Voters' Guide

VOTE ON OR BY TUES., NOV. 5

This year's California ballot is somewhat easier than many previous years', having fewer and not quite so confusing propositions. At the same time, this ballot implicitly raises a fundamental question: Community services - if the government provides them, how should they be funded? (I support progressive taxation - esp. on income - but it's been shot down repeatedly.)

Yet what will the campaign TV spots say on the issue of how fixed tax funding (props. 49 & 51) or large bond funding (46, 47, 50) should be chosen and allocated to public efforts?

Why should (limited) taxes go to after school programs (Prop. 49) but not to fixing school roofs, heating systems, and bathrooms? If government provides needed services with a long-term durable impact - ranging from industrial waste cleanup (in water - Prop. 50) to school construction (47) to farmworker housing (46) - then why not pay for them with bonds?

What are the different implications of paying by raising taxes (on whom? what rate?) or by selling bonds (to whom? at what cost?)? Scant discussion there is...useful - on bonds - is that at the FCL website, http://www.webcom.com/~peace/

ABBREVIATIONS - This guide is compiled incorporating information from several sources. Abbreviations are used in listing the supporters and opponents:

AARP - American Assoc. of Retired Persons
ALA - American Lung Assoc. of Calif.
CTA - Calif. Teachers Assoc. (based on the Assoc. president's position)
FCL - Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Jarvis - Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc, (based on Assoc. president's position)
LCV - League of Conservation Voters
LWV - League of Women Voters (based on the League president's position)
Sierra - Sierra Club of California (based on Needles chapter newsletter)
Habitat - Habitat for Humanity


Prop. 46 - Housing Bonds - YES! Is there any question that we have a
grim situation for housing in California, particularly low-income
housing? Is there any doubt that a bond measure can provide only one
kind of help - namely financial assistance - in this situation? As
the Oakland Tribune reported, "In 1988 and 1990, voters approved a
total of $600 million in bonds for state housing programs.... Since
that time the state has typically spent less than $20 million
annually in general-fund monies..." OK, so, let's leverage $3 to $4
for ever state dollar and catch up with a wish list of financial
assistance for low-income, homeless, battered-women, and farmworker
housing; yes, here it is!
Opponents object both to the increase in bond debt and that
money can't solve fundamental housing problems. For the first, see
bond discussion in Prop. 50 below. Also, let's remember that - in
this time of recession - housing construction will generate
employment. For the second, I'm still trying to imagine a ballot
measure that could solve the housing problem. Money does help!
Yes - FCL, LWV, Sierra, AARP, Habitat No - Jarvis


Prop. 47 - School Facilities Bonds - YES And if the Calif.
situation for housing is grim, what is it for schools? Of course,
we're not talking about the lovely suburban schools but about the
urban center and rural schools - antiquated, over-crowded,
dilapidated, inadequate. The primary arguments opposing this measure
are that it benefits the Los Angeles schools disproportionately and
that it is another bond measure. Yes, L.A. has a greater need - all
the more reason to help! Bonds? See Prop. 50 below.
Yes - FCL, LWV No - Jarvis


Prop. 48 - Court Consolidation - no?? All 58 California counties
have taken advantage of the provisions of voter-approved Prop. 220
which allowed them to consolidate their municipal and superior
courts. This prop. would remove from the state constitution all
language about the now-nonexistent municipal courts, making a
backtrack to a municipal court system difficult or impossible. Is
this necessary? Are superior courts really superior? No one I trust
addresses this.


Prop. 49 - After School Programs - NO It's not just because Arnold
S. supports this that I'm against it! I strongly support after
school programs - but not at the expense of other critical
state-funded programs. Moreover, Prop. 49 requires matching funds
from the local schools, which could reduce programs in poor areas
that have the greatest need for them. Additionally, this prop. would
lock in - to a degree - general fund spending for after school
programs, regardless of any other needs that might arise
(particularly in these recessionary times). Already, about 2/3's of
the general fund is locked into specific programs, leaving only
crumbs to "fight over" for other social programs, etc. (Compare this
to the way that locked-in military spending has dried up federal
money for anything else.)
No - LWV Yes - CTA, Jarvis

[comment by D. de Lu:]
FOR MORE INFO GO TO THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYSTS SITE, http://WWW.LAO.CA.GOV. THIS SITE NOTES THAT THIS PROGRAM ACTUALLY DECREASES FUNDING FOR SOME EXISTING PROGRAMS. IN READING THE LEGAL TEXT I WAS APPALLED TO FIND THAT SECTION 14 PROHIBITS THE LEGISLATURE FROM AMMENDING IMPORTANT SECTIONS WITH OUT A 2/3'S VOTE, AND GOV'S SIGNATURE, 8482.55. OTHER SECTIONS CANNOT BE AMMENDED AT ALL, 8483.5 AND 8483.6. I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT READING THE FINE PRINT I CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT THIS WAS WRITTEN TO BENEFIT THE MIDDLE AND UPPER INCOME SCHOOLS. SEE SECTIONS: 3 a)WHICH REQUIRES A 50% MATCH. 3 c) WHICH PROVIDES FOR LOW INCOME SCHOOLS TO RECEIVE PRIORITY FOR FUNDING AFTER ALL ELIGIBLE PROGRAMS ARE FUNDED. 8482.5 WHICH APPEARS TO EXEMPT MUCH FUNDING FROM THE LOW INCOME PRIORITY REQUIREMENTS WHILE ASSURRING THAT THOSE PROGRAMS NEWLY FUNDED UNDER THIS ACT REMAIN FUNDED PERMANENTLY AND ARE EXEMPT FROM CERTAIN FUNDING LIMITIATIONS. 8483.5 WHICH APPEARS TO BUTTRESS 8482.5 BY ELIMINATING PRIORITY FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS FUNDED PRIOR TO THIS ACT. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IMPORTANT SECTIONS REFERRED TO IN THE ACT, SPECIFICALLY 8483.3, 8483.7 AND 8483.75 ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE VOTER'S PHAMPHLET OR ON THE WEB. IN CALLING, 916-657-2166, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, ELECTION'S DIVISION OFFICE, TO ENQUIRE WHERE I MIGHT FIND THIS INFO I WAS REFERRED TO http://www.JOINARNOLD.COM . YEP, ARNOLD'S OFFICIAL WEBSITE EXTOLLING THE VIRTURES OF THIS ACT. I HAVE REPORTED THIS TO FRED KEELY'S OFFICE. THEY WERE MOST SURPRISED AND AGREED TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS. ARNOLD'S SITE IS INTERESTING. CLEARLY HE IS PLANNING A RUN FOR OFFICE.



Prop. 50 - Water Bonds - YES Lots of money for lots of good things
concerning water sources and supplies. Clearly, the opposition and I
are on different tracks. They object that this prop. funds "no new
water storage". That's a plus for those of us questioning dam
building! They complain that no money goes for a "diversion canal
around the Delta" - halleluja! This prop. is supported by a wide
range of environmental groups and water districts.
These proposed water projects are a good example of the kind
of long-term investment that seems most appropriate to a bond
measure. The need is NOW - with delay having a drastic impact. The
outlay is high, but the benefits will accrue to generations to come.
Through bonds, those future generations help pay for this
expenditure. Can California afford to issue more bonds? The FCL
points out, "Undoubteddly bond costs are significant, but they also
make large undertakings affordable." They go on to note the low
percentage of California's annual tax revenues that is paid out in
bond expenses.
Yes - FCL, LCV, LWV, Sierra No - so-called "taxpayer" groups


Prop. 51 - Tax-based Transportation Fund - No Here's a difficult
one, particularly for a bike path fan like me! But it comes down to
priorities and how we set them. Like Prop. 49, this measure creates
new categories of required spending - seventeen of them! Yes, I want
to fund facilities for transit riders and senior and disabled
transportation services - but these are the same populations who may
have even more pressing human services needs that go unfunded due to
Prop. 51 "lock ins". We can do better - get the good stuff without the
porkbarrel suburban sprawl freeway exits. We can have flexible
funding WITH accountability-both lacking from this prop. Let's try
again to get those bike trails and clean school buses, that public
transit!
No - FCL, Jarvis, LWV Yes - Sierra, ALA


Prop. 52 - Same-day Voter Reg. - Yes Until citizens feel their
votes make a difference, we're not likely to see substantial
increases in voter turnout. Still, in our mobile society, easier
voter registration will help! Those opposing this measure rant about
voter fraud, yet law enforcement folks are on both sides. Heck,
Marge Fong Eu supports it! Let the people vote!
Yes - FCL, LCV, LWV No - no one surprising