Endorsement: Yes on Proposition 34 to check the abuses of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation
In sum, vote No on Prop. 33 and Yes on Prop. 34.
Tomas K - Moderator 
Progressive Gov. Hiram Johnson’s initiative, referendum and recall reforms, ratified by voters in 1911, form an essential part of government in California. They allow the people, not just the politicians, the power to govern this state.
But even the best system can be abused. That has happened with a group called the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), which has put on the ballot three rent-control initiatives over multiple election cycles. Voters vetoed the first two in 2018 and 2020, by 18 and 20 percentage points, respectively. They are attempting yet again with Proposition 33.
AHF has also used its vast resources to campaign against zoning reform legislation. This included particularly sleazy mailers attacking zoning reform as racist. “Urban renewal means Negro removal,” their mailers declared, quoting James Baldwin. The group also launched a ballot measure in Los Angeles in 2017 seeking to impose a two-year housing construction moratorium on developments seeking variances from zoning codes. That initiative was spiked by 70% of voters.
Is there a way for voters to prevent these groups from abusing the initiative system with further attacks on the state’s housing stock? Yes, another initiative, Proposition 34. Admittedly, it’s a little complicated.
The official title and summary voters see explains that the measure “Requires health care providers meeting specified criteria to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care.” But this applies only to health-care providers spending more than $100 million during a 10-year period “on anything other than direct patient care” and operating multi-family housing with “at least 500 high-severity health and safety violations.”
As CalMatters noted, with these requirements, it “is squarely aimed at knee-capping” the AHF, which generates considerable money through its participation in the federal drug program known as the 340B program.
The latter provision referring to multi-family housing with health and safety violations is a nod to the fact that AHF owns and operates multi-family housing developments. Last year, the Los Angeles Times described deplorable conditions at AHF-owned apartments.
“[Many] of the foundation’s more than 1,300 residents live in squalid conditions with dozens under the threat of eviction,” reported the Times. “Roaches and bedbugs infest rooms. Electricity, heating and plumbing systems fail. Elevators malfunction. Code enforcement and public health complaints at foundation buildings are more than three times higher than those owned by other Skid Row nonprofits.”
AHF has excuses for all of this, of course, but it’s clearly at odds with its effort to present itself as a true champion of tenants. To say the least.
As proponents argue, “The current system is being abused by corporations that are wasting billions of dollars intended for patient care every year and making our communities less safe, endangering the public’s health and safety.”
The most reasonable argument against Prop. 34 is that it is a convoluted way to impede future abuses of the initiative system by AHF and that voters instead ought to just keep rejecting AHF’s rent-control measures. We agree that voters ought to continue rejecting the ridiculous political campaigns put up by AHF. But we also think Californians have a reasonable basis for checking the wasteful spending of an organization generating obscene amounts of revenue from a federal drug discount program.
In sum, vote No on Prop. 33 and Yes on Prop. 34.
