[GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 139: GPCA position on Proposition 68 - California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of...

[Greg Jan]

 All,
The Green Party of Alameda County recommends a "Yes" vote on Prop. 68 (although we have "standard bond reservations").    Below is our current draft Voter Guide article for Prop. 68 (including some info in the last paragraph about our "standard bond reservations").

Greg


Proposition 68 -- YESParks, Environment, and Water Bond

This measure is a $4.1-billion bond proposal, with the borrowed money going to “Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All” programs.  The measure would require 15 - 20 percent of the funds (depending on the type of project) to be dedicated to projects in communities with median household incomes less than 60 percent of the statewide average.  $725 million would go to neighborhood parks in park-poor neighborhoods.  In California, general obligation bond issues of $300,000 or above must be approved by the voters.  
Senate President Kevin de León (D-24), who is challenging incumbent Dianne Feinstein (D) for the U.S. Senate in 2018, was the lead author of the $4-billion Parks, Environment, and Water Bond. As of February 3, 2018, there were five committees registered to support Proposition 68, including the Peninsula Open Space Trust, the Wildlands Conservancy, and the Save the Redwoods League.  Other supporters are Sierra Club California, and in the interest of full disclosure, the Association of California Water Agencies and the California Chamber of Commerce.  There were no committees registered to oppose it.  There is a clause in the proposition which says that, “Funds provided by this section shall not be expended to pay the costs of the design, construction,operation, mitigation, or maintenance of Delta conveyance facilities".  Per our analysis, as well as a recent positive endorsement editorial in the San Jose Mercury News, Prop. 68 funds can not be used for Jerry Brown’s hated delta tunnel project.

The many lists that specify how much money is to be allocated to specific projects is very appealing.  For example, thirty million dollars “shall be available to the Salton Sea Authority for capital outlay projects that provide air quality and habitat benefits and that implement the natural Resources Agency’s Salton Sea Management program.” (etc)  Another section $170,000,000 “shall be available to the Natural Resources Agency for restoration activities in the Salton Sea Management Program Phase I: 10 Year Plan, dated March 2017, the final management report, and any subsequent revisions to this plan.”  Much of the bill reads like a list of necessary or desirable plans which have been waiting for funding.
The Sempervirens Fund strongly supports the bond, because it includes more than $200 million to restore and preserve California state parks and over $700 million for local and regional parks, as well as critically-needed funding to protect our coast, wildlife and drinking water.
The Green Party of Alameda County’s “standard bond reservations” is because in addition to the cost of the projects Proposition 68 would fund, interest on the bonds would go into the pockets of mostly wealthy people.  It could and should be the other way around.  Some sources claim California has the highest population of billionaires in the United States; in March of 2016, 124 live in the state and have a total net worth of $532.4 billion. The state's technology industry is a major source of many of those fortunes, including those of the created the five richest people in California.  If one percent of the wealth of billionaires were taxed, these projects would be covered without borrowing money which had to be repaid with interest.  But despite our reservations because of the way the money will be raised, we urge you to vote YES on Proposition 68.






    On Wednesday, February 14, 2018, 1:34:32 PM PST, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes at gmail.com> wrote:  
 Ranked Choice Vote ID #139Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA position on Proposition 68:  California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018. SB 5 (Chapter 852, Statutes of 2017), De León.Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike GoldbeckDiscussion  02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018Voting  03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
Background
This is the ranked choice vote for the GPCA to take a position on Proposition 68: California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018.
The choices are to rank 'endorse', 'oppose', 'no position' and/or 'abstain.' Delegates can rank as many or few of these options in their order of preference.
An 'endorse' vote would mean the GPCA would endorse Proposition 68. An 'oppose' vote means the GPCA would oppose Proposition 68. A 'no position' vote means the GPCA would not take a position on Proposition 68. An 'abstain' vote means the voter is not expressing a preference, but is voting to help achieve quorum. Any of these position that receives 2/3 after all preferences are transferred is the position of the party. If neither 'endorse' nor 'opposes' receive 2/3, the GPCA's position will be 'no position'.
The proposition is listed below, along with the Legislative Counsel’s digest and a link to the full text.
Proposition 68
SB 5 (Chapter 852, Statutes of 2017), De León.
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018. 
Under existing law, programs have been established pursuant to bond acts for, among other things, the development and enhancement of state and local parks and recreational facilities. Existing law, the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014, approved by the voters as Proposition 1 at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election, authorizes the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount of $7,545,000,000 to finance a water quality, supply, and infrastructure improvement program. Existing law, the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 84 at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $5,388,000,000 for the purposes of financing safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, natural resource protection, and park improvements. Existing law, the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002, approved by the voters as Proposition 40 at the March 5, 2002, statewide primary election, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $2,600,000,000, for the purpose of financing a program for the acquisition, development, restoration, protection, rehabilitation, stabilization, reconstruction, preservation, and interpretation of park, coastal, agricultural land, air, and historical resources.
This bill would enact the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018, which, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in an amount of $4,000,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a drought, water, parks, climate, coastal protection, and outdoor access for all program. The bill, upon voter approval, would reallocate $100,000,000 of the unissued bonds authorized for the purposes of Propositions 1, 40, and 84 to finance the purposes of a drought, water, parks, climate, coastal protection, and outdoor access for all program.
The bill would provide for the submission of these provisions to the voters at the June 5, 2018, statewide primary direct election.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
CandidatesEndorseOpposeNo PositionAbstain
Full details are available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/139_gpcapositionprop68
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
-- 
gpca-votes mailing list
gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180325/d149f5b0/attachment.html>