Transportation funding protection legislative constitutional

amendment

Proposition 1A puts forth development to protect transportation funding for traffic congestion relief projects, safety improvements and local streets and roads in California.

The proposition would prohibit the state’s sales tax on motor-vehicle fuel from being used for anything other than transportation improvements at an amount of $2 million per year.

The tax would not be used for other expenditures, such as health care or education.

The proposition would require loans of revenues from state sales taxes on motor-vehicle fuels to be fully repaid within a three-year period. It will also reduce the state’s authority to use these funds for anything that is not a priority to transportation by restricting government officials to use these loans only twice in any 10-year period.

Proposition 1A will also ensure the state’s gasoline tax dollars are used for transportation projects only. It would increase consistency of funding to transportation beginning in 2007, which would improve students’ abilities to commute to universities such as San Diego State.

A “no” vote means the state would continue to use the gas tax dollars for other projects.

-Compiled by Staff Writer Bárbara Medina

Sources: San Diego Association of Governments Web site, www.sandag.org, and The California General Election Voter Information Guide Web site, www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov

Highway safety, traffic reduction, air quality and port security bond act

Proposition 1B would allow the state to sell about $19.9 billion in bonds to upgrade the state’s deteriorating transportation system.

The proposition would allow the state to appropriate money from its general fund to pay off bonds.

With the nearly $20 billion, the state would be able to make safety improvements and repairs to state highways, upgrades in freeways to reduce congestion, repairs to local streets and roads, earthquake safety improvements to local bridges, expansion of public transit, help complete the state’s network of carpool lanes, reduce air pollution and improve anti-terrorism security at shipping ports.

A “yes” vote would approve the selling of the bonds and give the state 30 years to repay them, which would cost approximately $38.9 billion – an annual payment of $1.3 billion.

A portion of these costs will also be compensated by fares and tolls generated by the upgrading.

If passed, Proposition 1B will allow cities to divide the bonds for local road improvements, such as the Coronado Bridge in San Diego, as well as buses and railcars. This will include the support of the TransNet Early Action Plan, which includes the improvements of Interstates 5, 8, 15, 805 and State Routes 52 and 76, as well as Mid-Coast corridors.

A “no” vote would mean the state would not need to borrow so much money. The state would use a portion of the general fund, and limited borrowing, to fund projects.

Those in opposition say there is a much more balanced approach to fixing transportation problems.

-Compiled by Staff Writer Bárbara Medina

Sources: San Diego Association of Governments Web site, www.sandag.org, and The California General Election Voter Information Guide Web site, www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov

Housing and emergency shelter trust fund act

The proposition suggests that $2.85 billion in general obligation bonds would be put toward funding housing for lower income residents and development in urban areas near public transportation.

If Proposition 1C is passed, $1.5 billion would go toward housing construction and homebuyer programs, including the construction of housing for homeless women, battered women and their children and military veterans.

About $1.35 billion would go toward development programs, such as regional planning, transit-oriented development and housing-related parks. The measure would also provide the California legislature with broad authority to make future changes to ensure its effectiveness.

A “yes” vote would implement the aforementioned funding. Supporters argue that passing the proposition would help affordable housing problems for working families and would create 87,000 new jobs that would help the state’s economy.

Opposing parties argue that debt repayment has to be California’s top priority. If the federally taxable bonds were sold at an average rate of 6.5 percent and the remaining bonds were sold at an average rate of 5 percent, it would cost the state about $6.1 billion to pay off both the principal and the interest.

Opponents say that administrative costs alone, paid for with the bond funds, could cost the state between $100 million and $150 million.

-Compiled by Contributor Teshonne Harper

Source: www.ss.ca.gov

Kindergarten-university public education

facilities bond act

Proposition 1D would allow the state to sell $10.4 billion of general obligation bonds for K-12 school facilities ($7.3 billion) and higher education facilities ($3.1 billion). The proposition affects about 8.4 million students who are enrolled in public schools and universities throughout California.

The cost of these bonds would depend on the interest rates at the time the bonds are sold, and during the time period that they are repaid. The state would likely make payments for a period of about 30 years.

The proposition requires a 50 percent match in funding from local school districts for special projects including new facilities used by both the school and community.

At a 5 percent interest rate, it would cost California $20.3 billion to pay back the principal ($10.4 billion) and interest ($9.9 billion) payments. This would make the payments about $680 million per year.

A “yes” vote would make schools earthquake-safe and reduce overcrowding in schools.

A “no” vote would allow the state to avoid having to borrow more money or citizens having to pay higher taxes.

-Compiled by Assistant City Editor Stephanie Nehmens

Source: www.lao.ca.gov and www.ss.ca.gov/elections

Disaster preparedness and flood prevention bond act

According to the proposition, California could sell $4.09 billion in general obligation bonds to finance disaster-preparedness and flood prevention projects at the state and local levels.

California assists with flood control projects statewide and is responsible for Central Valley projects, which provide water to most of the state’s population. Eighty percent of the levee projects are overseen by local agencies.

Since 1996, $400 million in bond measures for water quality and safety projects have been passed; however, most of that money has been spent.

Proposition 1E revenue would be used to obtain matching federal funds.

A “yes” vote would ensure that clean water is available by providing funds to improve an outdated system.

Supporters contend that it will not increase taxes and has strong accountability provisions including independent audits.

Opponents of the initiative argue that Proposition 1E will not build a single new reservoir or water treatment plant. They also note that this is a federal responsibility and California should be demanding more federal funding for these projects.

-Compiled by Contributor Teshonne Harper

Source: www.ss.ca.gov

Sex offenders, sexually violent predators,

monitoring

Proposition 83 would increase penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders, including longer prison and parole terms.

The proposition would expand the definition of a sexually violent predator and would prohibit sex offenders, depending on their offense, from seeking probation while in prison. It would also prohibit them from being released form prison early, requiring them to serve their entire sentence.

Additionally, if Proposition 83 passes, sex offenders who have be
en released from prison would be monitored by Global Positioning System devices for the rest of their lives. They would be prohibited from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park.

A “yes” vote would approve the above measures.

Proponents for the proposition say current law does not provide law enforcement with the tools it needs to keep track of the 85,000 sex offenders currently living in California.

A “no” vote on this measure would mean that current sentencing and residency laws regarding sex offenders would stay in effect.

Opponents of the measure say it will cost taxpayers an estimated $500 million but won’t increase public safety because its most restrictive provisions apply to people convicted of minor, nonviolent crimes.

-Compiled by Staff Writer Melissa Deleon

Sources: www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop83/prop83.html,

www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/state/prop83/

Water quality, safety and supply

Proposition 84 provides funding for projects supporting flood control and safe drinking water. If passed, it would also fund plans related to water quality and supply, waterway protection, water pollution and contamination control, state and local park improvements and public access to natural resources and water conservation efforts.

Specifically, this measure would provide funding for emergency drinking water.

Voting “yes” on Proposition 84 would mean the state could sell $5.4 billion in bonds in order to fund safe drinking water, water quality and the overall water supply.

A “no” vote on this measure would mean the state could not sell the bonds for these purposes.

Proponents of Proposition 84 say it is crucial to provide clean, safe drinking water to California’s rapidly growing population. They say the measure supports vital projects for coastal protection and flood prevention.

Opponents say the water and flood control bond has no funding for dams or water storage and very little funding for flood control, ultimately spending billions of dollars ineffectively.

-Compiled by Staff Writer Melissa Deleon

Sources: The California General Election Official Voter Information Guide Web site , www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop84/prop84.html and www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/state/prop/84

Notification of Minor’s Abortion

Proposition 85 would amend the California Constitution and require physicians to notify parents and/or guardians of their unemancipated minor’s planned abortion, except in medical emergencies or with a parental or court waiver. If passed, the proposition would prohibit abortion until 48 hours after notification.

Currently, parental notification or consent is not required

Proponents of Proposition 85 say parents have a right to know about their minor’s subjection to this medical procedure.

Opponents say the measure can’t mandate family communication and could resort in illegal abortions by minors.

-Compiled by City Editor Giselle Domdom

Source: www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop85/ballot_sum85.html

Cigarette Tax and supply

Proposition 86 would impose an additional excise tax of $2.60 per cigarette pack. If passed, the measure would indirectly increase taxes on other tobacco products. The proposition would serve to increase tax revenue by about $2.1 billion annually. It states that revenue would provide funding for various health programs, children’s health coverage and tobacco-related programs.

Proponents say Proposition 86 would reduce smoking and save lives.

Opponents say the measure would not provide a guarantee of how money is spent.

-Compiled by City Editor Giselle Domdom

Source: www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop86/ballot_sum86.html

Alternative energy

Proposition 87 aims to reduce foreign dependence on oil and improve air quality by taxing oil extracted from California. This would fund research and production incentives in favor of renewable energy sources and alternative energy vehicles. The ultimate goal of the proposition is to reduce petroleum consumption in California by 25 percent.

The tax will increase by between $225 million and $485 million per year – totaling $4 billion within 10 years. The measure will also restrict oil producers from passing the cost of the tax onto consumers. The tax would not affect oil imported from other places. The program would be administered by the new California Energy Alternatives Program.

Proponents say the measure would make oil companies pay billions to drill in California.

Opponents say Proposition 87 lacks accountability and would lead to higher gas prices.

-Compiled by Contributor Nick Maxwell

Source: www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop87/ballot_sum87.html

Education funding through real property parcel tax

If passed, Proposition 88 would implement a $50 tax on each parcel of property in order to increase school funding. The proposition defines a parcel as a piece of land that receives its own bill for property taxes. Seniors and people with permanent disabilities who own parcels of land would be exempt from the tax.

The initiative could raise $100 million for reducing class sizes, buying instructional materials and funding after-school safety programs. Money raised in a particular community would not necessarily go to local schools in that area – the government would decide where the new money goes.

Proposition 88 would also alter the requirement established by Proposition 13 that states that new parcel taxes must be approved by a two-thirds majority to a simple majority.

Proponents say Proposition 88 will improve schools.

Opponents say the measure will open the door to unlimited property parcel tax increase propositions.

-Compiled by Contributor Nick Maxwell

Source: www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop88/ballot_sum88.html

Political campaigns and public financing

Proposition 89 would provide public financing to eligible candidates for state elective office by increasing the tax rate for corporations and financial institutions by 0.2 percent. This would provide an estimated $200 million each year to implement the measure.

If passed, candidates who do not receive public financing would be subject to decreased contribution limits.

If passed, eligibility requirements for candidates who want public funding would include collecting a contribution of $5 from voters, and candidates may voluntarily receive funding from the Fair Political Practices Commission. The public funding would vary by type of election and position of office.

The proposition would make large changes to the campaign process by state candidates and change the manner in which ballots are measured.

It would also limit the control and contributions of state office candidates, lobbyists, corporations and committees.

Currently, there are no limits on the amount of money that can be issued against ballot measures.

Proponents say the measure would curb corruption and reduce the power of special interest groups and lobbyists.

Opponents say Proposition 89 is a complicated, unworkable reform.

-Compiled by Contributor Cassandre Kirkwood

Source: www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop89/ballot_sum89.html

Regulation of private property and government acquisition

Proposition 90 deals with eminent domain and would require the government to pay property owners a substantial amount of money if their property is economically hindered resulting from new laws and rules.

If passed, the measure would limit the government’s authority to take ownership of private property. This includes homes, buildings, land, cars and the ownership of intangible property, such as that in businesses or patents.

Proposition 90 would prevent state and local governments from taking over properties they consider to be “condemned” for various private developers and would include increased costs for new acquisitions.

The amount of cost owed
toward the property is undecided.

It would also implement a number of new government requirements that include statutes, ordinances and regulations.

There are cases where government requirements will reduce the value of private property.

In this case, there will be a boundary on homeowner’s property, a required change in the operations to reduce pollution and a restriction on apartment rentals.

Proponents say the measures would stop eminent domain abuse and stop property from being handed over to developers.

Opponents say Proposition 90 is deceptive, would cost taxpayers more money and create new categories of lawsuits.

-Compiled by Contributor Cassandre Kirkwood

Source: www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop90/ballot_sum90.html