AgdaPkt 2007-06-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8A Page 9 'Prop. 42' Continued from Pagel... There are a number of concerns for cities with the proposal, Most notably, the reduction of the cities' allocation of Prop_ 42 funds from 20 percent to 15 percent. Eighty-three percent of the state's population lives in cities. Significarrt growth, leads to wear and tear on streets and roads, so changing the percentage of funds would be an overwhelming burden on cities' roadways and infrastructure. The new proposal bases the changes on increased "spillover" funds. Supporters argue that the proposal would capture these funds and put them into Prop. 42, thus increasing the amount of funding sties receive, despi#e the decrease in percentage. (For a detailed explanation of "spillover" funds see "The 'Spillover' from the Sales Tax an Gasoline' on www. Ca#ifr~miaCityFinance~com. ) A key sticking point, however, is that projections have only been done for three years and spillover funds are subject to numerous changes. This would make any alteration of the funding formula a risky proposition for cfties, because there is no guarantee that cities would be aNocated a consistent amount of money. The League of California Cities testified in opposition of the proposed shift during the meeting. Asms. Lois Wolk and Laura Richardson also voiced their concerns over changing the e~asting formula. While the item passed out of the committee, it did so with a commitment from Assembly Speaker Fat>Ean Nunez to meet with stakeholders about the issue. Next Steps The proposal to alter Prop. 42 formula funding will likety be heard by the .hint Senate Assembly Budget Conference Committee next week. The League wiN continue to meet with other transportation stakeholders. Stay tuned to Prlot9ty Focus for updates on this issue as information becomes available. `Eminent DomaM' Continued from Page 1... A number of speakers from the coalition joined De La Torre at the press conference announcing the measure. Those delivering remarks #ncluded League First Vice President Jim Madaffer; Ken Willis, president, League of Cal#fomla Homeovmers; Betty Jo Toc:coli, president, California Smap Business Association; Frank Moreno, president, State of California Mexican American Chamber of Commerce; Tom Adams, board chair, California League of Conservation Voters and Robert L. Balgenorth, president, State Building and Cons#ruction Trades Count~l of California. Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 8 would prohibit the use of eminen# domain to take an owner-occupied home to convey to another private party and new restrictions on the taking of small business properties for oareveyanoe to private parties. ACA 8 intended for the 2008 ballot. if placed on the ballot and approved by the voters, the oonatitutional amendment would: • Prohibit the state or local govemmerrts from using eminent domain to acquire an owner- oecupied home (including townhomes and condos} for transfer to another private party • Prohibit government from using eminent domain to acquire a small business to transfer to another private party, except as part of a comprehensive plan to eliminate blight and only after the small business owner is first given the opportunity to participate in the revitalization plan • Require state or local governments that used eminent domain on a home ~ small business property give the original owner a right to repurchase the property if the property isn't used for a public use