|
|
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 46
Title:
Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002
Sponsor:
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Legislative History:
SB 1227 (Senator John Burton) – Senate: 27-11; Assembly: 54-21
Major Provisions:
o
$1.1 billion
for various Multifamily Housing Programs.
§
$800 million to provide
low-interest loans for affordable housing development.
§
$195 million for low-interest
loans for housing projects offering health services.
§
$50 million to prevent
affordable housing agreements from expiring.
§
$25 million for matching grants
to local housing trust funds.
§
$20 million to fund space for
services (job training, health, childcare, etc.).
§
$15 million in low interest
loans to build housing for low-income UC/CSU students.
§
$ 5 million for modifications to
housing of low-income renters with disabilities.
o
$405 million
for Homeownership Programs:
§
$117.5 million to fund
low-interest loans for low income homebuyers.
§
$115 million to fund various low
income homeownership programs.
§
$ 75 million in grants to fund
the Building and Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods (BEGIN) Program, which
would reduce restrictive regulations on residential
construction.
§
$50 million to provide gap
financing to compensate for statutorily approved increases in school facility
fees on new homes in economically distressed areas or for first-time, low
income earners.
§
$25 million to provide
downpayment loans for low-income school personnel.
§
$12.5 million for down payment
assistance for first-time, low-income homebuyers participating in specified
counseling programs.
§
$10 million for low-income self
help housing construction management.
o
$200 million
for Farmworker Housing Programs:
§
$155 million for low-interest
loans/grants to construct farm worker housing.
§
$25 million for low-interest
loans/grants which serve migratory workers.
§
$20 million for low-interest
loans/grants for farm worker housing offering health services.
o
$385 million
for Other Housing Programs:
§
$195 million to provide grants
to construct homeless shelters.
§
$100 million in capital grants
to local entities to increase permits to build affordable housing projects.
§
$ 85 million for insurance
high-risk housing mortgages.
§
$ 5 million for grants for
capital expenditures for local code enforcement.
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:
-
Encourage the development of
affordable California homes, particularly those that efficiently utilize land
near existing job centers;
-
Replace a “sue first” policy for
construction disputes with a consumer-friendly 10-year warranty to reduce
lawsuit abuse to attract affordable homes;
-
Reverse skewed fiscal policies –
which punish residential construction – into reliable revenue streams which make
new homes fiscal winners;
-
Make infill housing a reality by
limiting not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) control of housing markets and promoting
smart, high-density housing;
-
Revive urban areas through
clean-up and redevelopment of used properties;
-
Reduce excessive fees and other
housing taxes, and promote the adoption of local regulatory policies that serve
as incentives for affordable homeownership,
-
Turn land-use planning into local
blueprints for housing and economic growth.
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?
-
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.
-
Non-bond financing is not a
reasonable option.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Interest rates for indebtedness
are not abnormally high and the overall state debt level will not be excessive.
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?
-
The measure provides $75 million
to the BEGIN Program, a Job-Center Housing
proposal, which builds on a pilot program launched by Governor Pete Wilson in
1993 by rewarding local government for reducing the regulatory costs of
constructing housing. Under the BEGIN program, local governments that provide
one or more of the following incentives (based on a point system) to developers
will be eligible to receive down-payment assistance for prospective low-income
homebuyers: waive or lower fees, relax strict design requirements (i.e. parking,
etc.), grant higher densities, and streamline local permitting processes.
§
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?
-
To address the issue of “Reverse
skewed fiscal policies – which punish residential construction – into reliable
revenue streams which make new homes fiscal winners,” Prop. 46 also allocates
$100 million in grants to local governments for increasing affordable housing
units by issuing building permits above
their previous 3-year average.
§
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.
§
Questions:
A. According to the HCD, California builds only 500 affordable housing units a
year. How is the CSUS $19,000 estimate relevant to the affordable housing
discussion since it is based on the construction of “all” housing in California?
B. Moreover, where is the guarantee in the
measure that the state tax revenues derived from newly built homes would be
available to fund the additional bond debt? Wouldn’t most of these
revenues be placed in the state general fund for discretionary use, including
providing services to the newly built homes?
C. Would the state be required to reduce
services or raise additional revenues to service the additional bond 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:
-
Safe shelter is fundamental to a
decent life. Prop. 46 will double the number of emergency shelter beds; provide
security improvements and repairs to existing shelters; provide clean and safe
housing for senior citizens and low-income families; provide affordable housing
for working people and accessibility improvements for disabled Californians;
loan assistance for military veterans, teachers, police and firefighters, and
create 276,000 jobs to help improve the state’s economy.
-
Proposition 46 requires
independent audits and contains strict accountability provisions to ensure the
funds are used as promised.
-
Proposition 46 provides shelter
for thousands of homeless children, allowing them to attend neighborhood schools
without having to worry about a roof over their head.
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:
-
California is already on the brink
of bankruptcy and now is not the time to be going further into debt. Passing
bonds only adds to the state’s debts. Here is a snapshot of its current
situation: $24 billion budget deficit this year; $26.9 billion in current G.O.
bonds outstanding; $11 billion in energy bonds that have yet to be sold, and a
$13 billion school bond on this ballot.
-
Of the $2.1 billion, only $290
million, about 15%, is put into the “Self Help” fund that would help low-income,
first-time homebuyers with down payments, a major selling point for this bond.
Of that, only $12.5 million would actually be used to help with down payments.
To make matters worse, to get the $12.5 million, recipients have to purchase
houses in government approved locations. None of these areas are in high-income
areas where it is so hard to purchase a home.
-
If we want to improve housing
availability in California, we first need to make it easier to construct new
homes. We need to reduce the red tape that homebuilders have to go through to
build new housing. This bond does nothing to address the barriers that exist to
provide affordable, abundant housing in California.
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 47
Title: Kindergarten-University Public Education
Facilities Bond Acts of 2002 and 2004
Sponsor: Assembly Member Robert Hertzberg
Legislative History: AB 16, introduced December 4, 2000 Assembly Floor
(71-8); Senate Floor (26-7); Conference Committee (4-0), 3/20/02
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.
November 1982
|
Proposition 1
|
$500 million
|
November 1984
|
Proposition 2
|
450 million
|
November 1986
|
Proposition 53
|
800 million
|
June 1988
|
Proposition 75
|
800 million
|
November 1988
|
Proposition 79
|
800 million
|
June 1990
|
Proposition 123
|
800 million
|
November 1990
|
Proposition 146
|
800 million
|
June 1992
|
Proposition 152
|
1.9 billion
|
November 1992
|
Proposition 155
|
900 million
|
June 1994 (Failed)
|
Proposition 1B |
1.0 billion
|
March 1996
|
Proposition 203
|
*3.0 billion
|
November 1998
|
Proposition 1A
|
**
9.2 billion
|
* $2.025 billion K-12 + $975 million Higher Ed. |
**$6.7 billion K-12 + $2.5 million Higher Ed. |
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:
-
The bond must not be tied to a reduction in the vote requirement
for local general obligation bonds.
-
The bond measure should include a limit on developer fees for
school construction.
-
Cost-saving reforms would need to be included to make taxpayers=
money go farther in solving facility needs.
The bond should be used for multi-year facilities spending
involving long-term planning for future facilities needs.
To determine if the
measure meets these criteria, we raise the following questions:
-
Is the state=s
level of debt in a range that this additional debt would not create an undue
burden on state finances and taxpayers?
-
Is the level of school construction needs great enough to warrant
state involvement in providing funds?
-
Are the cost-saving measures and developer fee limits in the
measure strong enough to justify supporting such a large bond measure?
-
If this bond is not approved, how will school districts generate
the funding to accommodate rapid enrollment growth that is projected?
-
If this bond is not approved, will taxpayers face a more vigorous
assault on the vote requirement for local general obligation bonds and property
tax increases?
Support Arguments:
-
California’s public schools used to be among the best in the
nation. Buy years of neglect and inadequate funding have taken their toll.
Prop. 47 will help fix our schools … and help our student succeed.
-
Prop. 47 builds new schools and college classrooms for the
hundreds of thousands new students entering classrooms in coming years, builds
new classrooms to keep class sizes small, fixes leaky roofs, repairs bathrooms,
puts heating and air conditioning in classrooms, provides funds for wiring
classrooms to access technology, and makes sure communities get their fair share
of the funds.
-
The measure provides for audits, cost controls, and other
accountability requirements to guard against waste and mismanagement. It
also assures that taxpayer funds cannot be spent on bureaucracy but only spent
on building and renovating schools.
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:
-
California is paying interest on tens of billions of dollars in
outstanding bonds. Because we’ve passed so many bonds in recent years,
California has been assigned the third lowest credit rating in the country. As such, we should be extremely careful whenever we consider taking on more
debt.
-
Prop. 47 does not encourage school construction. Under this new
scheme, the schools with the neediest kids aren’t obligated to begin building a
single school for 61/2 years. School districts can reserve bond money
by simply stating an “intent” to build a school. Schools built with the
bond funds made available in 2004 would not have to break ground until 2011.
-
Prop. 47 overwhelmingly favors the Los Angeles Unified School
District (LAUSD) over every other district in the state. LAUSD is eligible for
over 30% of the new construction funds, even though it accounts for only 12% of
the state’s student population.
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
Sponsors: California Law Revision Commission
Legislative History: ACA 15 of 2002 (Assembly Member Howard Wayne)
Assembly: 72-0; Senate: 38-0
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:
-
This is a non-controversial change that updates the California
Constitution. It passed each house of the Legislature unanimously.
-
Currently the state Constitution provides for two types of trial
courts, superior and municipal courts, in each county. But due to unification of
the trial courts, there are no longer any municipal courts in California.
However, the California Constitution still contains provisions dealing with
municipal courts. There provisions are obsolete and need to be removed.
-
The proposition implements recommendations of the California Law
Revision Commission, which was directed by law to recommend repeal of provisions
that have become obsolete because of trial court unification.
Support arguments signed by:
Assemblyman Howard Wayne
Opposition Arguments:
-
The main drawback to the proposal is that it would preclude the
re-establishment of municipal courts in any of California’s 58 counties. We would want to establish municipal courts to save money (superior court judges
are paid more) and to promote fairness in appeals. The basis for seeking review
of what a judge has done in a case is that the judge ruled or acted wrongly. A one-court system which asks judges of the very same court to correct or rebuke
their colleagues creates the appearance of unfairness.
-
Separate municipal and superior courts in the counties offered
more “checks and balances” than the consolidated superior courts which have now
been established.
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.
Status: Signature gathering phase: November 2002 ballot.
Sponsors: Paul F. Miner and Arnold Schwarzenegger
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:
California’s After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnerships
Program was enacted in 1998 by the three identical measures SB 1756 (Lockyer),
AB 2284 (Torlakson), and AB 1428 (Ortiz). This program began with $50 million,
which grew to $87 million by 2000-01 to fund participation of about 100,000
students. Assembly Bill 6 (Cardenas) of 2001 expanded the program to include a
before-school component and allocated an additional $30 million for the
program’s expansion. In early 2002, the governor reduced the program funding by
$22 million to mitigate the budget gap. His initial spending cut was $29.7
million, but approximately $7.5 million of program funds were restored.
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:
Since 1988, the Federal 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CLC) program has offered
after school grants primarily to rural and inner city schools. By November 2001,
approximately 775 centers (out of 6,697 nationwide) operated in California, with
federal grant funding over $105 million. This revenue has served 58,000 K-12
students and 13,000 adults. For fiscal year 2002, the state is expecting to
receive $42 million for new programs out of the $1 billion national allocation.
The three-to-five year grants are one-time and a funding match is optional.
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:
-
According to the author, and studies cited below, after school
programs save taxpayers money by reducing crime, reducing health costs
associated with drug and alcohol use, cutting grade repetition (savings ranging
from $11 million to $20 million annually), and reducing the need for remedial
education. The author has commissioned a study to quantify the taxpayer savings
resulting from this policy change. These figures will help voters evaluate this
measure.
Cal-Tax is currently working on a major project to bridge the
budget gap. One of the proposals on this list is to defer payment for expansion
of the "Before and After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnerships
Program," which is the mold for this new initiative. The draft of this measure
appears to be consistent for Cal-Tax to support, since we are merely asking for
a deferment of the program expansion, and this initiative does not take effect
until July 2004.
This measure would dedicate up to $465 million of the growth of
non Prop. 98 general fund revenues only after the 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.
Support Arguments:
Proposition 49 is funded out of future growth in state revenues,
but only after our economy has recovered. It will not require an increase in
taxes or affect the current budget. The prestigious Rose Institute says Prop. 49
saves society approximately $9 for every $1 invested. The return to taxpayers
alone is approximately $3 for every $1 tax dollar invested.
Recent studies of existing after school programs by major
universities and think tanks are unanimous – after school programs change lives
by improving grades and reducing crime: Police statistics show that violent
juvenile crime increases dramatically during the after school hours between 3
p.m.. and 6 p.m., creating a "danger zone" for kids and neighborhoods. These are
the hours when kids are most likely to join gangs, use alcohol and tobacco and
become addicted to drugs. A study of the most crime-ridden schools in Los
Angeles showed crime rates dropped 40% when those schools offered after school
programs. Another study showed vandalism and stealing plummeted 66%, while
violent acts, carrying concealed weapons, and arrests were reduced 50% among
program participants.
Prop. 49 improves grades and test scores. Studies show that after
school programs increase scores on standardized math and reading tests and
improve grades, while decreasing the incidence of grade repetition, dropping out
of school, and remedial education.
Support arguments signed
by:
Arnold Schwarzenegger; Wayne Johnson, President, California
Teachers Association; Warren Rupf, President, California State Sheriffs’
Association
Opposition Arguments:
Prop. 49 looks good, but in reality, it disregards principles of
good government by reducing government’s flexibility to respond to changing
needs and priorities. It takes after school programs and sets them apart from
all other needs funded by tax dollars. The program will be entitled to
guaranteed funding every year in good times and bad, get a free pass through the
budget process every year, and receive special protection not afforded other
priorities. Prop. 49 is the first attempt to earmark money for one particular
program within the Prop. 98 guarantee.
One of the problems with Prop. 49 is that the trigger is too
small. Inflation and population growth alone will require twice the amount
they’ve calculated. In tough budget times, that will mean other programs will
have to be cut or taxes raised.
-
If Prop. 49 passes, other special interests will try similar
measures in future elections. The result will be less flexibility to address
future and changing needs, less money for non-Prop. 98 programs, and less
discretionary money for local school districts.
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.
Sponsor: Joseph L. Caves
Major Provisions:
- This measure allows the state to sell $3.44 billion in general
obligation bonds for various water-related programs:
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:
-
Coastal Wetlands and Watersheds. The state has
provided funds to acquire and restore coastal wetlands and watersheds. -
The state has provided funds for loans and
grants to public water systems for facility improvements to meet safe drinking
water standards.
-
The state has also funded the restoration and
improvement of fish and wildlife habitat in the San Francisco
Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (the Bay-Delta). Additionally, the
state has funded water quality and supply projects in the Bay-Delta region
which supplies a substantial portion of the water used in the state for
domestic, industrial, agricultural, and environmental purposes. These funds
have been provided through the CALFED Bay-Delta Program which is a joint state
and federal effort to better manage water resources in this region.
-
The state has also provided funds for various
other projects throughout the state that improve water quality and/or supply.
For example, the state has provided loans and grants to local agencies for the
construction and implementation of wastewater treatment, water recycling, and
water conservation projects and facilities. Also, the state has provided funds
to line canals to conserve Colorado River water.
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:
-
$445 million for specified Conservancies:
-
$375 million for protection of Water Ways.
-
$300 million for the Wildlife Conservation Board.
-
$75 million for grants to preserve agricultural land.
-
$50 million to Air Resources Board to reduce air pollution in
parks.
-
$20 million to Conservation Corps to acquire and develop support
facilities.
-
$10 million to Forestry and Fire Protection department for urban
forestry programs.
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:
- Does this proposal meet Cal-Tax's criteria for evaluating bond
proposals, as outlined below?
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.
-
This measure was drafted by private parties and received no public
hearings or legislative review. With the exclusion of legislative review and
public input, how can we be certain that these are the state’s top priority
water projects? How were the criteria established for placing these projects in
the measure? Can this type of initiative lead to more “pay to play” politics and
quid pro quo exchanges by allowing specific water projects to be funded by bond
revenues in exchange for donations.
-
This measure funds various local projects, such as upgrading small
community drinking water systems. Does the measure violate this Cal-Tax
criterion: “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.”
-
The LAO estimates a property tax revenue loss ranging from a “few
millions to $10 million,” since state land acquisitions would be exempt from
property taxation. In addition, the state would be required to reimburse schools
for loss property tax revenues. Given the state’s current fiscal condition, a
budget deficit of over $23 billion dollars (projected to grow to over $50
billion if state spending is not reduced), can the state afford to lose property
tax revenues and compensate schools for loss property tax revenues? Moreover,
given the state’s current fiscal condition, does it have the capacity to finance
an additional $230 million a year to service this loan?
-
The LAO estimates that $1.1 billion is available for future water
projects, and Proposition 40, the $2.6 billion state G.O. bond measure approved
five months ago, dedicates an additional $820 million to water projects. This
leaves approximately $1.92 billion available for future water-related
projects. Is Proposition 50 really necessary at this time?
-
The measure establishes the traditional bond finance committee to
determine if it is “necessary or desirable” to issue bonds. Why does this
measure lack the formation of a committee to evaluate the effectiveness of
programs and projects funded by these bond revenues? This measure lacks
accountability.
Support Arguments:
-
Our water supply is threatened by pollution, recurring drought,
population growth, and inadequate security. Prop. 50 will help overcome these
threats by: removing dangerous, cancer causing pollutants from our
drinking water; creating new water supplies to keep up with population growth;
keeping raw sewage and pollution out of our coastal waters and cleaning up
beaches and bays; protecting rivers, lakes and streams and preserving coastal
wetlands; protecting our reservoirs, dams, pumping stations and pipelines from
terrorist threats and intentional contamination.
-
California’s population is expected to nearly double in the next
forty years. Proposition 50 funds state and local water system
improvements needed to keep up with population growth by providing new water
supplies and supporting water conservation programs.
-
Proposition 50 will use existing tax revenue where it is needed
now – to protect our water supply and ensure safe drinking water for all
Californians.
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:
-
In spite of all the water bonds California taxpayers have approved
in the last 30 years, our Governor and Legislature have taken no action to
develop new water storage facilities. In fact, the construction of dams and
reservoirs has been at a virtual standstill for many years. Most of the
bond monies have gone for endless studies of the problems, and to pander
unrealistic environmental demands.
-
Prop. 50 has been described as the “stealth bond
issue.” Proponents are trying to sell it as a clean drinking water
initiative. However, all California taxpayers should know it was drafted by a
Sacramento lobbyist for several environmental groups and the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California. What Prop. 50 really does is dole out bond
funds to the pet projects of those environmental groups that paid to put it on
the ballot.
-
Recently, a group of 30 taxpayer organizations from around the
state met in convention under the name California Taxpayers Coalition and voted
unanimously to oppose Proposition 50.
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.
Sponsor: Gerald H. Meral
Legislative History: No Legislative History.
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:
Distribution of Funds |
% Funding |
Passenger Rail and Bus Transit |
48% |
·
Construction and
improvement of transit facilities and purchase of transit vehicles. |
33 |
·
Passenger rail
operations, construction, and improvement, and modernization of passenger
rail infrastructure. |
8 |
·
Grants to improve
public facilities for new development near rail or bus transit stations. |
3 |
·
Grants to provide
transportation to seniors and disabled persons. |
2 |
·
Transit assistance to
counties with populations less than 250,000 to improve mobility of people
who cannot drive. |
2 |
Traffic Congestion and Safety |
25% |
·
Traffic Congestion
Relief Program projects and other highway and street projects to improve
traffic flow. |
16 |
·
Grants for highway
safety projects. |
5 |
·
Projects to separate
rail lines from streets and highways. |
4 |
Environmental |
15% |
·
Wildlife habitat and
land acquisition to mitigate environmental effects of transportation
improvements. |
10 |
·
Grants for diesel
emission reduction. |
3 |
·
Water pollution
reduction projects to mitigate water quality impact of transportation
improvements. |
2 |
School Bus |
8% |
·
Grants to replace
older school buses and increase fleet size. |
8 |
Bicycle and Pedestrian |
4% |
·
Regional projects to
improve convenience and safety of bicycle travel and bicycle education
programs. |
2 |
·
Regional sidewalk and
walkway projects. |
1 |
·
Grants to enforce
traffic safety laws along pedestrian and bicycle routes, and to educate the
public on safe travel to school. |
1 |
Distribution of Funds |
% Funding |
Passenger Rail and Bus Transit |
48% |
·
Construction and
improvement of transit facilities and purchase of transit vehicles. |
33 |
·
Passenger rail
operations, construction, and improvement, and modernization of passenger
rail infrastructure. |
8 |
·
Grants to improve
public facilities for new development near rail or bus transit stations. |
3 |
·
Grants to provide
transportation to seniors and disabled persons. |
2 |
·
Transit assistance
to counties with populations less than 250,000 to improve mobility of
people who cannot drive. |
2 |
Traffic Congestion and Safety |
25% |
·
Traffic Congestion
Relief Program projects and other highway and street projects to improve
traffic flow. |
16 |
·
Grants for highway
safety projects. |
5 |
·
Projects to
separate rail lines from streets and highways. |
4 |
Environmental |
15% |
·
Wildlife habitat
and land acquisition to mitigate environmental effects of transportation
improvements. |
10 |
·
Grants for diesel
emission reduction. |
3 |
·
Water pollution
reduction projects to mitigate water quality impact of transportation
improvements. |
2 |
School Bus |
8% |
·
Grants to replace
older school buses and increase fleet size. |
8 |
Bicycle and Pedestrian |
4% |
·
Regional projects
to improve convenience and safety of bicycle travel and bicycle education
programs. |
2 |
·
Regional sidewalk
and walkway projects. |
1 |
·
Grants to enforce
traffic safety laws along pedestrian and bicycle routes, and to educate
the public on safe travel to school. |
1 |
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:
-
A number of these projects may be appropriate or even necessary to
the improvement of congestion and transportation need in their jurisdiction.
-
Do Californian’s want to encourage statewide
propositions as a vehicle for funding local transportation projects on a project
by project basis?
-
A broad range of organizations and institutions have endorsed this
initiative forming an odd conglomeration. Closer scrutiny of the
initiative, however, suggests that this diverse group (developers,
environmentalists and local governments) have united be hind this initiative
because it offers specific funding for specific projects to satisfy those
interests.
-
Dedicating statewide revenues for a specific but broad/statewide
purpose (i.e., transportation) is one thing. Is it a good idea to dedicate
statewide tax dollars to fund specified local projects or for specified local
purposes without potential for modification?
-
How is a voter in Eureka supposed to know whether any of the 45 or
so projects which are specifically allocated money from this project is either
efficient or even warranted, much less, whether it is of such statewide
importance as to warrant the contribution of his tax dollar?
-
Where’s the oversight? The proposition provides not just the
allocation of funds to specific projects, but specifies the scope of the use of
the monies provided which is generally very broad. Where’s the
accountability? The seven member commission? By the terms of the
initiative, no statute can modify the allocation of funds proposed by the
initiative which funding appears to exist in perpetuity.
-
Some projects might be labeled as necessary infrastructure
improvements, others clearly “luxury” (for example funding the music concourse
at Golden Gate Park, the railroad museum, and a boat taxi service on Lake
Tahoe). Is this the right time to be funding these types of projects when
the state is expecting several years of double digit multi-billion dollar
deficits?
Supporting Arguments
YES on 51 requires the use of existing state funds to:
-
Relieve traffic congestion and make safety improvements to
California’s most accident prone roads.
Improve school bus safety, and provide safe routes for children
walking or biking to school.
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 Bicycle Coalition
California Transit Association
California Trucking Association
East Bay Bicycle Coalition
Exposition Park Stakeholders
Friends of the Green Line
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:
-
Does anyone still believe there
is a free lunch?
-
The proponents of Proposition 51
apparently think so.
-
Their list of pork barrel,
special interest projects totaling billions of dollars apparently will come from
“existing funds.”
-
Well, Proposition 51 will ad
about $1billion yearly to a significant state deficit predicted by the
Legislative Analyst for years to come.
-
So, “use of existing funds”
means one of two things: either critical spending, like public safety or
higher education, is cut.
-
Or taxes will have to be raised.
-
This is not free lunch.
-
Ask yourself these question
before you vote on Proposition 51:
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
Sponsor: Lance Olson (Olson, Hagel,
Waters & Fishburn, LLP) and Vigo G. Nielsen, Jr. (Nielsen, Merksamer, Mueller,
Parrinello & Naylor)
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:
-
Voters at the polls are at
or near all time lows both as to both percentage of eligible voters and
percentage of registered voters. Should we presume that the problem is
difficulty in registration?
If apathy,
cynicism or disillusionment, are causes for low voter turnout, is making it
easier to register and vote going to resolve that problem?
If making it easier to
vote also increases the opportunity for the commission of voter fraud, is
making voting easier worth the price?
What’s the taxpayer
impact?
Is a utility bill and
single piece of mail addressed to the voter sufficient proof of identity?
How are polling VOLUNTEERS
supposed to enforce ID requirements or competently verify their veracity? For
example, how would a polling place volunteer be able to ascertain the
legitimacy of a piece of mail or a lease agreement or mortgage statement?
Is democracy better or
worse off making voting easier but failing to adequately secure its
legitimacy?
Where is the passport as a
valid form of ID?
Supporting Arguments
-
Every California citizen who is legally eligible should be able to vote on
election day. Anyone who tries to vote illegally should be stopped and
prosecuted.
-
Presently, California law makes it nearly impossible for some citizens to vote –
and too easy for other to commit voter fraud.
-
Prop. 52 ensures that every eligible citizen has the opportunity to vote, and
increases penalties for voter fraud.
-
Prop. 52 will:
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:
-
Don’t be
fooled. Prop. 52 is full of loopholes that corrupt our election process and
will lead to widespread voter fraud.
-
That’s why
Law Enforcement leaders like Contra Costa County District Attorney Gary Yancey,
Ventura County District Attorney Mike Bradbury, Shasta County District Attorney
McGregor Scott and Santa Barbara County Sheriff Jim Thomas all say NO on 52.
-
FACT: Prop. 52 makes it easier for CRIMINALS and NON-CITIZENS to vote. That’s not
fair to qualified voters who follow the rules.
-
FACT: Prop. 52 does not require a drivers license or other government identification
to register and vote on election day. Under Prop. 52, a piece of junk mail is
considered a valid form of ID!
-
FACT: Hidden in the fine print is a change in the law that makes proving FRAUD almost
impossible. The authors of Proposition 52 are trying to fool you with take of
tough penalties. Tough penalties mean nothing if it’s impossible to prove the
crime was committed.
-
FACT: 44 other
state wisely DO NOT ALLOW Election Day registration.
-
“Prop. 52
would bilk taxpayers $6 million yearly for a program that allows dishonest
politicians to steal elections” Paul Gann, President, Gann Taxpayer
Organization.
-
Remember
Florida? Don’t let it happen here. Other states are moving to tighten their
laws against election fraud. Prop. 52 sends California in the opposite
direction.
-
The
Backers of Prop. 52 are trying to fool you. Don’t let them get away with it.
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 |