The Nov. 5th includes 2 state propositions that are constantly being talked about on commercials, Proposition 33 and Proposition 34. What exactly are these propositions?

California Proposition 33 would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which on the California ballot states that it“… prohibits local ordinances [cities] limiting initial residential rental rates for new tenants or rent increases for existing tenants in certain residential properties.”

What does this mean exactly?

Voting yes on Prop. 33 would get rid of these restrictions and would not limit local ordinances, like cities or counties from imposing the types of rental control they wish to have. A no would continue to limit the extent of rent control local ordinances have.

The other proposition (34), if passed, it would require “certain providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Authorizes statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices”. A yes vote would require new guidelines that all doctors would have to follow. If violated, it would suspend their medical practices possibly up to 10 years. A no would simply not let any of these new guidelines be put into effect.

Now that we saw the descriptions of the 2 propositions, why are there so many commercials telling you to either vote yes on 33 and no on 34?

Some democrats are saying “stop the republicans” and citing the phrase “yes on 33 no on 34”, because 34 would be a “revenge” initiative when it comes to healthcare. Others are stating that the rent in California is too high and control needs to be implemented.

From my knowledge, hearing the arguments and the sides on both viewpoints of Prop. 33 and 34, there should be rent control for the local cities because their needs and taxes are different from other cities (Yes on 33). For Prop. 34, it should be that it makes it easier for healthcare workers to get into a lot of trouble and the rules can lead to revenge initiatives, which should be avoided (No on 34).