The November 5 ballot holds 15 different propositions for Manhattan Beach voters. How will you decide how to vote?

The community advocacy group MB United last week hosted an event called "Speed Dating the Propositions," which shed light on pros and cons for each of the ballot measures. More than 80 voters attended the event. 

MB United has shared its detailed document detailing all 15 propositions here. We've provided even briefer summaries below:

Measure MMB (City of Manhattan Beach): Would raise sales taxes in Manhattan Beach by 1/2 cent, from 9.5% to 10%.

Argument For: Would raise approximately $5.3 million per year for municipal projects; if the city doesn't raise the tax, the county might, and would use it for its own purposes.

Argument Against: Raises sales taxes for residents, except for on groceries and medications.

Measure RLS (Manhattan Beach USD): Would continue current property tax levy of $32 per $100K in assessed value to repair and upgrade school facilities. 

Argument For: Would not raise existing taxes; if Prop. 2 and Measure RLS both pass, MBUSD would receive matching funds of approximately $57 million.

Argument Against: If RLS does not pass, property taxes will go down because current taxes on bond investments are expiring.

Measure BC (Beach Cities Health District): Would levy property tax of $3 per $100K in assessed value to demolish an outdated building, replace it with open space and finish construction of the allcove teen center.

Argument Against: Size and footprint of proposed project are too large; facilities would be used in part by non-taxpayers.

Measure A (L.A. County): Would replace the Measure H 1/4 cent sales tax with a 1/2 cent sales tax to raise $1 billion annually for homelessness programs, housing, and services. 

Argument For: Will continue progress of Measure H by expanding services and shelter for the unhoused. 

Argument Against: Measure H has not produced sufficient results to warrant this additional funding.

Measure G (L.A. County): Would add four seats to the Board of Supervisors, create an elected county CEO, and codify an ethics commission. 

Argument For: Board needs to be expanded to create more representation and accountability to voters. 

Argument Against: Would cost millions of dollars without identified funding source; elected CEO reflects significant change in structure.

Proposition 2 (California): A $10 billion bond measure to construct and modernize K-12 and community college facilities in California.

Argument For: Funds urgent school repairs; if Prop. 2 passes, MBUSD will receive matching funds.

Argument Against: Increasing state debt is not the way to fund school facilities; that should be the job of local bond campaigns.

Proposition 3 (California): A measure to remove language from the state constitution intended to bar same-sex marriage (created by Prop. 8 [2008], currently voided by federal court rulings), and to instead enshrine protection of same-sex marriage in the constitution. 

Argument For: Would protect same-sex marriage within California in case the U.S. Supreme Court votes to reverse the Obergefell decision allowing same-sex marriage.

Argument Against: Would undo Prop. 8 language, thus allowing same-sex marriage if the U.S. Supreme Court votes to reverse the Obergefell decision.

Proposition 4 (California): A $10 billion bond measure to combat climate change related disasters, providing safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, protection of parks and coastal land, and clean energy programs. 

Argument For: Would nearly double the state's spending to address observable adverse effects of climate change.

Argument Against: Would increase state indebtedness, and potentially would be ineffective.

Proposition 5 (California): A measure to reduce the Prop. 13-mandated vote threshold from 66.67% to 55% for passage of local bonds that fund affordable housing, down payment assistance, and public infrastructure. (As  state measure, Prop. 5 itself only needs 50%+1 votes to pass.)

Argument For: Will make necessary local infrastructure improvements more likely to pass. 

Argument Against: Would lead to more and higher local taxes and undermine Prop. 13 (1978).

Proposition 6 (California): A measure to prohibit "involuntary servitude" of incarcerated persons.

Argument For: Would end forced work in prisons with voluntary work programs, eliminating a practice that proponents say is akin to slavery. 

Argument Against: Current work system promotes order in prisons; prisoners should not be able to turn down work that essentially pays for their room and board. 

Proposition 32 (California): A measure to raise the minimum wage for employers with 26 or more employees to $17 immediately and to $18 on January 1, 2025; and for employers with 25 or fewer employees, to $17 on January 1, 2025, $18 on January 1, 2026.

Argument For: Would help the lowest-paid workers in the state come closer to meeting cost of living expenses. 

Argument Against: Would lead to higher prices, hurt small businesses, and lead to layoffs.

Proposition 33 (California): A measure to repeal a current law ("Costa-Hawkins"), thus allowing cities to allow cities to regulate rents of single-family homes and apartments built after 1995. 

Argument For: Would allow cities greater flexibility to impose rent control, to keep tenants' rental costs down and to limit rent increases. 

Argument Against: Would harm mom-and-pop landlords and discourage investment in new housing, driving up overall housing costs.

Proposition 34 (California): A measure to require certain providers (in this case, only applying to the AIDS Healthcare Foundation) to spend 98% of revenues from the federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care.

Argument For: Would ensure that public health care dollars go to patients who need it, closing a loophole that allows an organization to spend this money on unrelated causes.

Argument Against: Sets a bad precedent by using the initiative process to exact "revenge" on a single organization, in this case, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, purportedly for sponsoring rent control initiatives such as Prop. 33.

Proposition 35 (California): A measure to make permanent the existing tax on managed health care plans that provides revenues to pay for Medi-Cal health care services.

Argument For: Would provide stable and reliable funding for Medi-Cal.

Argument Against: Would require the tax proceeds to be used to support only Medi-Cal and other health programs – making that money unavailable for other priorities and making it difficult to respond to future changes to Medi-Cal that might be mandated by the federal government.

Proposition 36 (California): A measure to increase criminal penalties from misdemeanors to felonies for possession of certain drugs including fentanyl, and for thefts under $950 for repeat offenders. 

Argument For: Would provide stricter penalties necessary to combat rampant theft and drug trafficking. 

Argument Against: Would reignite the failed "war on drugs," making drug possession a felony; would result in overcrowding of prisons; and would reduce funding for existing drug and mental health treatment programs.