Tri-Cities Voice Newspaper - What's Happening - Fremont, Union City, Newark California

October 24, 2006 > Propositions

Propositions

Proposition 1A (Constitutional amendment)

Transportation Funding Protection

This measure would prohibit the use of state sales tax on motor vehicle fuels for any purpose other than transportation improvements.

Loan of these funds would be restricted to cases of severe state fiscal hardship only. Proposition 1A requires loans of these funds to be fully repaid within three years and it restricts loans to no more often than twice in any 10-year period.

Legislative Analyst's summary: no direct revenue or cost effects. Increases stability of funding for state and local transportation uses in 2007 and thereafter; reduces, somewhat, the state's authority to use these funds for other, non-transportation spending.

For more information in favor, contact Let's Rebuild California (916) 448-1401; http://www.ReadForYourself.org

For more information in opposition, contact Jackie Goldberg, Chair of the Assembly Education Committee (no phone number listed).





Proposition 1B

Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Act of 2006

Bond money would be used for safety improvements and repairs to state highways; upgrades to freeways to reduce congestion; repair of local streets and roads; upgrades to highways along major transportation corridors. Improves seismic safety of local bridges; expands public transit; help in completing the state's network of car pool lanes; improvements to anti-terrorism security at shipping ports.

Provides for a bond issue not to exceed nineteen billion nine hundred twenty-five million dollars ($19,925,000,000).

Proposition 1B bonds would require payments of about $1.3 billion dollars per year from the state General Fund for 30 years.

Legislative Analyst's summary: state costs of about $38.9 billion over 30 years to pay off principal ($19.9 billion) and interest ($19.0 billion).

Additional unknown state and local government costs to operate and maintain the transportation infrastructure (such as roads, bridges, buses and railcars) funded by this bonds. A portion of these costs would be offset by revenues generated through fares and tolls.

For more information in favor, contact Let's Rebuild California, (916) 448-1401; or http://www.readforyourself.org.

For more information in opposition, contact California Taxpayer Protection Committee (916) 991-9300; or http://www.protecttaxpayers.com.





Proposition 1C

Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006

Funds may be used for the purpose of providing shelters for battered women and their children; clean and safe housing for low-income senior citizens; homeownership assistance for the disabled, military veterans, and working families; and repairs and accessibility improvements to apartment for families and disabled citizens.

Proposition 1C would require the state to issue bonds totaling $2.850 billion. The state would be obligated to pay about $204 million per year for 30 years. It would also require reporting and publication of annual independent audited reports showing use of funds, and limits administration and overhead costs.

Legislative Analyst's summary: state cost of about $6.1 billion to repay principal and interest.

For more information in favor, contact Let's Rebuild California (916) 448-1401; or http://www.readforyourself.org.

For more information in opposition, contact Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, California State Assembly (916) 991-9300; or http://www.NoProp1C.com.




Proposition 1D

Kindergarten - University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006

Bonds would provide funding to relieve public school overcrowding and to repair older schools and to improve earthquake safety, plus fund vocational educational facilities in public schools. Bond funds must be spent according to strict accountability measures.

Funds will also be used to repair and upgrade existing public college and university buildings and to build new classrooms to accommodate the growing student enrollment in the California Community Colleges, the University of California, and the California State University facilities.

The state General Fund would have to pay about $680 million per year for 30 years.

Legislative Analyst's summary: state costs of about $20.3 billion to pay principal and interest.

For more information in favor, contact Lance Olson, Olson Hagel & Fishburn LLP, (916) 442-2952; or http://www.readforyourself.org.

For more information in opposition, contact Thomas N. Hudson, California Taxpayer Protection Committee, (916) 991-9300; or http://www.protecttaxpayers.com.





Proposition 1E

Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006

This bond anticipates additional protection for California's drinking water supply system by rebuilding delta levees that are vulnerable to earthquakes and storms. It authorizes a $4.09 billion dollar bond that would require payments of $266 million per year from the General Fund over 30 years.

Legislative Analyst's summary: total costs will be about $8 billion to pay principal and interest. It may reduce local property tax revenues of potentially up to several million dollars annually.

There would be additional unknown state and local government costs to operate or maintain properties or projects acquired or developed with these bond funds.

For more information in favor, contact Let's Rebuild California, (916) 448-1401; or http://www.readforyourself.org.

For more information in opposition, contact Thomas N. Hudson, California Taxpayer Protection Committee, (916) 991-9300; or http://www.protecttaxpayers.com.





Proposition 83

Sex Offenders, Sexually Violent Predators, Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring Initiative

This initiative would increase penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters. It prohibits registered sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of any school or park. And it requires lifetime Global Positioning System monitoring of felony registered sex offenders.

Proposition 83 would expand definition of a sexually violent predator. It also would change current two-year involuntary civil commitment for a sexually violent predator to an indeterminate commitment, subject to annual review by the Director of Mental Health and subsequent ability of sexually violent predator to petition court for conditional release or unconditional discharge.

Legislative Analyst's summary: net costs of tens of millions of dollars for state prison, parole, and mental health programs initially; then growing to a couple hundred million dollars annually within ten years. Additionally, there would be potential one-time state mental hospital and prison capital outlay costs eventually reaching several hundred million dollars.

Net state and local costs for court and jail operations are unknown.

For more information in favor, contact Campaign for Child Safety at http://www.83YES.com

For more information in opposition, contact Gail Jones, California Attorneys For Criminal Justice, (916) 448-8868; or http://www.cacj.org.





Proposition 84

Water Quality, Safety and Supply; Flood Control; Natural Resource Protection; Park Improvements Bonds Initiative

Funds projects relating to safe drinking water; water quality and supply; flood control, waterway and natural resource protection; water pollution and contamination control; state and local park improvements; public access to natural resources; and water conservation efforts.

Provides funding for emergency drinking water, and exempts such expenditures from public contract and procurement requirements to ensure immediate action for public safety.

Proposition 84 authorizes $5.388 billion in general obligation bonds to fund projects and expenditures. The state General Fund would make payments of about $350 million per year for 30 years.

Legislative Analyst's summary: bonds will cost about $10.5 billion to pay principal and interest. Acquisition of properties under this proposition will lead to a reduction in local property tax revenues of several million dollars annually.

Unknown costs, potentially tens of millions of dollars per year, to state and local governments to operate or maintain properties or projects acquired or developed with these bond funds.

For more information in favor, contact Fiona Hutton, Californians for Clean Water, Parks and Coastal Protection/Yes on Prop. 84, (818) 784-1222; or http://www.Yeson84.com.

For more information in opposition, contact Thomas N. Hudson, California Taxpayer Protection Committee (916) 991-9300; or http://www.protecttaxpayers.com.





Proposition 85 (Constitutional amendment)

Waiting Period and Parental Notification before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy Initiative

Amends California Constitution to prohibit abortion for un-emancipated minors until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent or legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver. Permits minor to obtain court order waiving notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor's maturity or best interests.

Proposition 85 mandates various reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions performed on minors and it authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation. It also permits judicial relief if minor's consent is coerced.

Legislative Analyst's summary: potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration combined.

For more information in favor, contact Paul E. Laubacher, R.N., Yes on 85/Parents' Right to Know and Child Protection (866) 828-8355; or http://www.YESon85.net.

For more information in opposition, contact Steve Smith, No on 85-for Real Teen Safety, (916) 669-4802, or http://www.Noon85.com.





Proposition 86 (Constitutional amendment)

Tax on Cigarettes Initiative

Imposes additional 13 cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($2.60 per pack), and indirectly increases tax on other tobacco products. Tax revenues would provide funding to qualified hospitals for emergency services, nursing education and health insurance to eligible children.

Revenue also allocated to specified purposes including tobacco-use-prevention programs; enforcement of tobacco-related laws; and research, prevention and treatment of various conditions including certain cancers, heart disease, stroke, asthma and obesity.

Proposition 86 exempts recipient hospitals from antitrust laws in some circumstances.

Revenues would be excluded from appropriation limits and minimum education funding (Proposition 98) calculations.

Legislative Analyst's summary: increase in new state tobacco excise tax revenues of about $2.1 billion annually by 2007-08, declining slightly annually thereafter. Those revenues would be spent for various health programs, children's health coverage, and tobacco-related programs.

Unknown net state costs potentially exceeding $100 million annually after a few years due to provisions simplifying state health program enrollment rules and creating a new pilot program for children's health coverage.

Unknown, but potentially significant, savings to the state Medi-Cal program and counties from a shift of children from other health care coverage to the Healthy Families Program (HFP); potential state costs that could be significant in the long term for ongoing support of expanded HFP enrollment.

Unknown, but potentially significant, savings in state and local government public health care costs over time due to various factors, including an expected reduction in consumption of tobacco products.

For more information in favor, contact Bob Pence, Coalition For A Healthy California, (916) 448-2720; or http://www.yesprop86.com.

For more information in opposition, contact, No on 86-Stop the $2 Billion Tax Hike, (916) 218-6640; or http://www.86facts.org.





Proposition 87 (Constitutional amendment)

Alternative Energy, Research, Production and Incentives Tax on California Oil Producers

Proposition 87 would establish a $4 billion program aiming to reduce petroleum consumption by 25% with research and production incentives for alternative energy, alternative energy vehicles, energy efficient technologies, and for education and training. A tax of 1.5% to 6% of the price of a barrel of oil would be levied on producers of oil that is extracted in California. Producers would be prohibited from passing the tax to consumers.

A new bureaucracy would be established, the California Energy Alternatives Program Authority. Revenue would be excluded from appropriation limits and minimum education funding (Proposition 98) calculations.

Legislative Analyst's summary: Proposition 87 would generate new state revenues of about $225 million to $485 million annually (depending on interpretation of the measure) from the imposition of a severance tax on oil production.

Potential reductions of state revenues from oil production on state lands of up to $15 million annually; reductions of state corporate taxes paid by oil producers of up to $10 million annually; local property tax reductions of a few million dollars annually; and potential reductions in fuel-related excise and sales taxes.

For more information in favor, contact Californians for Clean Energy, (323) 782-1045; or http://www.yeson87.com.

For more information in opposition, contact Californians Against Higher Taxes-No on 87, (650) 340-0262; or http://www.NoOilTax.com.





Proposition 88 (Constitutional amendment)

Education Funding, Real Property Parcel Tax Initiative

A Proposition 88 parcel tax would provide additional public school funding for kindergarten through grade 12. It would be funded by an additional $50 tax on each real property parcel. Certain elderly and disabled homeowners would be exempt.

Funds must be used for class size reduction, textbooks, school safety, Academic Success facility grants, and a data system to evaluate educational program effectiveness. The measure provides for reimbursement to the General Fund to offset an anticipated decrease in income tax revenues due to increased deductions attributable to new parcel tax.

Revenue would be excluded from minimum education funding (Proposition 98) calculations.

Legislative Analyst's summary: state parcel tax revenue of roughly $450 million annually, allocated to school districts for specified education programs.

For more information in favor, contact Yes on 88--Taxpayers for Better Schools and Smaller Classes, (916) 448-3868; or http://www.VoteFor88.org.

For more information in opposition, contact Californians Against the Statewide Parcel Property Tax, (916) 927-1512; or http://www.NoProp88.com.





Proposition 89

Political Campaigns Public Financing; Corporate Tax Increase; Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Limits.

This proposition would provide that candidates for state elective office meeting certain eligibility requirements (including collection of a specified number of $5.00 contributions from voters) may voluntarily receive public campaign funding from Fair Political Practices Commission, in amounts varying by elective office and election type.

This proposition would increase income tax rate on corporations and financial institutions by 0.2 percent to fund program. It imposes new limits on campaign contributions to state-office candidates and campaign committees, plus new restrictions on contributions by lobbyists and state contractors. Certain contributions and expenditures by corporations would be limited.

Legislative Analyst's summary: increased revenues (primarily from increased taxes on corporations and financial institutions) totaling more than $200 million annually. The funds would be spent on the public financing of political campaigns for state elected officials.

For more information in favor, contact Michael Lighty, Californians for Clean Elections, (800) 440-6877; or http://www.yeson89.org.

For more information in opposition, contact Californians to Stop 89, (916) 708-7824; or http://www.noprop89.org.





Proposition 90 (Constitutional amendment)

Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property

Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects or uses. Proposition 90 would limit government's authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and regulations, except when necessary to preserve public health or safety. It would also void any unpublished eminent domain court decisions. This initiative also provides a definition of "just compensation."

Government must occupy condemned property or lease property for public use. Condemned private property must be offered for resale to prior owner or owner's heirs at current fair market value if government abandons condemnation's objective. Certain governmental actions would be limited.

Legislative Analyst's summary: increased annual state and local government costs to pay property owners for (1) losses to their property associated with certain new laws and rules, and (2) property acquisitions. The amount of such costs is unknown, but potentially significant on a statewide basis.

For more information in favor, contact California Protect our Homes Coalition, (916) 924-7501; or http://www.90yes.com.

For more information in opposition, contact No on 90, Californians Against the Taxpayer Trap at http://www.NoProp90.com.





Measure A, County of Santa Clara
Land Use Initiative

Shall the County General Plan be amended to reenact and modify certain existing provisions and add provisions for hillsides, open space, ranchlands, and rural areas in unincorporated areas of the county, including limiting minimum parcel size on ranchlands and hilltops to 160 acres, with exceptions, limiting building size, and prohibiting the board of supervisors from making changes to the General Plan inconsistent with these amendments?

Summary of arguments in favor
Measure A will protect Santa Clara County's remaining valuable natural resources from being paved over and lost forever. It will protect our hillsides, streams, watersheds, wildlife habitats and agricultural lands from large-scale development.

For more information, visit http://www.OpenSpace2006.org.


Summary of arguments in opposition
Written behind closed doors, without public hearings or environmental review, Measure A locks hundreds of complex changes into our County's General Plan. So poorly written it could lead to years of expensive lawsuits, with taxpayers liable for millions of dollars in damage claims.

Correcting mistakes will be difficult. Changes as small as constructing a "granny" flat could require an expensive countywide election.

For more information, visit http://www.VoteNoOnMeasureA.com.





Measure K, City of Fremont

Shall the voters of the City of Fremont adopt the "Initiative to Change the Open Space and Restricted Industrial General Plan Designations for a Portion of Fremont's Northern Plain Planning Area to Agriculture"?

Excerpt of impartial analysis by City Attorney Harvey Levine
The Initiative would likely subject the city to litigation. It restricts land use and simultaneously specifies scenarios under which its restrictions might not apply. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the amount and intensity of development that may result.

Summary of arguments in favor
Vote yes on Measure K to protect the natural heritage and wildlife of Coyote Hills from a massive new housing development; prevent unnecessary street traffic; save taxpayer money; and preserve our quality of life.

Summary of arguments in opposition
Measure K is the wrong way to plan for Fremont's future! Read the initiative for yourself. It promises parkland. It delivers nine huge residential estates, fenced off and closed to the public. It promises open space. It delivers mansions, ten times the size of a typical home. It promises protection of natural species and open views. It delivers private development, no species, habitat, or wetland restoration, no enhancements, and no permanent protections. Measure K could create costly consequences for the City of Fremont.

For further analysis, plus arguments in favor and in opposition, go to http://smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/alm/meas/K/.





Measure L, City of Fremont

Utility Users Tax

Shall an ordinance be adopted establishing a gas and electric utility users tax of four percent, limited to six years and subject to independent annual financial audits, and establishing an independent Fremont taxpayers' committee to review expenditures?

This would be a new tax designed to help preserve the safety and character of Fremont and maintain essential general fund services such as police and fire plus fund street and park maintenance.

Summary of arguments in favor
Don't be fooled by irresponsible rhetoric, a safe city with good roads and services hangs in the balance.

For more information, contact Yes on Measure L Campaign at (510) 793-2334.

Summary of arguments in opposition
Instead of higher taxes, we need leadership in Fremont that will stop spending money on itself with inexcusable compensation packages.

For more information, contact Waste Watcher, Inc. (510) 794-8797; or www.wastewatchersinc.org.

 
About Us   Current Issues   Press Dates   Archived Issues   Ad Rates   Classifieds  
Shopping & Dining Guide   Local Events   Your Comments   Subscribe  
Home

Tri Cities Voice What's Happening - click to return to home page

Copyright© 2005 Tri-City Voice
Advertise in What's Happening - A Guide to the Tri-City Area Return to Tri-City Voice Home Page E-mail the Tri-City Voice About the Tri-City Voice Read a current issue of the Tri-City Voice online Archived Issues of the Tri-City Voice Tri-City Voice Advertising rates Dining and Shopping in the Tri-City Area Events in the Tri-City area Tell us what you think Return to the Tri-City Voice Home Page Subscribe to the Tri-City Voice Press dates/Deadlines