Sunday, January 27, 2008
Below are explanations of various proposals appearing on February 5’s Presidential Primary ballot
Lower Community College Fees?
Proposition 92 would reduce community college fees from $20 to $15 per unit, with increases possible only in the rare event that per capita personal income in California increases by more than 6.7 percent in any given year. A student taking a full-time load of 30 units per year would pay $450 rather than $600 annually. The revenue impact at current levels means a loss of $70 million to state coffers. The measure entitles community colleges to more funding when the state’s young adult population increases, but only in years when K-12 funding gets its full 40 percent share of the state budget. Proponents include the California Community College Trustees, the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, and the California Federation of Teachers. Opponents include the California Taxpayers’ Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the Small Business Action Committee, who claim the measure identifies no way to pay for the new spending and could result in higher taxes or cuts to other stressed programs. They add that it may increase bureaucracy — starting with a Board of Governors, which will be expanded from 17 to 19 members, with greater independence than before from direct gubernatorial control.
12 Years in a State Office?
Proposition 93, if approved, would mean an individual could serve 12 total years in office — regardless of the office they occupy. Currently, state legislators can serve a maximum of three terms (six years) in the Assembly and two terms (eight years) in the Senate, for a total of 14 years. The move would have no fiscal impact to the state. Supporters, which include the state Democratic Party, State Superintendent Jack O’Connell, the SEIU, and more, claim the proposition would “strike a reasonable balance between the need to elect new people … and the need for experienced legislators” who can fix the state’s problems. Opponents, led by state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, say the proposition supports special interest groups and career politicians and will get longer terms for current state legislators.
More Slots at Native American Casinos?
Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97 all amend California’s Indian Gaming Compact to allow thousands of additional slot machines at casinos owned by four Native American tribes in San Diego and Riverside counties: the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Kumeyaay Nation, and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. The propositions would also double the tax on gaming profits from about seven percent currently to 15 percent. The fiscal impact, according to the legislative analyst, is a net increase in annual revenues “probably in the tens of millions of dollars” per proposition, the amount “growing over time through 2030.” The revenue would go directly into the state’s general fund instead of into the targeted funds that currently support poorer tribes and mitigate the casino’s effects in surrounding communities. Supporters cite the obvious financial benefits, but critics want an even more advantageous deal that taxes the casinos more steeply; further advances casino workers’ rights, compensation, and benefits; and includes environmental protections that more closely mirror the California Environmental Quality Act. The casino-owning Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians supports the propositions. The anti-gambling activist groups Preservation of Santa Ynez and Preservation of Los Olivos have not taken a public stand on these propositions.
Fighting Medical Costs through Parcel Taxes?
Should Measure S pass, it would add a $35.15 parcel tax to raise money for uncompensated costs of emergency room and trauma medical care to the underinsured and uninsured. Rising medical costs, decreased insurance reimbursement rates, and the county’s large population of uninsured people are collectively costing hospitals and medical centers about $8 million annually. The county reimburses about $1.6 million of that through money generated from increased traffic fines and citations, but that program is in its last year. The tax, which needs a two-thirds majority vote to pass, would impact those owning more than 125,000 parcels.
Bond Measure for Cold Spring School?
Some 1,800 Montecito voters will be asked to approve Measure R2008 in order to refurbish the 70-year-old Cold Spring School. The $8.75 million request is a pared-down version of the $14 million Measure O that failed last year by 50 votes. For homeowners in the single-campus Cold Spring School District, Measure R2008 would mean an annual tax of just less than $20 per $100,000 of assessed value during the next 30 years. The money must be used for projects on a list of physical improvements to the campus, including a 6,000-square-foot expansion. Opponents say the measure will raise taxes and that declining enrollments could close the campus. Proponents say Cold Spring is in no danger of closing and that good schools increase property values.
Public Safety Act for Lompoc?
Voters in the City of Lompoc are being asked to approve Measure T2008, a half-cent sales tax to improve emergency services. A citizens’ committee studying crime rates recommended the measure, estimating that it would pay for 11 more police officers, six firefighters, four vehicles, a new fire station, and an expanded police station. Critics question whether the city will use the money as projected or simply use it to reduce general fund contributions to police and fire budgets. Proponents insist an oversight committee will help ensure that the money be properly utilized.
The Measure that Should Not Be
Proposition 1A — which was approved in 2006 and ensured local communities gas tax money for transportation projects — eliminated the need for Proposition 91, but the latter measure still appears on the current ballot because it was qualified to do so before Prop 1A’s passage. Thus, the measure is null and void. There is technically no argument against the measure. Supporters of the gas tax system encourage a no vote.