They're insincere props that the billionaires got listed on the ballot as competing initiatives with Prop 40. BUT if either of them do pass, aside from nullifying Prop 40, they'll have a bunch of real bad consequences for all of us.

Props 41 and 42 impose unnecessary requirements that will make passing government budgets and running the state even tougher than it already is. Prop 41 creates a bunch of redundant and unhelpful audits of local taxes, while Prop 42 would forever prohibit the taxation of the financial assets of the uber wealthy.

I personally support Prop 40, but I understand some people don't think pursuing a billionaire tax is the best use of state resources. I strongly disagree with and challenge that argument, but I understand it. However, even if you are ambivalent or No on Prop 40, you should be a FUCK NO on Props 41 and 42.

We don't need more bureaucratic hang ups or restrictions on how the state is run. If we want a state government that works well and is less dysfunctional, then we need fewer dumb, redundant, and unnecessary requirements and prohibitions in our state constitution. So vote No on 41 and 42, no matter what.

(Note: I posted this in r/sandiego last night and got a notification from Reddit this morning encouraging me to make the same post here. Weird that it does that, but since these props are important, I followed its suggestion to submit. I hope that’s okay, and sorry to anyone who sees this twice.)

Yesterday, I attended SCAG’s subcommittee meeting concerning the 7th Cycle RHND/RHNA process.
Lots of thoughts.
It almost appears as though HCD and SCAG staff are coordinating in ways designed to insulate SCAG from potential Brown Act violations.
SCAG staff are hired hands, not elected representatives. Yet these unelected staff members appear to be exercising authority that properly belongs to publicly accountable officials.
There is a fundamental distinction between implementing policy enacted by elected representatives and effectively making policy on their behalf.
If substantive policy decisions are being made through staff coordination rather than through the legally required public process, that raises serious questions about Brown Act compliance.
And if this arrangement is institutionalized, the implications extend well beyond a single meeting.
**The Brown Act is not merely a procedural requirement. It is a fundamental safeguard of the public’s right to know, participate, and hold government accountable.**
Housing allocation decisions affect millions of Californians, shape the future of our communities, and impose significant obligations on local governments. These decisions demand transparency, meaningful public deliberation, and accountability to the people they affect.
**The public should never have to wonder whether consequential policy decisions are being made in open meetings by their elected representatives—or behind closed doors by unelected staff.**
Government transparency is not a technicality to be managed or a legal obstacle to be circumvented. It is the foundation of public trust.
And the public deserves nothing less.
More on this later today.

If you are planning on voting in person this weekend, please be aware it is likely to be raining, and perhaps heavy rain. DON'T BE DETERRED! Polling places are open Halloween, Saturday, Sunday and Monday from 8-5. TUESDAY IS THE LAST DAY TO VOTE! 7am-8pm

Drop boxes are available now! Check your Election guide or go to:

Riverside

San diego

Orange

Los Angeles

San Bernardino

Imperial

What are the nearest sand dunes to garden grove? Or to UCLA

What are some safe but not too expensive areas in Southern California? My grandma wants to move back from Georgia and I'm like 🤔 It's SO expensive here and I don't even know where to look! Please send ideas. She basically wants a studio somewhere. Probably $1200 max. It sounds impossible but there's got to be a diamond in the rough, right?

I found out I’ll be travelling to California for a work trip and want to extend a few days.

I’m not from US so I don’t really have a clue about where to spend the time…all I know is there’s a lot of traffic so I should choose one place.

It will be mid March…so far I had been thinking either Santa Monica or San Diego but honestly open to any suggestions.

What things are a must see? I guess I want the days to be like chill, exploring but not doing anything crazy.

Also I guess everywhere is expensive right? lol

TIA!!!

Hello World 👋

I’ve been consuming cannabis for over 20 years. I have been around it for over 30 years.

Mentally/Spiritually I see it as a sacrament. It’s another herb that naturally grows from the earth.

It’s been hard to find like-minded individuals who care about the plant as a whole. Not just consumption but as a whole. I was wondering if any local growers would be willing to mentor a n00b? I’d be more than happy to help you with anything you would need help with.

I know most of the basics when it comes to growing, I just need the skillset of a Veteran that can help me understand the deeper knowledge (such as curing to prevent hay).

I’m willing to sit there and shut up as you teach anything you’re willing to teach me.

‘‘’ For those that choose to troll in the comments, Pls keep your negative comments to yourself.

Sip your tea Karen.

I was around the herbs before Chronic. Before Kush. Before the OG. Before the hydro. Before BHO was ever considered.

Long before you even considered that the plant shouldn’t be illegal, or dared to ‘puff on a J’

So please, sip your tea Karen if you don’t consume ‘’’

Attempt to delay California midterm election results?

Other subreddits for parts of Calif are posting info on Prop 40 (and 41, 42) - hope this is ok to post here on r/socal.

I put together this sanity-checker for people still on the fence. Rebutting the claims made on the anti-Prop 40 mailing recently sent out:

ASSERTION: Sacramento can expand the tax to every taxpayer.

REBUTTAL: That is speculation dressed up as law: Prop 40 enacts a one-time tax on billionaire wealth, and any legislative amendment needs a two-thirds vote and must further that stated purpose.

ASSERTION: The drafters admit the tax can be expanded and made permanent.

REBUTTAL: Their quoted answer says the opposite: any later tax would have to be enacted again by voters or by two-thirds of both legislative houses plus the Governor.

ASSERTION: Prop 40 creates a backdoor around Proposition 13 and exposes your home equity.

REBUTTAL: The mailer hides the limiting language: the constitutional override is for this one-time billionaire tax, and directly held real estate is expressly excluded.

ASSERTION: Prop 40 lets Sacramento tax what ordinary Californians save.

REBUTTAL: The scare line erases the threshold: Prop 40 taxes only California residents and trusts with at least $1 billion in covered net worth, not ordinary savings.

ASSERTION: Every California taxpayer must file a sworn wealth declaration.

REBUTTAL: Filers make a one-time threshold declaration that net assets are at or below $1 billion; only those owing the tax must report an amount due and supply valuation forms or appraisals.

ASSERTION: Every taxpayer must disclose home equity, savings, and retirement accounts.

REBUTTAL: False: below-threshold filers provide no asset list, while directly held real estate and qualified pensions and IRAs are excluded from the tax and detailed reporting, subject to the measure's limited Roth-account exception.

ASSERTION: Prop 40 builds a new state database of every taxpayer's wealth.

REBUTTAL: The 'wealth database' is invented: the measure neither creates nor mentions one, and the ordinary filer reports only whether net assets exceed $1 billion.

ASSERTION: Everyone will face a full wealth audit.

REBUTTAL: No: the FTB examines the required declarations but controls the scope, while a deeper examination of a nonpayer requires a reasonable belief that the billionaire tax was owed.

ASSERTION: Prop 40 gives the FTB sweeping new subpoena power over every taxpayer.

REBUTTAL: The mailer relabels existing authority as new: Prop 40 incorporates the FTB's current Section 19504 powers for administering this tax rather than creating a universal financial dragnet.

ASSERTION: Section 50301(d)(2) lets the FTB compel employers and banks to surrender anyone's records.

REBUTTAL: Section 50301(d)(2) says nothing about employers, banks, or subpoenas; it specifies the tax forms and valuation evidence required only from a person who owes the tax.

ASSERTION: Honest valuation mistakes automatically trigger a 40% penalty.

REBUTTAL: No: 40% applies only to a gross understatement exceeding the greater of $10 million or 40% of reported tax, and qualifying positions backed by substantial authority or adequate disclosure and reasonable basis are protected.

ASSERTION: Miss a payment and Prop 40 adds a 40% penalty.

REBUTTAL: The mailer swaps one offense for another: the 20% and 40% penalties apply to substantial or gross understatement of tax, not merely to a late or missed payment.

ASSERTION: Interest and other charges can make the bill soar even higher.

REBUTTAL: The stated 7.5% charge applies only when a taxpayer chooses five-year installments and only to the remaining unpaid tax balance; the measure does not impose that charge on penalties.

ASSERTION: The tax applies retroactively to wealth held before voters approve it.

REBUTTAL: The mailer blurs two dates: January 1 fixes residency, but taxable net worth is measured on December 31, 2026—after the election—and any constitutional dispute belongs in court, not campaign copy.

ASSERTION: There are only 60 days to challenge Prop 40 in court.

REBUTTAL: The 60-day limit covers the expedited facial-validation case; Prop 40 expressly preserves refund suits, judicial review, and other actions authorized by law.

ASSERTION: Courts must interpret every ambiguity in favor of the government.

REBUTTAL: No: the text says only that the law is to be construed to carry out its purposes; it never commands courts to resolve every ambiguity against taxpayers.

ASSERTION: Courts must rewrite Prop 40 even if it is unconstitutional.

REBUTTAL: The clause tells courts to preserve valid provisions and make only constitutionally permissible, minimal corrections—not to enforce anything unconstitutional.

ASSERTION: Most Prop 40 revenue goes to insurance companies.

REBUTTAL: Unsupported: the measure earmarks 90% for public health-care purposes including Medi-Cal, safety-net providers, access, services, and provider payments; it does not earmark the money for insurers.

ASSERTION: Prop 40 diverts tens of billions of dollars away from K-14 schools.

REBUTTAL: The 'diversion' is imaginary money that exists only if Prop 40 passes: the measure creates a separate fund, directs 10% to education and food assistance, and bars replacing existing state funding with it.

ASSERTION: Out-of-state sports-team owners receive a special exemption.

REBUTTAL: There is no sports-team carveout: liability follows the billionaire owner's California residency and covered net worth, not the industry or team owned.

Hello everyone!

I'm a student journalist writing a story on the volunteers behind LA's political campaigns ahead of the Midterm elections. If you are a current campaign volunteer or volunteer coordinator in LA, I would love to connect for a brief phone interview about your motivations and experiences.

Dm me if you are interested!