 |
|
 |
|
September 2002 |
Table of Contents |
|
|
|
|
Ballot Propositions |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Analyses of November 2002 Ballot Propositions | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| By Cal-Tax Staff | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The staff of the California Taxpayers’ Association has prepared analyses of the seven propositions on the November 5 General Election ballot. (Cal-Tax positions: Support for Propositions 47 and 49, opposition to Propositions 50 and 51, and no recommendation on Propositions 46, 48 and 52.) The propositions: Proposition 46Title:
Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002 Major Provisions:
o $1.1 billion for various Multifamily Housing Programs.
o $405 million for Homeownership Programs:
o $200 million for Farmworker Housing Programs:
o $385 million for Other Housing Programs:
Background: As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, an estimated 1.1 million people living in California are homeless. Of this amount, approximately 108,000 could be “chronically homeless,” meaning they have no shelter for at least half the year. The Legislative Analyst states that about 150,000 houses and apartments are built in California each year, approximately 100,000 units less than what the Department of Finance says are needed annually to meet demand. Most of these units are built entirely with private dollars and sold or rented at market rates. Some, however, receive subsidies from federal, state, and local governments, such as grants, rent control or building subsidies. Typically, when housing construction is subsidized, state and local governments require that a certain amount of housing be dedicated to low-income Californians. California has built an average of 500 affordable housing units a year since 1999, according to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in the Chronicle article. Other state programs provide homebuyers with direct financial assistance to help with the costs of a down payment. The State Department of Housing and Community Development, the California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA), and the State Treasurer's Office administer a variety of housing programs intended to increase the supply of workforce housing and promote homeownership opportunities. These programs include: the Multifamily Housing Program, CalHome Program, Emergency Housing Assistance Program, Code Enforcement Program, Housing Grant Program, Housing Preservation Program, Self-Help Housing Program and Housing and Homebuyers Downpayment Assistance Program. By the end of 1996, these funds were all committed. In the meantime, approximately 20,000 privately owned apartments subsidized by federal dollars have been permanently removed from California’s low-income housing pool as reported by the Sacramento Bee. The 2000-01 Budget Act appropriated more than $500 million for housing programs. Most of these funds have been spent, and the remainder is expected to be exhausted by the end of 2001-02. The Job-Center Housing Coalition, composed of more than 70 businesses (including Cal-Tax), housing, community and labor organizations, is fighting for affordable housing reforms by supporting a package of “smart housing” bills that:
Fiscal Impact: Based on the Legislative Analyst’s (LAO) projection: Bond Costs. Generally, the interest on bonds issued by the state is exempt from both state and federal income taxes. Historically, the type of bonds proposed by this measure have not received the federal tax exemption because the ultimate recipients are private parties, resulting in a higher interest rate for the bonds. If the bonds were sold at an average interest rate of 6.25 percent (the current rate for this type of bond) and repaid over 30 years, the cost would be about $4.7 billion to pay off both the principal ($2.1 billion) and interest ($2.6 billion). The average payment would be about $157 million per year. Administrative Costs: Several agencies would experience increased costs to administer the various housing programs funded by this measure. Under existing law, a portion of the programs’ allocations from the bond funds – up to about $100 million – could be used for these administrative costs. The measure also authorizes some recipients to pay for administrative costs, increasing funds available for this purpose. Policy Considerations: 1. Does this proposal meet Cal-Tax's criteria for evaluating bond proposals, as outlined below?
2. As stated in the criteria above, Cal-Tax usually approves G.O. bonds that fund public priority capital facilities, infrastructure, and land acquisition – and opposes bonds that fund maintenance, operations, non-construction salaries or wages, or ongoing costs. A notable amount of these bond revenues would be used for various activities that are generally not paid for with bond funds. For example: $357 million in loans to provide homeowner assistance; the LAO estimates that up to $100 million of bond revenues could be used to cover agencies’ administrative costs to implement programs; $85 million to fund insurance for high-risk homeowners; $50 million to pay a portion of school facility fees; $12.5 million for downpayment assistance for those who participate in homeownership counseling programs; $10 million for construction management (i.e. technical assistance and support functions) of build-yourself projects, etc. 3. According to the Job-Center Housing Coalition, several factors have prevented developers from building more affordable housing, including: excessive litigation causing unwarranted lawsuits, a state tax structure that rewards cities and counties for retail development at the expense of new housing, excessive fees and housing taxes, etc. Are these problems addressed in Prop. 46 so that unnecessary costs can be eliminated from new home construction?
§ Questions: A. By offering only down payment assistance to local government as in incentive to participate in the BEGIN program, how much of an impact would this program have on reducing excessive fees which could potentially reduce local governments’ (including school districts) fee revenues? B. Would the deciding factor to participate in the program still be based on the option that brings in the greatest amount of long-term “discretionary” revenue to their jurisdiction, such as sales tax revenues from retail malls as opposed to receiving one-time funds earmarked for downpayment assistance? C. What about excessive litigation and housing taxes? If these issues are not addressed, would they continue to drive up the costs of building affordable housing units, thus reducing the number of units that could be built with bond revenues?
§ Questions: A. Should state G.O. bond funds be used as an incentive for local governments to issue more building permits to construct affordable housing units? The LAO points out that housing bonds (unlike most other types of state G.O. bonds) are not exempt from federal taxation and therefore are financed at a higher interest rate. B. How much of an incentive would a one-time, $100 million allocation be for local governments when sales tax revenues are continuously generated from commercial development? C. What will happen to the permit process when the grant revenues are fully depleted? 4. Many of these problems have been 30 years in the making. Is it realistic to expect this $2.1 billion bond alone to drastically reduce California’s affordable housing crisis? Could this measure be a realistic first step to combat the problem? 5. According to the California Building Industry Association (CBIA), tens of thousands of low- and moderate-income households every year need assistance to buy or rent housing. When the state (or other governmental entities) don’t provide this assistance, private homebuilders – and, ultimately, homebuyers – get stuck with the tab. In the absence of state funding for affordable housing, it’s estimated that more than one hundred California communities require homebuilders to construct affordable housing – or pay hefty “in lieu” fees – as a condition of getting new projects approved. In other words, a few homebuilders (and homebuyers) are forced to provide the social welfare assistance that government has failed to appropriate from a broader tax base. The Homebuilders Association of Northern California estimates that these so-called “inclusionary zoning” programs create a subsidy cost, on average, of $30,000 per home that has to be borne by homebuilders and, ultimately, market-rate homebuyers. This is nothing short of a housing tax – a consequence of government not fulfilling its obligations to its citizens (in this case, lower-income people). 6. Student housing is typically self supporting, paid for by student fees, donations and public-private partnerships. If the state traditionally does not fund student housing, would it be more practical to build UC/CSU affordable housing units with lease revenue bonds? 7. The cost of this $2.1 billion G.O. bond would be about $4.7 billion over 30 years. The average payment would be about $157 million per year. Since the state is facing a $23.6 billion budget deficit (which could grow to approximately $51 billion in the next five years based on LAO projections), is the additional debt load within the state’s capacity to carry? 8. A soon-to-be-released study of the benefits of housing to California’s economy – by Bob Fountain of CSUS’s Real Estate and Land Use Institute economy [a preliminary draft was provided by CBIA to Cal-Tax staff after the August 15th Executive Committee meeting] – shows that, at a sub-standard annual production level of 132,000 units, housing construction generates $40 billion in economic output every year. Fountain also found that “housing” as a sector of the economy is worth $257 billion in annual economic output – the highest of all sectors. It’s also estimated (but not scientifically reported) that each new home built in California generates $19,000 in state tax revenue. On that basis, the production of 8,300 units annually would generate enough state revenue to service the $157,000,000 in debt.
9. Is it necessary to dedicate bond revenues for the purpose of school facilities fee funding? The committee staff analysis notes that due to lack of participation in this program, the 2001 Budget Act shifted $108 million of program funds to the general fund (GF) and eliminated a future $20 million GF transfer. However, with passage of this affordable housing bond, will there be a higher demand for school facilities fee funding in the near future? 10. Why does the measure dedicate affordable housing bond revenues to specific groups (i.e., school personnel and UC/CSU students) when these lower-income earners would naturally qualify for traditional affordable housing assistance? Support Arguments:
Support arguments signed by: Pete Major, Executive Director, Habitat for humanity in Orange County; Barbara Inatsugu, President, League of Women Voters of California; Dr. Kathie Mathis, Executive Director, Association of Aid Victims of Domestic Violence. Opposition Arguments:
Opposition arguments signed by: Senator Ray Haynes, Chair, Senate Constitutional Amendments Committee; Assemblyman Anthony Pescetti, Vice Chair, Utilities and Commerce Committee; Jon Coupal, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Proposition 47Title: Kindergarten-University Public Education
Facilities Bond Acts of 2002 and 2004 Major Provisions:
The $13.05 billion 2002 bond would be allocated as follows:
ü $4.8 billion for new construction and modernization projects filed by Feb. 1, 2002. ü $3.45 billion for new school construction related to growth, including:
ü $1.4 billion for modernization of older schools. ü $1.7 billion for Critically Overcrowded Schools (COS). ü $50 million for joint-use facilities.
ü $408.2 million for the University of California (UC). ü $495.9 million for the California State University (CSU). ü $745.9 million for the California Community Colleges (CCC). The measure also appropriates $651 million in lease revenue bonds for higher education projects. The combined G.O. and lease revenue bonds: $2.3 billion. The $12.3 billion 2004 G.O. bond would be allocated as follows:
ü $5.26 billion for new school construction related to growth.
ü $2.25 billion for modernization of older schools. ü $2.44 billion for Critically Overcrowded Schools. ü $50 million for joint-use facilities.
ü $690 million for UC. ü $690 million for CSU. ü $920 million for CCC.
o Expands the membership of the State Allocation Board from 7 to 10 members by adding one member of the Senate, one member of the Assembly, and one member appointed by the Governor. Requires that the Senate and Assembly members belong to majority party and one member from the minority party. o Requires the Seismic Safety Commission establish an advisory group (including the State Architect, the State Fire Marshall, reps from major associations of architects, engineers, and school facilities designers, etc.) to decide if a regulatory process may be developed, allowing the State Architect to determine if buildings not constructed in compliance with the Field Act meet – or can be retrofitted to meet – the pupil safety performance standard. o Eliminates the current priority point system. o Requires that the state modernization grants be matched by the school districts on a 60% (state)-to-40% (local) basis for projects filed after March 15, 2002. This is an increase from the current 80-20 match. o Defers the implementation of "level 3" developer fees until the state no longer has funding for new construction apportionments after the 2004 primary election. o Tightens standards to qualify for financial hardship funding by placing into statute the recently adopted State Allocation Board (SAB) regulations which require districts to hold an election for a local bond measure and require a district to bond itself to 60% of capacity. o Provides that public schools are authorized to receive an allowance up to 5% of the total construction or modernization cost to maximize the use of energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy technologies in all new school construction and school modernization projects toward achieving zero-energy-use schools. o Establishes a joint use program of $50 million in 2002 and $50 million in 2004 to build facilities that are jointly used by the school and the community. o Establishes a set aside of funds for critically overcrowded schools (COS) to allow qualifying districts (districts with school sites that have high numbers of students per acre) additional time to file their application. Specifics include: ü The 2002 bond: $1.7 billion for COS; and the 2004 bond: $2.44 billion. ü Unused COS funds will be transferred to the regular new construction program. ü Districts qualify to receive COS set aside funds if existing schools in the district exceed by 210% the recommended number of students per acre. ü A district receiving funds from COS is required to build in the general location of the qualifying densely overcrowded schools and must enroll at least 75% of its pupils from such overcrowded schools. Background: Based on the Senate Floor Analysis of April 3, 2002: Under current law, the State School Facilities Program (SFP), funding for construction of new schools and modernization of old schools comes from both state and local sources. State funding comes from voter-approved General Obligation (G.O.) bonds and is allocated to school districts by the State Allocation Board (SAB) pursuant to the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (SB 50, Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998), which was designed to be less complex then was the previous law. Local funding comes from a variety of sources including local G.O. bonds, Mello-Roos bonds and developer fees. In November 1998, the voters approved Proposition 1A that authorized a total of $9.2 billion in state G.O. bonds for education facilities: $2.5 billion for higher education facilities and the remaining $6.7 billion for K-12 facilities. These state bond funds will be fully allocated by mid-2002. According to the Office of Public School Construction, over the next four years, there is a need for $21.1 billion in state bonds for school facilities to meet increasing enrollment demand and modernization needs. California=s universities and community colleges are also experiencing fast growth in enrollments. Although enrollments slowed significantly and even declined in the early 1990s, they have rebounded since the economy began recovery in the late 1990s. According to higher education officials, $9 billion is needed over the next four years for the facility needs of the University of California, California State University and the California Community Colleges. California voters have voted on the following state propositions to provide General-Obligation bonds for K-12 school construction. The only one that has failed, as noted below, was Proposition 1B in June 1994, which failed by .4 percent of the vote.
Fiscal Impact: Based on the April 3, Senate Floor Analysis: General Fund debt service costs would vary depending on the rate at which the bonds would be sold (many of these bonds may not be sold for several years). According to the Legislative Analyst for every $1 billion of GO bonds sold with a 25 year term with level debt payments at an average interest rate of 5%, the annual debt service would be $71 million. The Legislative Analyst reports as of October 2001, the state had about $26 billion of General Fund bond debt ($20 billion of GO bonds and $6 billion of lease-payment bonds). Also, the state has not yet sold about $12 billion of authorized bonds because the projects to be funded by the bonds have not yet been undertaken. The LAO estimates that payments on the state's General Fund bond debt will be around $3.2 billion during the 2001-02 fiscal year. As the currently authorized bonds are sold, bond debt payments will increase to $3.7 billion in 2005-06 and decline thereafter. The level of debt payments stated as a percentage of state General Fund revenues is referred to as the state's "debt ratio." This ratio stood at well under 3% at the start of the 1990s, and peaked at over 5% in the mid-1990s. It has since declined and currently stands at about 4.7%. Based on current authorizations, the ratio will continue to decline in future years. Policy Considerations: In 1997, the Cal-Tax Executive Committee and Board of Directors authorized Cal-Tax staff to support large schools bonds meeting the following criteria:
To determine if the measure meets these criteria, we raise the following questions:
Support Arguments:
Support arguments signed by: Allan Zaremberg, President, California Chamber of Commerce; Jan Harp Domene, President, California State PTA; Larry McCarthy, President, California Taxpayers’ Association Opposition Arguments:
Opposition arguments signed by: Senator Wm. J. Pete Knight; Jon Coupal, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Lewis K. Uhler, President, National Tax Limitation Committee Proposition 48 Title: Court Consolidation Major Provisions:
o Deletes from the Constitution references to municipal courts, which have been eliminated by unification of the trial courts into superior courts. o Deletes from the Constitution a section that governs the creation of municipal courts of the state and that allows for the unification of municipal and superior courts into one trial court. o Increases the membership of superior court judges on the Judicial Council to 10, reflecting the total of 5 superior court judges and 5 municipal court judges currently required by the Constitution. o Increases the membership of superior court judges on the Commission on Judicial Performance to two judges of superior courts, reflecting the total of one superior court judge and one municipal court judge currently required by the Constitution. o Deletes from the Constitution the requirements for eligibility to be a judge of the municipal court. o Repeals on January 1, 2007, the Constitutional provisions relating to the transition period for the unification of the superior and municipal courts. Background: In 1998, California voters approved Proposition 220, which permitted superior and municipal courts, known as “trial courts,” within a county to consolidate their operations if approved by a majority vote of the superior court judges and municipal court judges in the county. Under consolidation, the superior court assumes jurisdiction over all matters handled previously by superior and municipal courts; municipal court judges become superior court judges and the municipal courts are abolished. All 58 California counties have since voted to consolidate their trial court operations. At the request of the Legislature, the California Law Revision Commission has made recommendations on repealing statutes that are obsolete because of trial court reforms, including those resulting from court consolidation. Fiscal Impact: According to the Legislative Analyst, this measure would not result in additional costs to state or local government. Policy Considerations:
Support Arguments:
Support arguments signed by: Assemblyman Howard Wayne Opposition Arguments:
Opposition arguments signed by: Gary B. Wesley, Co-Chair, Voter Information Alliance; Melvin L. Emerich, Co-Chair, Voter Information Alliance Proposition 49 Title: After School Education and
Safety Program Act of 2002. Initiative Statute. Legislative History: This initiative would revamp the existing before and after school program. The after school program was established in 1998 by SB 1756 (Lockyer); AB 2284 (Torlakson), and AB 1428 (Ortiz). The before component was established in 2001 by AB 6 (Cardenas). Major Provisions:
o This measure would dedicate up to $465 million of the growth of non Prop. 98 general fund revenues only after amount of non-Prop. 98 general fund appropriations exceed by $1.5 billion the newly established base year allocation. If this criterion is not met, the funding level will be determined by the previous year’s allocation. o Guarantees that all Proposition 98 programs will be fully funded first.
A) To fund all existing before and after school programs. B) To make available the three-year renewable school grants to every eligible California public elementary school (up to $50,000), and middle and junior high school (no greater than $75,000). Charter schools would also be eligible for the grants. (Schools which serve a disproportionately greater number of low income students would receive priority grants up for surplus grants up to existing law maximums.) C) To expand the use of school facilities for K-9 students when they are not in school by adding computer training, fine arts and physical fitness to the program.
Background: State: Currently, the funding of these programs is in the form of three-year renewable grants, and a 50% local funding match is required. Funding is based on a daily amount per student served, and there is a maximum grant amount per site. Local education agencies (LEAs) and cities, counties, and non-profits that have formed partnerships with LEAs can apply for the grants. Priority funding is granted to schools that provide at least 50 percent of their pupils with subsidized meals. The program must include both academic support and recreation/youth crime prevention programs. The programs can be operated before school, after school, during summer, intersession or vacations, and all programs have minimum operation requirements. Participants are required to adhere to evaluation standards, including the assessment of academic performance, attendance and behavioral changes. In the September 11 (2001) Assembly Floor Analysis of AB 6 are laudatory remarks of this program by the State Department of Education: "this program is a success, particularly in its ability to increase student academic outcomes … attending classes more frequently, and enjoying school more. 1999 STAR test results indicate that for all students in the program, reading scores increased by almost 10% and the math scores by more than 7%. … for those students who scored below the 25th national percentile ranking (NPR) in the baseline period, their reading scores increased by 55% and the math scores by more than 70%. … more than one-third of students who scored below the 25th NPR in math scored in a higher quartile in the follow-up year and 28% of those who started in the lowest quartile in reading were in a higher quartile the very next year." The City of San Diego's "6 to 6" program is the model for the before and after school programs, as reported in the September 7, 2001, Senate Floor Analysis. The "6 to 6" program currently operates in all 297 elementary and middle schools in the city, serving 85 to 100 pupils in each elementary school and 100 to 300 pupils at each middle school, the report indicates. EdSource reports that 57% of the students sampled improved their Stanford-9 reading scores, and 44% improved on their math scores. A study of LA’s Better Educated Students for Tomorrow program, described as "the grand daddy of on-site after school programs in California," found that 85% of the children said they liked school more since participating in the program. They were absent fewer days and showed positive achievement on standardized test, according to EdSource. Federal: Fiscal Impact: This measure would provide up to $550 million for after school programs when funds are available. The current allocation for the before and after school program is $87 million, which means the program could experience up to $465 million of additional funding. Policy Considerations:
Support Arguments:
Support arguments signed by: Arnold Schwarzenegger; Wayne Johnson, President, California Teachers Association; Warren Rupf, President, California State Sheriffs’ Association Opposition Arguments:
Opposition arguments signed by: Barbara Inatsugu, President, League of Women Voters of California Proposition 50 Title: Water Quality, Supply and Safe Drinking Water
Projects. Coastal Wetlands Purchase and Protection. Bonds. Initiative Statute. Major Provisions:
o $950 million for Coastal Protection projects, including: wetlands acquisition, protection, restoration, and watershed projects. o $825 million for CALFED Bay-Delta Program, including: water use efficiency and conservation, water supply reliability, ecosystem restoration, watershed protection, water conveyance, delta levee restoration, and water storage planning and studies. o $640 million for Integrated Regional Water Management: including various water supply, pollution reduction, water treatment, flood management, and wetlands restoration projects; land and water acquisitions to improve/protect water quality, water supply reliability and fish and wildlife habitat. o $435 million for Safe Drinking Water Projects, including: small community drinking water system upgrades, contaminant removal and treatment, water quality monitoring, drinking water source protection. o $370 million for Clean Water and Water Quality, including: water pollution prevention, water recycling, water quality improvements, river parkway projects, coastal non-point source pollution control, Lake Tahoe water quality improvements, land and water acquisitions to protect water quality in the Sierra Nevada-Cascade Mountain Region. o $100 million for Desalination and Water Treatment Project, including: desalination projects, treatment/removal of specified contaminants, drinking water disinfecting projects. o $70 million for Colorado River Management, including: Ecosystem restoration, and canal lining. o $50 million for Water Security, including: protection of drinking water systems from terrorist attacks and other deliberate acts of destruction or degradation. Background: According to the Legislative Analyst, the state administers a number of coastal protection and water resources programs to acquire and protect coastal wetlands and watersheds, conserve and protect water resources, and develop and improve the reliability of water supplies. The state also provides grants and loans to local agencies and nonprofit organizations for similar purposes. These programs are for a variety of specific purposes, including:
Funding for these programs has come from various sources, including the state General Fund, federal funds, and general obligation bonds. Since 1990, voters have approved about $3 billion in bonds that are primarily for water-related purposes (Proposition 204 of 1996 and Proposition 13 of 2000, both supported by Cal-Tax). It is estimated that about $1.9 billion of the bonds authorized by these previous bond acts will have been spent or committed to specific projects as of June 2002, leaving a balance of about $1.1 billion for future projects. In addition, in March 2002, voters approved a $2.6 billion resources bond measure (Proposition 40, which Cal-Tax also supported). A majority of the funds from that bond are for park-related projects, although some funds are available for water conservation and water quality projects. Approximately $1.325 billion of Proposition 40 bond revenues will be used for parks and historical resources; $1.275 billion is dedicated for land, air and water conservation projects, including:
Fiscal Impact: Based on Legislative Analyst projections: Bond Costs. The cost of these bonds would depend on their interest rates and the time period over which they are repaid. If the bonds were sold at an interest rate of 5.25 percent (the current rate for this type of bond) and repaid over 30 years, the cost would be about $6.9 billion to pay off both the principal ($3.44 billion) and interest ($3.46 billion). The average payment would be about $230 million per year. However, total costs to the state will be somewhat less. This is because the measure requires that loans made for coastal non-point source pollution control (up to $100 million) be repaid to the General Fund (GF). The repayment of these loans could reduce GF costs by up to $100 million (not including interest payments) over the life of the bonds. Property Tax-Related Impacts. The measure provides funds for land acquisition by governments and nonprofit organizations, for various purposes including coastal protection. Under state law, property owned by government entities, and by nonprofit organizations under specified conditions, is exempt from property taxation. To the extent that this measure results in property being exempted from taxation, local governments would receive reduced property tax revenues. The LAO estimates reduced property tax revenues ranging from a few million dollars to roughly $10 million annually. Because existing law requires the state to make up property tax losses experienced by schools, about one-half of any losses resulting from this change would be offset by the state. Operational Costs. State and local governments may incur additional costs to operate or maintain a property or project that is purchased or developed with the bond funds. The amount of these additional costs is unknown. Policy Considerations:
o The project to be financed is a capital facility or infrastructure project and the bond funding will pay for land acquisition and capital costs, not for maintenance, operations, non-construction salaries or wages, or ongoing costs. o Non-bond financing is not a reasonable option. o The project costs are appropriately shared by future taxpayers because the project will have a useful life at least as long as the term of the bonds and future taxpayers will benefit from the facility that is built with the bond proceeds. o It is not appropriate for bond funds to pay for equipment, computers, or similar items that will not be useful for at least as long as the debt is outstanding. o For state bonds, projects funded must be of state-level concern and importance. State bonds should not pay for local projects that do not have significant extra-territorial impact. o Interest rates for indebtedness are not abnormally high and the overall state debt level will not be excessive.
Support Arguments:
Support arguments signed by: Barbara Inatsugu, President, League of Voters of California; Dan Taylor, Vice President, National Audubon Society; Marguerite Young, California Director, Clean Water Action Opposition Arguments:
Opposition arguments signed by: Ernie Dynda, President, United Organizations of Taxpayers; Edward J. (Ted) Costa, CEO, People’s Advocate; Tom C. Rogers, Chairman, Citizens Against Unfair Taxation Proposition 51 Title: Transportation. Allocation of Sales and Use
Taxes Raised from Sale Lease of Motor Vehicles. Major Provisions: Creates the Traffic Congestion Relief and Safe Schools Bus Trust Fund. Reallocates 30% of certain state sales & use tax revenues (those collected on the sale or lease (not rental) of new or used motor vehicles in the state of California) into the newly created fund for transportation, safety and environmental programs. Funds would be deposited in a variety of accounts for various purposes including, mass transit, new school buses, street and road repairs, public transit facilities, disabled and senior transport services, environmental mitigation, bicycle and pedestrian improvements and parking structures (See table below). Monies in each account, however, are first allocated to 45 specific projects which would receive specified amounts of money each year. Below is a general distribution of proceeds to the various state funds:
This measure creates a new seven member commission (5 governor appointments, one each to the Speaker and Senate Rules) the purpose of which is to conduct audits of expenditures from the fund. However, the initiative specifically prohibits subsequent modification to the allocation of monies to the projects specified. Background: The statewide sales and use tax rate is currently 6%, the vast majority of which goes to the general fund to support state government Less than 1% of the sales tax revenue is dedicated to transportation programs and services. Beginning in 2003-2004, most state sales tax revenue generated from the sale of gasoline will be use exclusively for transportation increasing the overall portion of state sales tax revenues dedicated to transportation to 4.5%. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, California annually collects about $3.4 billion in sales and use taxes on the sale and lease of new and used motor vehicles and sends approximately $16.5 billion per year to maintain, operate, and improve highways, streets and road, rail and transit systems. Fiscal Effect: $420 million in 2002-03, $910 million in 2003-04, and increasing amounts annually thereafter, depending on the increase in sales and leasing of motor vehicles. Policy Considerations:
Supporting Arguments YES on 51 requires the use of existing state funds to:
Make road improvements that assist police, fire and ambulance emergency teams and protect highway workers. Reduce oil and gas pollution from roads and streams. Strengthen bridges to prevent earthquake damage. Improve public transit to reduce traffic on roads and to improve mobility for seniors and the disabled. Supported by: TRANSPORTATION Bailey Trucking Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition Blue & Gold Fleet California Association for Coordinated Transportation California Association of Bicycling Organizations California Transit Association California Trucking Association East Bay Bicycle Coalition Exposition Park Stakeholders Friends of the Red Line Goodyear Hay Mart and Trucking Jim Doherty Trucking, Inc. Market Street Railway Masters Tug and Towing McGuire Lowbed Service Modern Transit Society Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. Partners for Highway Safety Rail Passenger Association of California Red and White Fleet Richard Hoagland Trucking Rico Trucking Sacramento Capitol Station District Sacramento Regional Transit Seaboard Marine South Natomas Transportation Management Association Southern California Transit Advocates The Transit Coalition Westar Marine Services
LABOR Amalgamated Transit Union United Transportation Union
BUSINESS A-1 Construction Equipment Services Building Industry Association of Kern County California Business Properties Association Catellus Development Corporation Cooley Enterprises Inc. David S. Taylor Interests Downtown Sacramento Partnership Fisherman's Wharf Merchants Association (San Francisco) Figueroa Corridor Partnership (Business Improvement District) Forsberg Schaller Construction Fresno Economic Opportunities Commission/ Fresno Local Conservation Corps Gray and Reynolds Properties Hillwood Investments Hornblower Cruises and Events J. H. Meek and Sons, Inc. Niegel Land and Development Pardee Homes Planning Company Associates Rocklin Rock LLC Specialty Environmental Services Tejon Ranch Company
ENVIRONMENTAL American River Conservancy American River Parkway Foundation Anza-Borrego Foundation Arden Manor Recreation and Park District Ballona Wetlands Land Trust California Coastal Coalition Center for Natural Lands Management Coastal Land Trust Defenders of Wildlife Endangered Habitats League Environmental Council of Sacramento Fallbrook Land Conservancy Feather River Land Trust Friends of the Desert Mountains Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks Golden Gate National Parks Association Goleta Valley Land Trust Greenspace - The Cambria Land Trust Hills for Everyone Humane Society of the United States Lassen Land and Trails Trust League to Save Lake Tahoe Los Angeles Conservation Corps Mission Resource Conservation District Moro Estuary Greenbelt Alliance Mountains Restoration Trust Muir Heritage Land Trust National Parks Conservation Association National Wildlife Federation Natural Resources Defense Council North East Trees Orange County Conservation Corps Pitzer College Ecology Center Planning and Conservation League The River Center San Bernardino Mountains Land Trust San Diego River Park - Lakeside Conservancy San Dieguito River Valley Conservancy San Francisco Conservation Corps San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust San Jose Conservation Corps Shasta Land Trust Sierra Club California The Sierra Fund Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Association Sunrise Recreation and Park District Tides Foundation Trust for Public Land Tulare County Conservation Corps Tuolumne County Land Trust Union of Concerned Scientists Volcan Mountain Preserve Foundation
GOVERNMENT City of Calabasas City of Cathedral City City of Desert Hot Springs City of Indio City of Inglewood City of Irvine City of La Canada Flintridge City of Laguna Woods City of Oakland City of Orange Cove City of Palm Springs City of Rancho Mirage City of Sacramento Roger Dickinson, Supervisor, County of Sacramento Port of Oakland Sam Pratt, Councilman, City of Temecula
EDUCATION Antioch Unified School District California Association of School Transportation Officials Delaine Eastin, California Superintendent of Public Instruction Fontana Unified School District Fresno Unified School District Hamilton Union High School Hart-Ransom Union School District Kings Canyon Unified School District La Mesa-Spring Valley School District McKinleyville Union School District Mid-Placer Public Schools Modesto City Schools Monrovia Unified School District Ojai Unified School District Palm Springs Unified School District Planada School District Pomona Unified School District Red Bluff Union School District San Bernadino City Unified School District Small School Districts Association School Transportation Coalition University of Southern California Wasco Union School District Wheatland School District Woodland Joint Unified School District
LAW ENFORCEMENT California Organization of Police and Sheriffs
HEALTH American Lung Association of California California Nurses Association California School Nurses Organization
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY California Safe Kids Network Greater Sacramento Safe Kids Coalition Inland Empire Safe Kids Coalition Orange County Safe Kids Coalition Placer County Safe Kids Coalition San Joaquin Safe Kids Coalition Ventura County Safe Kids Coalition
PUBLIC INTEREST California Academy of Sciences California Public Interest Research Group California State Railroad Museum Foundation The Crocker Art Museum The Exploratorium Exposition Park Stakeholders Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco Fort Mason Foundation Hollywood Beautification Team Music Concourse Community Partnership Sacramento Valley Residents for Responsible Growth San Francisco Maritime National Park
AGRICULTURE American Farmland Trust Amistad Ranches Bullseye Farms Cilker Orchards Milk Producers Council
DIVERSITY Philippine Action Group for the Environment
SENIOR AND DISABLED California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, Inc. Resources for Independent Living, Inc. Opposition Arguments:
o With ongoing budget deficits, should your tax dollars be spent to build paths for golf carts at Leisure World? The spending is LOCKED into Prop. 51. o With ongoing budget deficits, should the state fund freeway interchanges for developers who paid to put Prop. 51 on the ballot? A freeway interchange for a campaign contributor proposing a large development in LA County is LOCKED into Prop. 51. o Do you think taxes should be raised or programs cut to build and maintain museums and a music concourse? Or should private funds pay for these luxury projects? Prop. 51 REQUIRES taxpayer spending on these projects. o Do you think priorities for your tax dollars should be determined by special interests which receive your tax dollars? Prop. 51 has numerous projects which benefit specific contributors. o Say NO to this pay-to-play scheme. Don’t add $1 billion annually to the state deficit. Opposed by: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (Jonathan Coupal); California Tax Reform Association (Lenny Goldberg); National Tax Limitation Committee (Lou Uhler) Proposition 52 Title: Election Day Voter Registration Act of 2002 Legislative History: AB 1094 (Hertzberg) 1999-2000 Session. Originally proposed election day voter registration, but in face of gubernatorial opposition, amended to permit registration up to 15 days in advance of the election. Major Provisions: Under current law and starting this year, Californians who desire to vote at an upcoming election must register with county election officials by the 15th day prior to the election. Prior to this year, Californian’s had to register at least 29 days in advance of the election. This was put into place by AB 1094 (Hertzberg) as a compromise to its originally proposed election day voter registration proposal. This initiative would move that time line back to 29 days, but allow a new registration/re-registration process for the period between 28 days and the election with election day registration at the polling place. Election Day Registration and Voting: This measure would permit an eligible voter, beginning 28 days prior to the election and up to and including the day of the election, to register at any office of the county elections official in the county in which the voter resides. If the voter chooses to register or reregister on the day of the election they may do so at the place of voting by presenting “proof of current residence.” Election Day Registration Fund: This measure establishes the “Election Day Registration Fund” within the State Treasury. Each year, approximately $6 million would be deposited into the fund from the state’s General Fund and distributed to counties for their costs of election day voter registration (including hiring and training additional personnel, providing materials, and expanding voter outreach programs). Counties receiving funds would be required to submit an annual report. Increased Penalties for Voter Fraud: This measure increases the penalties for fraudulent registration or voting activity. It also creates a new crime of conspiracy of two or more people who commit specified election fraud punishable by imprisonment in state prison. Background: At the March 2002 primary only 24.6% of the voting-age population in California showed up at the polls and a historically low 34.6% of registered voters showed up. Was the primary too early, is it too hard to have to remember to register prior to voting, or are voters simply increasingly turned off by politics in the once Golden State? Is it apathy, cynicism, confusion, or disillusionment? At the same time, California has some of the most lax set of standards for voting and voter registration in the nation. To register, simply fill out a registration card 15 days prior to the election listing your Name, address (just a description of where you live will suffice), date and place of birth, and party affiliation if any. That’s it. You can even register or re-register online. When you show up at the polls, no ID is required to verify that you are who you say you are. Absentee voting is even easier, if only requiring a little more advanced planning. The whole movement towards identification and voter registration verification has been marred by accusations of racism and discrimination against those who might be required to present valid identification. Since 1995, millions of Californians have wither registered or re-registered to vote while conducting transactions through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State also receives hundreds of complaints each election from voters who have not had their voter registration information promptly sent to county election officials by DMV. Along comes Proposition 52 which is being paid for by Robert McKay of San Francisco (contributions to date exceed $1.7 million and he has publicly committed to spending $8 million). Mr. McKay heads up McKay Investment Group, is the heir to the Taco Bell fortune and has served as a Director of Salon.com since August 2001. In the “hire both sides” column Mr. McKay has hired as co-drafters of the initiative two of the state’s leading political lawyers: Republican Vigo G. “Chip” Nielsen of Nielsen, Merksamer, Mueller, Parrinello & Naylor and Democrat Lance Olsen of Olson, Hagel, Waters & Fishburn. The lead consultants are Republican Donna Lucas and Democrat Gale Kaufman. Six other states have implemented Election Day Voting (EDV): Maine, Minnesota and Wisconsin since the mid-1970s, Idaho, New Hampshire and Wyoming since 1994. Proof of Current Residence: Under the initiative, on the day of the election, in order to register AND vote, the voter must present either a California drivers license, California ID or any TWO of the following: Military ID, College or university fee card or student ID; Lease agreement; Mortgage statement; Property tax statement; Income tax return; Utility bill; credit card bill; Bank statement; Printed check or bank deposit slip; vehicle registration; mail addressed to the voter at his or her current residence address; or Sworn written statement given in the presence of a poll worker at the polling place from a registered voter in the precinct stating that he or she know s and can identify the person who is attempting to vote, and attesting to the name and residence address of the person attempting to vote (the last two cannot be used together). Fiscal Effect: Appropriates $6 million annually (adjusted for cost-of-living increases) for county costs of election-day voter registration activities. Unknown costs to the Secretary of state and state general fund for prosecutions and imprisonments of convicted violators. Policy Considerations:
Supporting Arguments
o Give all legally eligible citizens the right to vote on election day. o Allow Legally eligible citizens to register and vote on election day only with a valid California driver’s license or two required forms of identification proving they are California residents voting at the right polling place. o Double the penalties for voting illegally or for voter fraud. o Provide training to election day poll workers on processing voter registrations and preventing voter fraud. Prop. 52 Prevents Voter Fraud. o Under current state law, there’s no requirement to show identification when registering to vote. Voter fraud laws are too weak and need to be strengthened. o Currently County elections officials aren’t required to report voter fraud to law enforcement officials. o The existing system has loopholes that have even allowed pets to be registered as voters! Supported by: The League of Women Voters; California Professional Firefighters; California Nurses Association; Lee Baca, LA County Sheriff; March Fong Eu, Former Secretary of State Opposition Arguments:
Opposed by: Honorable Ed Jagels, District Attorney of Kern County; Roy Burns, President, Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Jill Schall, President, Women Prosecutors of California; Honorable Jan Scully, District Attorney for Sacramento County; Honorable Mike Carona, Sheriff of Orange County; Sharon Runner, Co-Chair, Citizens & Law Enforcement Against Election Fraud | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||