AgdaPkt 2002-03-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. . 12 March 8, 2002 Issue #10-200~ analy~, commentary and update on legisla~,e and potk'y issues that affect califor~a cites VOTERS APPROVE PROPOSITIONS 40 AND' 42: POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS FOR CITIES Hot Bills A record Iow primary turnout of voters in Califomia on election day this week · · · · to Watch delivered some surprising results for two measures with direct impacts on local govern- " ment. Proposition 40, the "Parks and Water Bond", authorizes the sale of a $2.6 billion · AB 81 (Migden). bond to fund local and state parks, recreation and resource projects. Proposition 42, a · Property Taxation. constitutional amendment that proponents called the "Transportation Congestion · State-Assessed Improvement Act", requires that the state spend the sales tax consumers pay for gaso- · Property. line (6 percent) on transportation needs. Proposition 40 passed with 57% voter ap- _" proval and Proposition 42 with an astonishing 69% of the vote. The League supported · AB 210g (Simitian); both measures. , · AB 1865 (Canciamilla). · ERAFCap. The passage of Propositions 40 and 42 provides cities with significantly more · resources to provide better local services to their constituents. Improved parks, water · SI] 1369 (Alarcen). and roads will mean cities are again uniquely positioned to champion the quality of life · Civil Service. Charter · issues that are of increasing concern to Californians. · Cities. · Politically, these two campaigns provide insight as to how voters may respond to key · messages and measures cities are considering for November. Initial survey work con- · ducted by Action for Better Cities (ABC) showed considerable reluctance on the part of · voters to tie up general fund revenues for specific purposes. Additionally, conventional · wisdom suggests that a lower turnout usually comprises a more conservative electorate · and is therefore less likely to support debt instruments or bond measures. The election · results of Tuesday night seem to have defied this trend. The results of Proposition 42 · show that when presented with a pressing need, like financing major infrastructure · needs, California voters are prepared to take budgetary matters into their own hands. Want more details on ParticUlarly noteworthy was the late but active involvement of the California Teach- these and other bills? ers Association (CTA) and the Service Employees International Union (SElU) in opposi- Log on to the League of tion to Proposition 42. Together both groups contributed a total of $3 million to California Cities Web site, at www. cacities, org and oppose the measure in the closing weeks of the campaign. Concerns about tying up click on Legislative general revenue funds were considered to be the two organizations primary motive for Advocacy. their involvement. But despite heavy spending that seemed to come "too little, too late" the measure passed with a strong 69% of the vote. Page 2 · LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES