I may agree with you on the school issue, but definitely not roads and levees. A lot of those are federal responsibility, too.
And why, with the exception of a limited number of state highways for intraregional connections, should the state have financial responsibility for local roads and commuter highways.
It is a tradition for numerous and practical reasons that interregional or local commuters can't be denied access to intrastate and intraregional highways in all but emergencies, but the solution is not to force either federal taxpayers or state taxpayers to underwrite this common, local abuse of these roadways.
This isn't rocket science but rather basic, conservative reason. All politics are local .. and so should be most of the financial burden of government. All else is a classic redistribution of wealth.
I may agree with you on the school issue, but definitely not roads and levees. A lot of those are federal responsibility, too.
California spends about $20 billion a year on transportation to maintain, operate, and improve , streets and roads, passenger rail, and transit systems. 1/2 of that is indeed at a local level, funded by local taxes. If you read the details of Prop 1B, there is a slew of money going to local governments that should be funded locally--on a pay as you go basis--not using State bonds. Furthermore, there are amounts that don't go to infrastructure at all, including retrofitting buses to fight global warming.