California voters approved proposal 34, a measure of an apartments trade group which aimed to restrict expenses by the AIDS health foundation, which funded several rent control initiatives and criticized the measure as unconstitutional revenge.
The Associated Press called the initiative on Wednesday evening. According to the Secretary of State of California, the measure is early 50.8% to 49.2%.
As written, Proposal 34 Applying for health care providers who have spent more than $ 100 million over a period of 10 years over things in addition to direct care for patients and have led multifamilial housing with more than 500 “high severity health and safety violations”.
If a healthcare professional meets this standard, he would be required to spend 98% of his income from a federal prescription medication program in direct care for patients.
The measure was sponsored by the California Apartment Assn., Whose campaign committee said that the new rules could apply to several organizations and noted that the language of the initiative did not appoint any specific group.
In the weeks preceding the elections, a large part of the advertisement In favor of the latter, he did not appoint a specific health care provider, but stressed that proposal 34 would save taxpayers money while increasing patient care expenses.
However, the Association of Apartments made sure that AIDS Healthcare Foundation by name is an objective during the campaign and no other health organization has a history as well published in housing with health and safety complaints and to spend things other than care for direct patients.
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has funded three initiatives to considerably extend rent control in recent years, in particular Proposal 33 On this year's voting bulletin.
All these measures were defeatedBut forced the real estate industry to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in opposition.
Tahf obtains most of its income from the Federal Drug Program in question. The program, known as 340b, obliges drug manufacturers to sell their medicines at discounts to certain health care providers, who then refer and more invoice health insurance companies for medicines.
According to the office of the non -supporting legislative analyst in California, the program is supposed to allow suppliers such as AHF to serve more low -income patients, but the law “does not directly restrict how providers spend their revenues from federal reductions in drugs”.
The restrictions of proposal 34 could the hamstrings of AHF's capacity to finance additional rent control measures or to exploit apartments it has in and around Skid Row, which have been assailed with vermin infestation, lift failure and other problems, according to a Time survey published last fall.
In a statement, the president of AHF, Michael Weinstein, said that the organization would continue to fight for the tenants.
“The results of proposals 33 and 34 prove only one thing: if the billionaires spend more than $ 170 million, the voters lie and confused, they are practically guaranteed to win,” said Weinstein.
What is happening then is not clear.
Before the elections, AHF continued without success to withdraw proposal 34 from the ballot, arguing that it was unconstitutional because it targets the organization so singularly.
However, a legal expert previously declared to the Times that the courts generally hesitated to suppress the measures before an election and that there was a “good luck” that a judge would find the unconstitutional measure if it was adopted.
In an email, AHF spokesperson Jacki Schechner said the organization would decide on legal action to take once it will see how the law will be applied.
The campaign of Yes On 34 declared the victory last week, before the race was called by the Associated Press, claiming that the voters had taken measures to fill a “escape” which allowed health care organizations to spend money intended for patients on “luxury condos, CEO bonuses, duties to call sports and political campaigns”.
