BALLOT MEASURE 1A
What the bill would do:
The State Constitution would allow additional limitations on the state’s ability to suspend the transfer of gasoline sales tax revenues from the General Fund to transportation.
What proponents are saying:
If 1A passes, it would invest tax dollars in transportation improvements like building better roads, congestion relief and safety repairs. Measure 1A would prevent politicians from spending gas taxes on other programs.
What opponents are saying:
Some say we should keep education, health care and disaster relief our state’s top priorities. There have been massive unnecessary cuts to schools, trauma centers, healthcare and firefighters.
Who’s supporting it:
Thomas V. McKernan, President & CEO, Automobile Club of Southern CaliforniaMichael Brown, commissioner, Calif. Highway PatrolMarian Bergeson, Chair, Calif. Transportation Commission
Who’s against it:
Jackie Goldberg, Chair, Assembly Education Committee
PROPOSITION 84
What the bill would do:
The state may sell $5.4 billion in bonds for safe drinking water, water supply, water quality, natural resource protection, flood control and park improvements.What proponents are saying:
If this proposition passes, it will provide clean, safe drinking water, support vital projects for coastal protection, flood prevention and water quality.
What opponents are saying:
It is for special interest groups that will likely receive taxpayers’ money if it passes. The “water and flood control bond” has no funding for water storage or dams.
Who’s supporting it:
Mark Burget, executive director, Nature Conservancy Calif.Larry Wilson, chairman, Board of Directors, Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictE. Richard Brown, Ph.D., Professor, UCLA School of Public Health
Who’s against it:
Bill Leonard, member of the California State Board of Equalization
Proposition 88
What the bill would do:
The state would charge an annual $50 tax on most parcels of land in California, with the proceeds sent to school districts for five specified K+12 education programs.What proponents are saying:
If this proposition passes, it will improve schools by providing funds directly to local schools. It will help reduce class size and provide textbooks and learning material to all students.
What opponents are saying:
About 95 percent of schools never receive facility grants. Instead, this proposition creates a new, never ending property tax.Who’s supporting it:
Reed Hastings, past President, Calif. State Board of EducationJack O’Connell, Calif. State Superintendent of Public Education
Who’s against it:
Dr. Tom Bogetich, Executive Director, California State Board of Education (Ret.)Jon Coupal, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers AssociationJoel Fox, President, Small Business Action Committee
Proposition 89
What the bill would do:
Candidates for state offices would be able to choose to receive public funds to pay for the campaigns if they meet certain requirements. The tax rate on corporations and financial institutions would increase to pay for the public financing of political campaigns.
What proponents are saying:
This proposition would stop corruption in Sacramento and reduce the power of special interest groups and lobbyists. It will make sure that elections are about ideas, instead of money. It will enable teachers, nurses and firefighters to run for public office.
What opponents are saying:
This proposition increases taxes for politicians to finance their campaigns and negative ads on television. The special interests who wrote Proposition 89 gave themselves an unfair advantage, limiting the voices of small businesses and non profits.
Who’s supporting it:
Deborah Burger, RN, president, Calif. Nurses AssociationHarvey Rosenfield, founder, Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer RightSusan Lerner, executive director, California Clean Money Campaign
Who’s against it:
Allan Zamerberg, president, Calif. Chamber of CommerceTony Quinn, former commissioner, California Fair Political Practices CommissionLarry McCarthy, president, Calif. Taxpayers’ Association
Proposition 1B
What the bill would do:
Fix and create new infrastructure for the state, especially new roads and highways and transit systems using money generated by gas, property and local sales taxes in addition to funding from the federal government.
What proponents are saying:
Measure 1B would relieve traffic, improve transportation in general, provide safer roads and create a stronger economy.
What opponents are saying:
The measure would be detrimental to California’s economy, worsening the budget deficits. Voting “no” would mean the state legislature would have to meet transportation needs with existing funds.
Who’s supporting it:
Transportation Commission Chairwoman Marian Bergeson, former chairman of Air Resources Board Alan C. Lloyd and California Chamber of Commerce, President and CEO Allan Zarmberg.
Who’s against it:
California state assemblyman from the 29th District Michael N. Villines.
Proposition 1C
What the bill would do:
It would let the state sell $2.85 billion dollars in bonds to create housing in urban areas, provide assistance to first-time and low-income home owners and create more homeless shelters.
What proponents are saying:
Buying a home has become increasingly difficult for hardworking people. Proposition 1C would create 87,000 new jobs. There are also more than 360,000 homeless Californians, and Proposition 1C would relieve the problem of homelessness.
What opponents are saying:
Houses should be built by private builders, not the state government. Public bonds should only be used for long-term public projects that would benefit Californians, like roads and bridges. Also, the cost incurred by the project would just worsen California debt, making the state government pay twice the amount of what it borrowed in interest.
Who’s supporting it:
Executive director for the San Diego Habitat for Humanity Cheryl Keenan, the executive director for the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence Marivic Mabanag and the state director for AARP Tom Porter.
Who’s against it:
California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore.
Proposition 1D
What the bill would do:
Allow the state government to sell $10.4 billion in bonds to upgrade school facilities, $7.3 billion going to K-12 schools requiring local matching funds and $3.1 billion going to public universities and community colleges.
What proponents are saying:
Proposition 1D would repair and create classrooms and provide job-training facilities. Also, overcrowding is making it harder for Californian children to learn and Proposition 1D would lessen the effects of overcrowding.
What opponents are saying:
Schools should use the resources they have more effectively. Most schools didn’t benefit from the last state bond to improve schools and this one will not benefit them either. It’s unnecessary to assume more debt.Who’s supporting it:
California Teacher’s Association President Barbara E. Kerr, California Community College Board of Governors President George T. Caplan and Coalition for Adequate School Housing Chairwoman Pamela T. Johnson.
Who’s against it:
CA Political Review editorial board member William Saracino.
Proposition 1E
What the bill would do:
Let California government sell $4.1 billion in bonds for flood control projects, using $3 billion to repair levees and increase flood protection in the
Central Valley, with the remaining $1.1 billion on flood safety projects in other parts of California.
What proponents are saying:
These are necessary repairs for preparation in the event of a natural disaster and would protect homes and drinking water for 22 million Californians.
What opponents are saying:
The debt assumed by the proposition is unnecessary, the federal government should be paying for the repairs, all of which will only address a small portion of the changes necessary to keep homes safe and water clean.
Who’s supporting it:
California Office of Emergency Services Director Henry Renteria, California Fire Chiefs Association President Michael L. Warren and California Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Linda Adams.
Who’s against it:
The California Taxpayer Protection Committee Executive Director Thomas N. Hudson
