.The $83.5 Billion Ballot

An ode to California's "steal from our grandchildren" generation.

LEGISLATIVE MEASURES

Prop. 1A
Desperate to balance the budget, state lawmakers have raided California’s $2 billion special transportation fund twice in the past three years. Now, many of those very same lawmakers — and the governor — want us to pass this law, which would make it tougher for them to raid that fund ever again. Huh? Can’t the legislature just control itself and quit bugging us with all these propositions?

Sure, our leaders know the transportation fund is specifically earmarked to fix roads, not balance the budget. But they want mommy to hold their hands and keep them from stealing from the piggy bank. In other words, Prop. 1A is just a microcosm of our political dysfunction. The opponents’ argument: “What’s wrong with a little raiding?”

Prop. 1B
Tired of road-repair measures? Too bad, because this is the mother of all pothole props. It could have been subtitled Don Perata’s Early Thanksgiving Gift to His Best Pals.

Prop. 1B is the cornerstone of a massive bond package — 1B through 1E — that Perata brokered with Governor Schwarzenegger. It asks us to sink the state into debt to the tune of $19.9 billion; of that, $11.2 billion would pay to fill potholes, widen freeways, and build more roads, compared to $4 billion for mass transit. Unsurprisingly, the 1B campaign is funded largely by construction workers’ unions and road builders — who also happen to be some of the Don’s best donors. In fact, Perata is closely associated with three mega-PACs that had raised at least $21.3 million to finance the Yes on 1B campaign as of October 20.

Backers say California has long neglected its road system, and beg us to “invest” in the state’s future. Opponents say it’s too damned expensive. With interest, it will cost taxpayers some $39 billion, according to the nonpartisan legislative analyst. And because 1B generates no revenues, lawmakers will have to raid the general fund for another $39 billion. (Hmm. … Prop. 1A is looking smart all of a sudden.)

Prop. 1C
Want more housing? Then Prop. 1C is for you. It’s also for big developers, because it would pump $2.85 billion into their coffers. Prop. 1C would earmark about $1.35 billion for cities and counties to make themselves more attractive to homebuilders with upgrades to sewage lines, water mains, and parks. It calls them “grants,” but they’re really public subsidies. Developers love ’em because the grants save them from having to foot the bill for such things themselves.

This proposition also doles out $625 million to help low- and moderate-income residents buy homes, and $590 million to build apartments, including some low-income units. Finally, it would spend $285 million on homeless shelters, farmworker housing, and housing for battered women. Proponents are hyping this last point as the main reason to support the measure. Opponents note that 1C will cost us nearly $6 billion with interest.

Prop. 1D
Many Californians won’t tax themselves to build new schools, but they’ll rarely turn down school bond measures. In that spirit, Prop. 1D asks voters to put the state another $10.4 billion in debt, not including interest. About $7.3 billion would pay to build new K-12 schools or upgrade old ones, while the other $3.1 billion would do the same for higher education. The state teachers’ union and just about everyone else is backing 1D. Let’s “invest” in our schools, they say. Naysayers note that when the total bill comes due, 1D will dip into the general fund for more than $20 billion. Which begs the question: When will our timorous legislators follow the yellow brick road, gain a little courage, and actually raise taxes to pay for the things they say we so desperately need?

Prop. 1E
The last of these “no new taxes and to hell with the grandchildren” bonds would authorize $4.09 billion in debt, mostly to repair the state’s aging — and crumbling — levee system. There’s overwhelming evidence that Delta levees will likely collapse in a major earthquake on the Hayward fault, and the resulting catastrophe could rival Katrina. More than twenty million Californians depend on freshwater from the Delta. But if the levees go, the Delta will be awash in San Francisco Bay saltwater, and those millions of people have nothing to drink. Yes, it’s more debt — $8 billion including interest — but who wants to look back after the catastrophe and say “I voted against fixing those levees”?

VOTER INITIATIVES

Prop. 83
Every so often a proposition comes along that seems to make sense until you analyze it and discover it’s completely absurd. In short, Prop. 83 would bar sex offenders from living within two thousand feet of a park or a school. Smart, right? Arnold Schwarzenegger and Phil Angelides sure thought so, too, because they jumped all over each other to endorse it. What politician wants to be seen as soft on perverts?

But hold on just a moment. Where are California’s ninety thousand registered sex offenders going to live if this thing passes? Oh, the farmers are gonna love this one: A state Senate map analysis shows that rural areas — such as east Contra Costa County — are just about the only places where you can be more than the requisite distance from the closest school or park. In other words, every city and suburb, including most of the East Bay, would be off-limits.

There’s still more to consider: For one, who’s going to organize this mass relocation? Plus, Prop. 83 mandates that sex offenders wear GPS devices for life. Estimated cost of equipment and monitoring: more than $100 million annually by 2016.

Prop. 84

Clean water is good. But some voters may find $10.5 billion over the next thirty years too hefty a price tag. Like 1A through 1E, Prop. 84 isn’t a tax. It would let the state sell $5.4 billion in bonds to fund a host of water quality projects. The measure promises to ensure high-quality drinking water, protect coastal areas, and provide flood control in the Central Valley and the Delta, where levees are crumbling (see Prop. 1E). Backers such as the Nature Conservancy and Clean Water Action say it will protect public health and preserve natural resources, including the San Francisco Bay. The usual antitax suspects oppose Prop. 84, citing the debt burden, and noting that Prop. 1E already covers levee repairs.

Prop. 85
If this one sounds familiar, it’s because voters nixed it just last year under the name of Proposition 73. Now it’s back, like some horror-movie creature that just won’t die. Prop. 85 would compel doctors to notify a parent or guardian at least 48 hours before performing an abortion on a minor.

Supporters say pregnant teens need adult guidance, and that if more parents knew their daughters were having abortions, it would somehow reduce teen pregnancies and thwart statutory rapists and Internet sex predators. Critics note that the teen pregnancy rate in California has fallen 46 percent over the last decade without such a law, and that not all teens have available or supportive parents — some girls are pregnant from sexual abuse, while others might face violence or homelessness if they disclosed their pregnancies. Opponents also say Prop. 85 could drive young women to seek abortions from unlicensed providers and delay needed medical care.

If you look at the initiative’s key funders — longtime antiabortion crusaders Jim Holman and Don Sebastiani, who also bankrolled Prop. 73 — it’s clear that the real aim is to undermine the accessibility of safe, legal abortions in California.

Prop. 86
Why is Patricia Austin, a Walnut Creek opthalmologist and past president of the Alameda-Contra Costa Medical Association, appearing in a statewide TV ad begging voters to defeat one of the most strenuous antismoking measures in state history? “It’s wrong for hospitals to overcharge the uninsured,” she tells viewers. “But it’s outrageous for them to bill taxpayers for their inflated charges. No on 86!”

That’s Prop. 86, which would slap a $2.60 tax on each pack of cigarettes and use the cash to fund the operation of emergency rooms, with a little left over for antismoking programs. Emergency care is indeed in serious trouble — 65 ERs have closed since 2000, according to the California Medical Association — and this tax would help the survivors. State health officials say Prop. 86 may lead half a million smokers to quit, thus saving lives and easing burdens on the state’s medical infrastructure. What’s not to like?

Well, while Prop. 86 might save low-income smokers from themselves, it might also lead to them being gouged on medical bills. The proposition frees hospitals from critical antitrust laws that ensure access to reasonably priced care. It would let those with emergency services coordinate their care, but could also allow them to engage in price-fixing for certain specialty services. At the moment, the Sutter hospital chain faces a series of class-action lawsuits in which it is accused of unconscionably overcharging the uninsured. Prop. 86 could make such practices more widespread.

Prop. 87
This measure would tax oil producers to create a $4 billion alternative-energy program aimed at reducing the state’s petroleum consumption by 25 percent. Big Oil, at least in theory, would be barred from passing on that tax to consumers. California’s petroleum industry has poured money into the opposition like so much light crude, particularly San Ramon-based Chevron, which alone has spent more than $21 million to defeat it. Oil producers say Prop. 87 will result in higher prices at the pump and — using some particularly circuitous reasoning — that it’s bad for education because schools won’t get a cut of the tax.

But supporters say alternative energy means more choices about the fuels we use, and ultimately less reliance on the pump. And that makes Big Oil grumpy.

Prop. 88

Since state legislators didn’t have the cojones to seek a tax increase for schools (see Prop. 1D), someone else did it for them. Prop. 88 proposes a statewide $50 parcel tax that would raise about $450 million annually for supplies and textbooks, school safety programs, and further class-size reductions for K-3. It also would fund facility grants for public schools and charter schools operated by nonprofits; the money would be dished out according to how many of the school’s students rank above the fiftieth percentile on standardized tests.

But this is one school reform education experts can’t agree on: Although state schools chief Jack O’Connell signed the argument in favor, the powerful California Teachers’ Association has taken a neutral stance, and the state PTA opposes Prop. 88. Critics complain that it doesn’t guarantee that your property tax hike will fund your neighborhood schools, that it’s a permanent tax hike of yet-unproven social value, and that it will lull voters into thinking California’s education crisis is solved — even though it would raise far less money for schools than the Lotto, which churns out $1 billion a year for schools, but still hasn’t managed to keep them stocked with copy paper and TP.

Prop. 89

Admit it: There’s still a week to go and you’re totally sick of the election. You’ve seen every political TV ad four quadrillion times and you’d rather take a pencil to the eye than watch another. After all the attack ads, you can’t tell any of the candidates apart — they all seem to be America-hating, flipflopping, special-interest suckups.

Here’s the theory behind Prop. 89: If candidates for statewide office will agree to stock their war chests with a preset amount of public funding — garnered from raising the corporate income tax — rather than using private money, this would rein in campaign spending and advertising. Public funding would range from $400,000 for an assembly race to $15 million for the governor’s race in a general election. For the self-financed zillionaires who don’t need the funding, or others who choose not to participate, Prop. 89 would reduce how much corporations, committees, and political parties could give their campaigns. It also would bar corporations from giving more than $10,000 to ballot initiatives.

Supporters say Prop. 89 will quell the pre-election hysteria, ensure fairness for candidates, and curb the influence of big-time corporate donors. Not surprisingly, those interests are the initiative’s biggest critics. They counter that public funding will still be spent on the negative ads and mailers you hate, and that the measure does nothing to limit self-financed candidates.

Prop. 90

Prop. 90 has high voter approval ratings because it seems to shield homeowners from having their property seized for public use. The measure, supporters say, also would compel the state to compensate landowners whenever new land-use laws — such as those limiting private airspace, road access, or building density — bring “substantial economic losses.” (The text fails to define “substantial,” or say what happens in the case of more-modest losses.) It also would limit the situations in which eminent domain is allowed, and increase how much the state must pay when someone’s property is taken.

But Prop. 90 comes with a nasty surprise. It’s largely financed by out-of-state megadevelopers, and while the language about eminent domain may sucker homeowners and small-businesspeople, its true beneficiaries will be real-estate moguls and large corporations. If it passes, critics warn, developers will be able to demand reimbursement for lost land value any time local voters approve statutes that limit land use, including new environmental protections. That payback, they say, will come straight out of taxpayers’ pockets.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

East Bay Express E-edition East Bay Express E-edition
19,045FansLike
14,592FollowersFollow
61,790FollowersFollow
spot_img