L OS A NGELES C OUNTY C OMMUNITY R EINVESTMENT AND H OUSING S TABILIZATION – B ALLOT M EASURE F EASIBILITY S TUDY ———————— 1,200 L IKELY N OVEMBER 2020 V OTERS J ULY 2020
M ETHODOLOGY ▪ Survey conducted June 25-July 2, 2020 among 1,200 likely November 2020 Los Angeles County voters. ▪ Responses collected in English and Spanish across the following modalities: ❑ Cellphone (40%) ❑ Landlines (18%) ❑ Online (43%) ▪ The Margin of Sampling Error (MOE) is ±2.83% at the 95% confidence level. ▪ Geographic and demographic subgroups have been weighted back to their population proportions by age, gender, ethnicity, and supervisorial district. ▪ Some percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. 2
K EY F INDINGS 1. Considerable political will exists among voters to set aside tax dollars for services and supports that will revitalize underserved and low-income communities, stabilize housing, and promote racial equity . 2. When presented with draft ballot measure language for a measure to dedicate a percentage of existing revenues to address these issues , fully 67% of voters say they are inclined to vote “ yes ” in favor , including nearly two-in-five (38%) who say they would “ definitel y vote yes . ” 3. The measure enjoys high levels of support across each of the five Supervisorial Districts , with especially high levels of commitment among union members, African Americans, Latinx voters,White voters, and Asian Americans. 3
D ETAILED F INDINGS
P ROP . 15: S CHOOLS AND C OMMUNITIES F IRST D ESCRIPTION Next, I would like to ask you about a couple of measures that may appear on the ballot in the upcoming November Election. INCREASES FUNDING FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Increases funding for K-through-12 public schools, community colleges, and local governments by requiring that commercial and industrial real property be taxed based on current market value. Exempts from this change: residential properties; agricultural properties; and owners of commercial and industrial properties with combined value of $3 million dollars or less. Increased education funding will supplement existing school funding guarantees. Exempts small businesses from personal property tax; for other businesses, exempts $500,000 dollars worth of personal property. 5
M ORE T HAN 3- IN -5 V OTERS S UPPORT S CHOOLS AND C OMMUNITIES F IRST Q: If this measure were on the ballot and the election were held today, would you vote “yes” in favor of it or “no” to oppose it? Total Definitely Yes 37% Yes Probably Yes 21% 63% Undecided, Lean Yes 7% Undecided, Lean No 6% Total Probably No 6% No 28% Definitely No 14% Undecided 8% Prefer Not To Say 1% 0% 20% 40% Percent of Respondents 6
C OMMUNITY R EINVESTMENT AND H OUSING S TABILIZATION P OTENTIAL B ALLOT M EASURE L ANGUAGE Split Sample A (½ of Respondents): Split Sample B (½ of Respondents): ❖ To invest in residents and families earning less than To address the disproportionate impact of racial the County median income and underserved injustice , historic over-use of criminal justice responses, lack of communities , with small business support, healing and economic opportunity, underinvestment, and housing insecurity in resiliency centers, job training and placement services; low-income and underserved communities shall Los Angeles County allocate 10 percent of existing tax receipts to fund: ❖ Establish a Los Angeles County Office of Racial Equity that ❖ Community-based responses to maintaining community administers a Community Justice Fund; safety; ❖ Establish a new Los Angeles County Youth Development ❖ Job training and placement services; ❖ Affordable housing development and rent subsidies; Department that focuses services on highly-policed ❖ Small business lending and support services; and communities; and ❖ Mentoring/youth development programs. ❖ Provide homes for all. Shall Los Angeles County allocate 10 percent of existing Los Shall Los Angeles County allocate 10 percent of existing Los Angeles tax receipts to fund these services with citizen oversight Angeles tax receipts to fund these services with annual independent and annual audits? audits and citizen’s oversight? 7
A M EASURE D ESIGNED T O A DDRESS R ACIAL I NJUSTICE G ARNERS S LIGHTLY M ORE S UPPORT To Invest in Low-Income and Underserved Communities To Address the Disproportionate Impact of Racial Injustice 40% Definitely Yes 37% Total Total 20% Probably Yes 21% Yes Yes 69% 64% 9% Undecided, Lean Yes 7% Undecided, Lean No 6% Total Total No No 5% Probably No 6% 23% 27% 15% Definitely No 14% 8% DK/PNTS 9% 0% 20% 40% 0% 20% 40% Percent of Respondents * May not sum precisely due to rounding.Percentages below 5% not displayed. 8
R EACTIONS T O H IGHER S ET A SIDE P ERCENTAGES A RE M IXED S OME W OULD B E M ORE L IKELY T O S UPPORT ; O THERS W OULD B E L ESS L IKELY Q: Suppose the measure I just described to you set aside __ percent of existing tax revenues, instead of 10 percent. If that were the case, would you be more or less likely to support it — or, would it make no difference to you? ( Split Sampled ) More Likely Makes No Difference DK/PNTS Less Likely 15% of existing tax revenues 29% 37% 11% 23% 31% 31% 15% 24% 20% of existing tax revenues Percent of Respondents 9
2/3 RDS O F V OTERS S UPPORT A P OTENTIAL M EASURE T O D IRECT A T L EAST 10% O F T HE B UDGET T O U NDERSERVED C OMMUNITIES Q: If this measure were on the ballot and the election were held today, would you vote “yes” in favor of it or “no” to oppose it? (Splits Combined) Total Defintely Yes 38% Yes Probably Yes 21% 67% Undecided, Lean Yes 8% Total Undecided, Lean No 5% No Probably No 6% 25% Defintely No 15% Undecided 4% Prefer Not To Say 4% 0% 20% 40% Percent of Respondents 10
T HE P OTENTIAL M EASURE E NJOYS S OLID S UPPORT A CROSS L OS A NGELES S UPERVISORIAL D ISTRICTS Ballot Measure Vote by Supervisorial District Splits A and B Combined * Definitely Yes Probably Yes/Undecided Lean Yes Total No DK/PNTS 60% Total Yes: 72% Total Yes: 78% Total Yes: 71% Total Yes: 60% Total Yes: 59% 48% 45% 43% 40% 32% 32% 32% 31% 30% 29% 28% 27% 26% 22% 21% 17% 20% 9% 9% 8% 7% 6% 0% D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 (21%) % of Sample →→ (22%) (17%) (18%) (22%) * Percentages below 5% not displayed. 11
S UPPORT IS H IGHEST A MONG B LACK V OTERS Ballot Measure Vote by Race/Ethnicity Splits A and B Combined * Definitely Yes Probably Yes/Undecided Lean Yes Total No DK/PNTS 60% 56% Total Yes: 84% Total Yes: 66% Total Yes: 72% Total Yes: 73% 42% 41% 40% 40% 32% 31% 28% 25% 25% 21% 19% 20% 10% 10% 7% 7% 5% 0% Whites Latinos African Americans Asian Americans % of Sample →→ (35%) (34%) (7%) (10%) * Percentages below 5% not displayed. 12
M ORE T HAN 7- IN -10 U NION M EMBERS A RE I NCLINEDTO V OTE Y ES Ballot Measure Vote by Union Membership Splits A and B Combined* Definitely Yes Probably Yes/Undecided Lean Yes Total No DK/PNTS 60% Total Yes: 73% Total Yes: 66% 44% 37% 40% 29% 29% 25% 24% 20% 9% 0% Union Members Non-Union Members % of Sample →→ (28%) (66%) * Percentages below 5% not displayed. 13
A DDITIONAL I NFORMATION : P ROP . 15 A ND C OMMUNITY R EINVESTMENT & H OUSING S TABILIZATION The first measure I asked you about — The Schools and Communities First Measure — is estimated to generate approximately $3.4 billion dollars in new tax revenue for Los Angeles County every year — if it passes. The second measure — The Los Angeles Community Reinvestment and Housing Stabilization Measure — would NOT raise taxes . Instead, it would ensure that at least 10 percent of the Los Angeles County budget is directed to underserved and low-income communities . Now that you have heard more about it, if the election were held today, would you vote “yes” in favor of setting aside at least 10 percent of the County budget for underserved and low income communities, or “no” to oppose it? 14
S UPPORT R EMAINS H IGH I N T HE C ONTEXT O F S CHOOLS AND C OMMUNITIES F IRST Q: If this measure were on the ballot and the election were held today, would you vote “yes” in favor of it or “no” to oppose it? Initial Vote After Information About SCF Total Total Definitely Yes 39% 38% Yes Yes Probably/Lean Yes 29% 30% 67% 69% Total Probably/Lean No Total 11% 8% No No Definitely No 22% 15% 14% 25% Undecided 8% 10% 0% 20% 40% 0% 20% 40% 60% Percent of Respondents 15
A TTITUDES T OWARD P OTENTIAL B ALLOT M EASURE P ROVISIONS
V OTERS D O S UPPORT S UBSTANTIAL A NNUAL I NVESTMENTS Q: The structure of the Community Reinvestment and Housing Stabilization Measure has not been finalized. I am going to ask you about a variety of potential features that might be included as a part of the measure.After each one, please tell me if you support or oppose that feature. Strongly Support Somewhat Support DK/PNTS Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose Total *Would set aside at least $750 44% 24% 11% 5% 16% Support million dollars in funding every 69% year for underserved communities Total Would only set aside funding Support * generated through property taxes 19% 22% 19% 15% 26% 40% * Split sampled. Percent of Respondents 17
Recommend
More recommend
