recommendation - No on 91
The Transpo WG recommends a NO vote on Prop 91; here's my draft language explaining our position. Please send concerns and suggested edits before Monday night's meeting: In CA, gas taxes and similar fees are collected by the state and are earmarked to pay for transportation projects rather than going into the general fund. Current law allows the governor, with the support of the legislature, to borrow the funds for other purposes for up to 3 years. Prop 91 would disallow such loans, except for very short term periods. The Green Party opposed the original proposition that earmarked gas taxes for transportation purposes, since only 20% of the money is spent on public transit. The remaining 80% funds more highways and suburban sprawl. We therefore support giving our elected representatives the flexibility to borrow these funds for other needs, such as education, health care, and other urgent priorities. We supported Prop 1A in 2004, which prevented the governor from borrowing local transportation funds to spend on state projects. This transfer of power from local communities to the state violates our key value of Decentralization. Since Prop 1A passed, the circumstance for borrowing funds that was of most concern to us is now illegal, so Prop 91 provides no additional benefits. Vote NO on 91. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
John-Marc, Are you sure that Prop 1a was on the ballot in 2004? I don't think so. I think it was on the ballot last year -- unless you are talking about a different 1a. Last year's Prop 1a passed -- which is why the proponents of Prop 91 have withdrawn their support of 91. They say 1a resolves the issues that are related to borrowing from Prop 42, but that by the time 1a passed, 91 had already qualified for the ballot. Sue John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: The Transpo WG recommends a NO vote on Prop 91; here's my draft language explaining our position. Please send concerns and suggested edits before Monday night's meeting: In CA, gas taxes and similar fees are collected by the state and are earmarked to pay for transportation projects rather than going into the general fund. Current law allows the governor, with the support of the legislature, to borrow the funds for other purposes for up to 3 years. Prop 91 would disallow such loans, except for very short term periods. The Green Party opposed the original proposition that earmarked gas taxes for transportation purposes, since only 20% of the money is spent on public transit. The remaining 80% funds more highways and suburban sprawl. We therefore support giving our elected representatives the flexibility to borrow these funds for other needs, such as education, health care, and other urgent priorities. We supported Prop 1A in 2004, which prevented the governor from borrowing local transportation funds to spend on state projects. This transfer of power from local communities to the state violates our key value of Decentralization. Since Prop 1A passed, the circumstance for borrowing funds that was of most concern to us is now illegal, so Prop 91 provides no additional benefits. Vote NO on 91. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 10:37:27AM -0800, susan vaughan wrote:
Are you sure that Prop 1a was on the ballot in 2004?
You're right; it was 2006. There was a very similar measure in 04 as well: http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/state/prop/1A/ http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/state/prop/1A/ JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
participants (2)
-
John-Marc Chandonia -
susan vaughan