This article is from Cal-Tax Digest, published
by the California Taxpayers' Association.
Cal-Tax Home Page | About Cal-Tax | Subscribe

Local-control. Fiscal-accountability. Citizen-driven. Tragically, California's most successful source of transportation improvements is about to end - if we cannot convince the Legislature to do something about it.

In 1984, voters in Santa Clara County - the heart of Silicon Valley - were so frustrated by brake lights and belching tailpipes that they passed a countywide initiative, Measure A, to tax themselves for a 10-year period. Led by the high-tech leaders of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, in partnership with then-County Supervisor Zoe Lofgren, private citizens voted to reach into their own wallets to fix a freeway system too-long ignored by the state.

The 10-year, dedicated half-cent sales tax fixed three specific transportation projects. Equally important to the efforts' local leaders, all three improvements were delivered "on time and on budget," a mantra that now shapes any proposed public works project in the Silicon Valley. A statewide movement championed at the local level - with local control and fiscal accountability - was born.

Between 1984 and 1992, 18 "Self-Help" counties, which are home to more than eight of every 10 Californians, passed local transportation sales tax measures. Even excluding Los Angeles County's permanent measure, these 17 counties are contributing $20 billion to build highways, fund rail lines, fill potholes, buy buses and pave bicycle lanes.

With projects selected by local citizens at the local level, with expenditure plans clearly delineating how our tax dollars will be spent, and with sunset provisions to ensure each tax ends as promised - these initiatives have represented what is best about citizen-led democracy.

But then a curious court case occurred. In a 1995 decision that bears my name, the California Supreme Court ruled that local sales taxes for a "specific" purpose should require a two-thirds vote - while taxes for a "general" purpose need only a simple majority.

To a fiscal conservative like myself, logic was turned on its head. Why would we want to reward a lack of accountability - a general purpose "black hole" tax measure - with an easier vote requirement then an initiative that specifies exactly how our tax dollars will be spent? And why would we want to make it harder to enact local measures, where we can demand local accountability, than the requirements allowed for statewide initiatives?

There are those who state that "two-thirds is attainable" if the projects are important enough. Sincere people parroting that line may not be familiar with the facts. As the accompanying chart shows, of the 18 counties that have passed half-cent sales taxes, only two - Riverside and tiny San Benito - have garnered a two-thirds vote. Since the Supreme Court super-majority mandate was put in place in 1995, five counties have tried to climb the 67 percent mountain. All five have failed.

Other two-thirds advocates point to the property tax, which has required a two-thirds vote for decades. I can appreciate the rationale held by many that a property tax - where some pay disproportionately more than others - should require a higher vote threshold. But with a sales tax for transportation, when everyone pays and everyone benefits, a majority vote in a democracy ensures that my "yes" vote is equal to my neighbor's "no" vote. Otherwise, it is intrinsically unfair that the "yes" vote of two citizens can be overruled by the "no" vote of just one.

Why do California business leaders care? Because our employees care. With a 10-year transportation deficit exceeding $100 billion (according to a recent California Transportation Commission report), the state's economic future and quality of life is at stake. Employees do not want to live - and employers do not want to locate - in communities clogged in bumper-to-bumper back-ups.

Self-Help Counties Election Results Only 2 of 34 Received 66.7% Voter Approval (* = did not pass)   Year     % Yes Terminates Alameda   1986     57% 2002   1998*     58.5% (required 66.7%) Fresno   1986     57.5% 2007 Imperial   1989     65% 2009 Contra Costa   1989 1986     58% 47% 2009 Los Angeles   1980 1990     54% 52% N/A N/A Madera   1990     56% 2005 Orange   1990 1984* 1989     54% 30% 47% 2011 Riverside   1989     79% 2009 Sacramento   1988     52.4% 2008   1986* (less than 50%) San Benito   1988 1998*     83% 56.4% 1995 San Bernardino   1989     59.8% 2009 San Diego   1987     53.2% 2008 San Francisco   1990     65.6% 2010 San Joaquin   1990     51% 2011 San Mateo   1988     61.7% 2009 Santa Barbara   1989     55% 2009 Santa Clara   1984     56% 1994   1992*     54% (required 66.7%) Measures A & B   1996     77% & 52% 2005 Monterey   1992*     49.9%   1998*     52.9% (required 66.7%) Marin   1998*     63% and 43% Measures A & B Sonoma   1998* 1994*     73% & 47% Measures B & C (Less than needed) Stanislaus   1988*     (Less than 50%) Ventura   1989*     (Less than 50%)

While we need statewide leadership and action, we also need the necessary local control to determine our own destiny.

There is good news. Finally, Infrastructure is "In." From City Hall to the halls of the Capitol in Sacramento, elected officials across the aisles are poised to take action. We commend the creativity of the package of proposals currently under consideration. Senate President Pro Tem John Burton's early leadership for both state and local funding is greatly appreciated. The pay-as-you-go product of the California Business Roundtable, as introduced by Senator Bruce McPherson and Assemblyman Robert Hertz-berg, has tremendous merit. The desire of Assemblyman Tom McClintock and many members of the Assembly Republican Caucus to find a funding source, while remaining true to their core beliefs, also earns our respect.

Yet when we are facing a $100 billion-plus pothole, these proposals should not be viewed as either/or options. A deficit of this proportion is almost impossible to grasp. Try to imagine a deficit of $59 million a year spanning every year since the birth of Jesus, add it all up, and that is California's transportation funding gap. We need an arsenal of answers - not a single silver bullet. And the most critical piece of the puzzle is a return to local control. Unlike the other worthy measures currently under consideration, local transportation sales tax measures are also different in an additional way - they expand the funding pie rather than just finding a different way to slice the existing funding pie.

To achieve this end, Senate Constitutional Amendment 3 is key. Concerned California commuters in all 58 counties should have the right to unlock local gridlock. SCA 3 would once again empower local citizens with a fighting chance to propose and pass local transportation sales tax measures. If approved by the Legislature, SCA 3 would then be in the hands of the voters, where it would have to jump through an appropriate "two-hoop" test. The first hoop would require its passage in a statewide election in November 2000, under the current majority- vote requirement for statewide initiatives. The second hoop is equally important. In order to take effect in an individual county, it must not only pass statewide, but the people in that county must also vote yes by a majority vote as well.

The second piece of SCA 3 retains local accountability. Prior to the statewide election, each of the current "Self-Help" counties must develop an "expenditure plan" - a specific list of transportation improvements that a new, 20-year measure would fund. No expenditure plan - no election. California's remaining counties without existing transportation sales taxes would also be allowed to establish 20-year measures - if also approved by their voters. With statewide and local votes ensuring local control and accountability, both houses of the Legislature and both sides of the aisle should embrace its provisions.

From a private-sector perspective, SCA 3 would improve even more with one additional amendment. Currently, SCA 3 would allow the expenditure plan for those counties without a current transportation sales tax to be developed by local elected officials after the election. Many would argue that without the specific project list spelled out before the election, that this still amounts to a "trust me" tax. SCA 3 could be amended to ensure that expenditure plans are drafted in every county prior to the election. As taxpayers, we deserve to know precisely where the funds will go - and we should have a say in the creation of the expenditure plan. Our voices will be heard more clearly before the vote then afterwards. Numerous citizens and business groups have already endorsed SCA 3, including the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group. Yet I suspect that many more will get on board - and campaign vigorously for its passage - if this amendment is included.

California's local "Self-Help" transportation movement has been a model of efficiency and success. Projects are delivered on time. Citizens have tremendous input. Local elected officials are more easily held accountable. And equally important, it has balanced the power between elected officials and private citizens. The six-word debate is no longer the public sector stating that "we need to raise your taxes." Instead, a citizen-led movement is proclaiming that "we want to fix our traffic."

Let's not kill accountability. By passing SCA 3, the Legislature will allow California voters the chance to choose.