Redo bond measure (CA)

Contra Costa Times ^ | March 17, 2006 | CCT Editorial

[FairOpinion]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recognized that California must raise huge amounts of revenue to pay for public projects that are essential to the state's future well being. That is why in his State of the State address in January he proposed a $222 billion package of infrastructure improvements to be financed by state bonds and federal funds.

While the bond measure being considered lacked important elements, it also accumulated a list of projects that are unrelated to basic infrastructure or are highly inefficient.

Attached to the bond measure were funds for low-income housing, parks and a high-speed train. While some of these projects may be worth consideration, they hardly can be considered basic infrastructure.

What California must have now are better roads, schools and water projects. Meeting these three basic needs will be costly and should have greater urgency than parks, housing or a highly suspect high-speed rail line.

Parks, housing and rail lines should be addressed in separate bond measures or legislation. They should not be allowed to encumber bond measures for essential infrastructure needs.

[FairOpinion]

Very sensible.

[calex59]

This article makes sense as far as it goes, but I have another proposal. Why don't we figure out how much we took in last year in gasoline and other fuel taxes and cut that amount from the current budget, THEN we can spend the money on infastructure as these funds were intended to do in the first place. Aslo, why don't we pass an amendment to the state constitution that requires these monies to be used ONLY for the purpose they are intended for.

[FairOpinion]

That's way TOO sensible.

But of course you are right.

[FairOpinion]

But something needs to be done to fix the infrastructure:


California Tops the List of Worst Roads in the Nation

http://www.allstays.com/Features/CaliforniaWorstRoads.htm

Dec. 27, 2001--California's rutted, cracked and neglected roads now rank at the bottom of all 50 states in roadway quality and per capita dollars being spent to improve them, according to a new study from Transportation California.

``A generation of underinvestment in California's streets, highways, overpasses and bridges has resulted in a shameful deterioration of what once was a showcase transportation network,'' said Larry Fisher, executive director of Transportation California, the state's leading transportation advocacy and public education organization.

Travel in California increased 97 percent between 1980 and 2000, and population increased 42 percent in the same period. Yet California invested less per person in transportation than any state. According to the report, this underinvestment has had an adverse impact on travel, safety and drivers' pocketbooks.

[FairOpinion]

"The ten urban regions with at least 500,000 people, which includes the city
and its surrounding suburbs, with the greatest share of major roads and
highways with pavements that are in substandard condition and provide a
rough ride are: Kansas City – 71%, San Jose – 67%, St. Louis – 66%, Los
Angeles – 64%, San Francisco-Oakland – 60%, San Diego – 58%, New
Orleans – 55%, Boston – 49%, Sacramento – 49% and Oklahoma City –
47%."

5 of the 10 are in CA.

http://www.tripnet.org/RoughRoadsReport052605.pdf

[heleny]

What California must have now are better roads, schools and water projects.

Okay, so how about we address each of these in separate bond measures instead of one giant mix? I thought initiatives had to deal with one topic only; while these projects would all be borrowing money, it would be better to vote on each project separately.

Local school bonds pass all the time, and they often put out new bond measures before they even spend the money from earlier bonds, so it makes no sense to combine school borrowing with road improvement or water project borrowing.

[heleny]

Why don't we figure out how much we took in last year in gasoline and other fuel taxes and cut that amount from the current budget, THEN we can spend the money on infastructure as these funds were intended to do in the first place.

The legislature doesn't want to do that, because it would be harder to ask voters to pass a bond (effectively a tax, since bonds must be repaid eventually) to fund the myriad other wasteful spending projects that the liberal legislators want.

Also, why don't we pass an amendment to the state constitution that requires these monies to be used ONLY for the purpose they are intended for.

We already passed an initiative to direct gas taxes to transportation projects, but the authors wrote in a huge loophole that the CA government has used to keep taking the money.

Basically, the loophole is triggered whenever there is a budget shortfall; of course, the legislators and complicit governors have engineered the budget shortfall by overspending, so Prop 42 has been useless.

[junta]

Open the borders with Mexico, millions more immigrants from there and around the world will turn CA into paradise, trust us globalists we know what we are talking about. sarcasm intended

[Amerigomag]

But something needs to be done to fix the infrastructure:

That's correct. The problem, however, is in the financing mechanism. The problem is not the use of bonding. The problem is who is taxed. Bonding is fine if the citizens approve the increased taxation. The question is; which citizens. If the state government is unwilling to give up a portion of existing revenue streams to build and repair infrastructure then bonding is an alternative, with voter approval.

The BigBangBonds got into to trouble for a myriad reasons, mostly partisan, but chief among the objections was attempting to force all Californians to pay for what should be, logically and legally, local and regional taxation. Asking the residents of Modoc County to pay for commuter routes in Riverside and Orange County is neither justified nor defensible by other than socialist reasoning.

Indeed all of these bonding proposals should go on the ballot, but only within the area deriving benefit. They should be local or regional projects taxing local or regional, property, consumption or use. They should not be General Obligation bonds.

This bonding should be Revenue Bonding utilizing tolls, additional, regional, dedicated, sales tax components, or increases in property taxes within the benefit area as their revenue streams.

[FairOpinion]

"or increases in property taxes within the benefit area as their revenue streams."

===

You want to tax property owners, you want to have property owners subsidize others??? And you call yourself a conservative?

The more you post, the more your socialist attitudes surface.

[Amerigomag]

You want to tax property owners

If taxation must be increased to repair/improve local roads; absolutely. They benefit directly.

you want to have property owners subsidize others????

Vehicle owners benefit from improved transportation corridors. Whether the tax is broadly applied within the benefit area, a simple increase in the VLF based on storage location, or specifically collected based on use, tolls, property owners, directly benefiting, should be taxed.

Taxation of real property is also justified since a local, transportaion benefit typically enhances the market value of local, real property.

[goldstategop]

No, the point is if there is a benefit to the property, then of course the owners should pay for it. Its the reverse of having property owners pay for things that have no clear relationship to their property. In the latter situation, society as a whole ought to properly bear the costs.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[FairOpinion]

Roads benefit everyone, NOT just the property owners.

The socialists are the ones who want the property owners to subsidize everyone, why do you think CA had the Prop. 13 revolt?

If it's a road, pay for it with gas taxes.

[FairOpinion]

"Taxation of real property is also justified "


===

As I said, that's what all the socialists say. I guess renters should get everything free, "let's get the rich property owners".

[FairOpinion]

And what about all the NON-property owners who benefit?

Why should a property owner pay $100 to subsidize the other 99 people who also benefit from the roads, they just don't own property.

The socialist idea, to which you seem to subscribe to is the one that property owners and "the rich" should subsidize everyone else.

[goldstategop]

Local streets, sidewalk maintenance, public tree trimming, lights, utility lines, refuse services, abatements and schools are services that have always been paid and will be by property owners because they bring benefit to and enhance the value of their property. That's different from subsidizing every one else. Public housing, public transit, state roads and freeways, dams, reservoirs and power plants along with green projects benefit every one and they should be borne by the public not by the property owners. If we want to discuss how to apportion the costs this is a reasonable rule of thumb on as to whom pays for what. It ain't rocket science.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[Amerigomag]

And what about all the NON-property owners who benefit?

Those fall into three broad categories. People who utilize public transportation, people who utilize the property of others and people who don't drive or ride in vehicles.

Public transportation is available to all. Its expense should be self funded through use fees or subsidized by the larger community through increased consumption taxes combined with use fees.

Vehicle rental is already taxed through VLF fees and transportation specific, consumption taxes.

The few that don't directly use transportation corridors already pay their fair, community share through their income and consumption tax contributions.

Why should a property owner pay $100 to subsidize the other 99 people who also benefit from the roads, they just don't own property.

The answer is that everyone benefits from improved transportation and all but a very small percentage, outlined above, own property. A significant percent of Californians own more than one taxable, vehicle for private use.

Which brings up a good question about the fairness of property taxes. Should an individual tax payer, who owns more than one vehicle for private use, be forced to pay the same amount of personal property taxes for public, transportation infrastructure as other individuals who own only one vehicle? The multiple vehicle owner can't drive them simultaneously and his use of the tax supported, transportation infrastructure is not necessarily going to increase because he has choices.

[Amerigomag]

"Taxation of real property is also justified "

Actually the pertinent quote was: If taxation must be increased to repair/improve local roads

The assumption was that either a Democrat or the Austrian would be elected in November. The Austrian obviously isn't going to reduce discretionary spending to pay for infrastructure improvement and Lord knows what the Democrat will do.

Regardless of who occupies the office, someone has to pay for infrastructure improvements and the issue is who.

Many conservative officials including myself, feel local improvements should be paid for locally. Obviously the Austrian and probably either Democrat candidate would disagree. Facing the inevitable, it then becomes necessary to place the tax burden where it belongs. On those who benefit.

Local property owners should pay for local, infrastructure improvements:

If the Sacrament Valley residents want better protection from their river, then Sacramento Valley residents can pay for it. If SoCal's teaming masses want more freeways, then SoCal's masses can pay for them. If the LAUSD wants more and newer schools then the district's residents can pay for them.

[FairOpinion]

Bottom line is that you want tax increases.

This is NOT aconservative position.

[Amerigomag]

Bottom line is that tax increases is NOT a conservative position

Exactly. Which brings several logical questions to mind:

Why would any on this forum arrive here in support of tax increases or promote an administration that has consistently increased taxes, to the highest, per capita, level in the state's history?

Why would any on this forum support infrastructure improvements since they, under the present governing philosophy, involve increased taxation?

Why would any on this forum ridicule those who oppose increased taxation or the promotion of increased taxation?