There’s plenty not to like in the largest slate of bond measures in the history of the state, coming this November to a ballot near you, with a total price tag of $37 billion.  That’s a done deal whether we like it or not. 

Knowing this was coming, one GOP state senator, Bob Dutton of Rancho Cucamonga, went into legislative negotiations over the bonds knowing he would take some flak for voting for them.  He did so in hopes of getting some provisions to make the bonds more favorable to taxpayers should they pass.  In fact, when the process started, the bonds were all lumped together, which would have forced the voters to vote for something like $2.8 billion for subsidized housing in order to get something they actually want, like transportation ($19.9 billion).  In the end, after the negotiations, the bonds were split into four different questions, so voters could say "yes" to roads (1B) and "no" to subsidized housing (1C).

I say better to let Dutton and a few other Republican leaders negotiate a few taxpayer protections than to have the Dems go find a rogue Rep and try to peel off his or her vote for a more egregious package with promises of pork for his or her district.  We’ve seen that happen before.  And while the bonds, if approved, will likely benefit Dutton’s Inland Empire district, it’s for the right reasons: that’s where a lot of the congestion is.

Prop. 1B is a huge transportation bond at almost $20 billion.  One good thing I can say about this measure is that its projects will be funded on a competitive basis to promote corridor mobility.  Projects will be rated on their merits relative to congestion and growth impacts.  Of course such logical thinking is not a given in the California Legislature, and this was something the Republicans actually had to fight for.  When the vote was taken, the transportation bond passed the Senate 37-1, and the Assembly 61-10.

1B would provide $2 billion in local assistance, which would amount to about $50 million for San Bernardino County, with at least $400,000 in discretionary money going to each city for local streets and roads and to match state and federal funds.  An additional $1 billion would go to counties (including San Bernardino and Riverside) that have passed their own local tax measures for transportation.  This means in San Bernardino County, just for transportation, we could see $100 million just from those two provisions.

As mentioned previously, Prop. 1C is a housing bond.  1D is for schools ($10.4 billion), and 1E is for flood-control levees ($4 billion).  Finally, Proposition 1A is a taxpayer protection measure intended to ensure that Prop. 42 is honored, and that is to make sure that gasoline sales taxes go to transportation only.  A loophole in Prop. 42 has allowed Sacramento to siphon off $2.5 billion to non-transportation uses.  1A would also require that the state take the $2.5 billion it previously took and put it back into transportation.

Of course the bonds amount to a lot of debt, and even parts of the transportation bond (like $4 billion for mass transit) are hard to swallow.  Personally, I don’t support the bonds, even though they include a requirement that taxes not be raised to pay for them.  Sacramento is too good at the shell game to make that provision stick.  Plus, I think California should get serious about funding infrastructure and not tell the voters that basic infrastructure is a luxury they should have to borrow to afford.  I also think too little of the money would go to actual physical improvements to the state’s infrastructure, which has been neglected for more than 30 years.

But having said all of that, I’m glad Sen. Dutton was able to help make the best of a bad situation by getting a fairer shake for taxpayers and for the Inland Empire in case the bonds do pass.

This entry was posted on Friday, September 15th, 2006 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.