or traded at least 5 percent of the company's shares.
Hull said that Silicon Valley's high-tech industries have been hit hard by class-action lawsuits, and this proposition would make them more difficult to file. He said that 68 percent of all companies in Silicon Valley have been sued at least once in this type of case. He added that the judge has the right to waive the loser-pays rule, such as for small investors.
McLean said that Prop. 201 does not apply to the swindlers; it only applies to small investors. If it had been law, the victims of the Charles Keating/Lincoln Savings and Loan swindle could not have recovered their money.
"It can be dangerous for elderly people because they account for 48 percent of small investors," she said.
She said judges can only reduce the fees after the case has gone to court. She said it is a one-sided proposition that stacks the deck "against the little guy."
The City Council opposes this proposition.
Proposition 202
Prop. 202 limits fees that a plaintiff's attorney may collect if the fees are contingent on the plaintiff's compensation in personal-injury or wrongful-death cases. Hourly rates would not be limited.
The attorney must submit a letter to the defendant and if the plaintiff accepts a settlement, the contingent fees could not exceed 15 percent of the compensation.
Hull said Proposition 202 gives people an incentive to accept early offers because they may receive more money. Contingent fees can range from 30 percent to 40 percent of the compensation, Hull said.
He said the proposition may encourage defendants to make reasonable offers of higher value to the plaintiff.
McLean said this proposition also is very one-sided. She said it attempts to keep victims out of the courtroom. She said it does not limit fees for attorneys who represent corporations, insurance companies or attorney paid by the hour.
She said the proposition also requires the plaintiff to give out all the details of a case before beginning discovery. She said a good example would be in a civil suit over a defective birth-control device.
"You would have to provide the defendant's home address, evidence photographs, witnesses, all medical records pertaining to injury to the corporation and attorney, but the corporation would not have to furnish any test, other complaints or anything," she said.
Businesses which sue other businesses on contingency fees are exempt from this proposition.
The City Council has taken no position on this proposition.
Proposition 203
Proposition 203 would provide $3 billion for construction, restoration and earthquake retrofitting for K-12 schools, community colleges, California State University and University of California facilities. The bond would provide $2.02 billion for K-12 capital projects and $975 million for higher-education projects. About $300 million would be available over the next two years for community college projects if the bond passes.
More than $800 million is needed for school construction projects that have been approved but await funding. Overall, there is a $7.2 billion backlog of project applications for funding. (Sunnyvale Elementary School District will have a $34 million bond on the June special election ballot.)
Jim Murdoch of the Coalition for Adequate School Housing, who favors this measure, said education is a statewide responsibility. Sunnyvale schools could use the money from this bond as matching funds for a local bond issue, which would reduce the cost of construction to local taxpayers and make local dollars go further.
According to the state Constitution, money from the state lottery cannot be used for school construction and bond issue funding can only be used for construction and modernization. State taxes will not be increased because of this bond because the money has already been budgeted into the general fund for this purpose.
However, issuing more bonds will raise the ratio of debt level to state revenues (debt-service ratio). The debt-service ratio recently peaked at 5.3 percent and will decline by roughly 1 percent every four years, if no other bonds are passed. Many financial analysts suggest a prudent debt service ratio of 5 percent. If Prop. 203 and the seismic bond pass, California's debt-service ratio could reach 5.7 percent in 1999-2000.
Jim Elwood of the Libertarian Party of California, which opposes the measure, said the bond measure is deceptive because only $100 million out of $3 billion will be spent on earthquake retrofitting. He added that California's public schools already receive 40 percent of the state's general fund, and proceeds from the state lottery, after expenses, go toward public education.
He said most of the money goes into bureaucracy rather than to teachers and students. The ratio of administrators to teachers in California is 127 to 100, 10 times that of private schools.
The City Council was expected to take a position on this proposition at its March 19 meeting.
This article appeared in the Sunnyvale Sun, March 20, 1996.
©1996 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.