German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseVote Yes on Proposition 91 - Preserve Transportation Funding
Proposition 91 is one of the odder measures on the ballot. The proponents have urged a “no” vote, and no one seems to know of any supporters. Thus, you get snarky blog entries and misinformed editorials stating that “no one is supporting the measure”. This couldn’t be further from the truth, and Proposition 91 is important to saving transportation funding.
The reason is that Proposition 1A had a loophole in it to permit the state Legislature to borrow money from transportation funding, as long as they pay it back in three years. In 2008-09, it appears that this will be the case and the County of Los Angeles will lose $61 million for roads and public transit in the unincorporated areas. “But”, one might say, “this is only for emergencies.” Well, Governor Schwarzenegger just declared an “emergency” over declining property tax revenues that we knew were going to happen a long time ago. “It’s a loan”, one could say, but unfortunately, counties and cities don’t have the same ability to issue bonds as the state does. Budget cuts to local transportation departments are going to be made, which means more potholes, worse sidewalks, and reduced transit. The problem with deferred maintenance is that waiting three years for the loans to be paid back could mean that roads need a higher degree of reconstruction, doubling or even tripling costs when a simple layer of asphalt could have done the job. People’s property values go down with poorer sidewalks. The ridership on transit doesn’t come back when the money comes back. You could go on.
Proposition 91 will permanently close the loophole and protect valuable transportation funding. The real reason that the proponents are opposed to it is the deal that was cut when Proposition 1A was placed on the ballot in 2006. By pushing up the issue, and agreeing to permit loans to be made, the proponents agreed to oppose the measure, and to use their space in the ballot book to write an opposition piece. But that doesn’t mean that us voters have to honor that deal.
For more information, please visit www.yeson91.net.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
I’m certainly voting for this.
I want to send a message that the manner in which the state budget was balanced on the back of transportation was NOT acceptable.
In my mind, we need to scrap Prop. 13, Prop. 98, all the mandates and 2/3 budget rule. But that’s never going to happen.
In the meantime, Proposition 91 makes good sense to me.
I’m WAY confused. On top of the whole “It is(not) redundant with Prop 1A” thing, I thought Prop 91 would prevent gas taxes from being used for public transit (only for roads and whatnot).
To some extent, it’s a moot point. Very few people will vote “yes” on a proposition when the official guide says “vote no” on the pro side.
I have a different take, Raphael.
The vast majority of voters do not read the voter guide. They make their decision based on the minimal proposition description on the ballot.
Those voters are going to see a description for 91 that is very similar to 1A. And if they voted yes then (as more than 70% did), they are likely to vote yes again.
And those who do read the voter guide (probably less than 10% of the voters) are the ones who have the brains to question why the proponent of an initiative is now saying “vote no”.
I think 91 has a damned good chance of passage, and even if it doesn’t, the very fact that enough of the signatures on the original petitions were valid to qualify the measure for the ballot even without all of the signatures being submitted for validation to send a message to the Legislature and the Governor that the voters do not want transportation funding diverted for other purposes.
Proposition 91 may have gotten on the ballot by accident, but we can still take advantage of it to slap Sacramento in the face.
You may be right, Kymberleigh. But I believe that most Californians are predisposed to vote against all propositions. They don’t need a lot of persuasion to vote against something….
Still, I’d like to know more about whether 91 protects funds for public transit, or prevents money from being used for that purpose. I feel that the ballot material had info in direct contradiction to what calwatch wrote (I can’t find it now to quote it).
Someone posted this analysis of Prop 91 on the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority riders union and recommends voting “no” because it will remove the fixes Prop 1A placed in to restrict usage of transportation of funds. Here’s a snippet of what they posted:
~~~
Okay, now for what Prop. 91 would do. It would eliminate the ability
to make future loans to the General Fund from the Transportation
Investment Fund, but it would extend the repayment of the past loans
(from 2003-04 and 2004-05) by one year, to June 30, 2017. But more
importantly (at least to me), Prop. 91 would remove “existing
constitutional restrictions that limit loans of Public Transportation
Account funds to the General Fund.” In other words, such loans would
not be required to be repaid within three fiscal years. To put it
even more simply, it removes the three-part Prop. 1A fix in one of the
three areas. This removal is in the area that looks like it would
hurt public transit the most (more than the other two areas). Because
of this, I would like to ask that SCVTARU take an official position
against Prop.91, like we took an official position for Prop. 1A of
November 2006. Eugene, please do what you need to do to get this
process moving.
Steven, was this internal discussion on the SCVTARU mailing list or a public post on a blog? if the latter, it would be nice to have a link so that the pro-91 people could respond.
I just got my ballot. Here are quotes excerpted from the official material (emphasis added):
Honestly, I can’t see why you guys are supporting this. Is this a case of completely misleading ballot material?
Okay, without getting to lawyerly. Prop 91 effectively restricts diversions in all except extreme cases. The “may” language over transit is when roads funding is used for transit improvements. Theoretically a bus turnout could be unfunded as part of a roads improvement project but not in practice. The may reduce local transit funding is one of those catch 22 clauses. When the State is forced to fund transport projects municipalities will of course have to fund their share as well. the delays of recent years have allowed munis to use their money for other projects including transit.
Okay, clear as mud? now for how Prop 991 will work: it will force the State to fund roads projects and it will force munis to actually build those projects. Yep, money that had been dribbling into transit might dry up in the short term. In the long term however the total lifecycle costs of transportation projects will go down and the economy will improve to more than offset those temporary numbers. There will be more transportation money and lower transportation costs and thus more transit money.
Thanks for clearing things up Rob.
You are quite welcome.
Two more points before Kym loses her voice entirely talking about this issue.
1. Under 91 transit projects get the same strong protection as any other transportation project. Less account shuffling and delays. The empty threat is that the State will be less likely to approve any projects but in practice not in a term limits world.
2. Transit advocates need to be careful that if 91 loses and the State guts transport projects there might be a majority backlash that blames transit advocates for bad traffic. As it stands now I think 91 is losing by 6-10 points but the huge mail-in
vote and loss of fidelity in phone polls make that a guess.
The fiscal emergency to be announced in a few days will grow by ~$1.5b (FY 07-08) if 91 does pass and the next budget while it won’t technically suffer will nonetheless have to acknowledge another ~$2b in operating deficit.
I wish we could overhaul our whole State budgeting process and repeal Proposition 13, Proposition 98, and the 2/3-vote budget rule, so we could have some sanity in our state Budgeting process. However, it will snow in Aruba before that happens, so it’s important to protect transportation funding and Prop 91 if nothing sends a message that what happened last year was not acceptable.
Dan W. suggests; “repeal Proposition 13.”
Be very very careful. Very simply Prop 13 says your taxes are based upon what you paid in an arms length transaction. Think about transit and isn’t that the same? Now. Change to transit fares based upon the highest price someone was willing to pay for a similar ride anytime in the past. Not the market value, not what you paid but the highest price that was paid. Gosh, we could get a whole lot more money right? Right?
Prop 13 has caused a number of financial issues, but you also have to remember why it was put in place originally. Is it fair for someone to lose their house because the taxes on the house have gone up dramatically? Remembering that this can be a major problem if you have lived in a house for a long time in any heavily populated area like Los Angeles and San Francisco (and especially in situations like the fairly recent housing market bubble).
Raphael, this never stopped many ballot propositions from passing, including ones that required 2/3 passage for bonded debt.
http://subwaytothesea.org/moveLAconference/invitation.htm
I’m surprised this isn’t a blog item today, but since we are talking about transportation funding, I wish the Los Angeles County Transportation Funding Collaborative all the luck in the world today with their conference.
I will pay any reasonable additional tax or fee necessary to finance the construction of our desperately needed rail system.
Cleary MetroRiderLA has been slacking a bit… We’ll be back to full speed soon I promise.
I love the new look and format, btw.
Does anyone know what organizations and/or people are endorsing this proposition?
Rob — Help me out here. I’m reading the analysis in my voter info guide, and the issue re: public transit money getting siphoned off isn’t quite as you described in comment #8 — at least it seems to me. (If I’ve simply misunderstood your comment, pls correct me)
To make sure I’m on the right track: From what I gather, we’re talking about 1) local transportation funds, and 2) state transportation funds. The state transportation funds are composed of 2 sections: the PTA (public transportation account), which is used only for public transit, and the TIF (transportation investment fund), which is used for highways and streets as well as public transit.
Assuming that’s correct: According to the analysis (page 9), prop 91 gets rid of restrictions that limit loans of public transportation account funds to the general fund. More alarmingly, it’s unclear if the restrictions that this prop would put on diverting money from state transportation funds to the general fund apply to the public transportation account funds! To quote the analysis, “the measure may be interpreted to allow PTA funds to be loaned to the General Fund with no express time limitation for repayment”!!! In addition, the language of Prop 91 ALSO leaves open the possibility that local transportation funds could be siphoned off by the state general fund!!!
What I gather from the analysis (and again, please do correct me if I’m wrong — I’m just trying to gather all info before I cast my vote) is that Prop 91 would close one loophole (preventing the transportation investment fund from getting siphoned off by the general fund) but open another huge loophole (allowing both the public transportation account and local transportation funds to get siphoned off by the general fund) with negative consequences for public transit.
Am I missing something? Please tell me if so. I’m a little surprised no one else has yet brought these issues up. Am happy re: the lively discussion though –
Actually, you are. The LAO’s analysis is incorrect and others, including transit agencies, have a different opinion. LA County Public Works (which, in addition to running the flood control system and a few roads, also runs a fledgling bus system in the unincorporated area) said, to quote:
At the same time, the LAO indicates this
measure may be interpreted to allow public transit funds, which are not part of the TIF, to
be loaned to the General Fund with no express time limitation for repayment, which may
make the availabiliy of these funds for public transit less stable. The Department of Public
Works (DPW) concur with the LAO’s interpretation, and states that LAO’s assessment that
this measure may make the availabilty of public transit funds less stable is not a result of
Proposition 91 if passed, but it is due to existing law which does not protect public transit
funds from being loaned to the General Fund.
http://lacounty.info/omd/q1_2008/cms1_081662.pdf
So with all due respect, this isn’t as easy an issue as you have made it. A transit operator’s board (the County Board of Supervisors) voted to support the measure. Vote YES.
[crossposted on greenlagirl.com]
Dude, that doesn’t even conflict with what I said! First of all, the DPW says it CONCURS with the LAO, NOT that it has “a different opinion,” as you wrote. The DWP merely points out that Prop 91 alone is not to blame, as it’s the problematic existing laws that’re muddying up the issue.
Basically, Prop 91 makes it tougher to siphon off the money from the transportation investment fund, while not tightening up the restrictions on the public transportation account. This means that while at the moment, the general fund can still use loopholes to tap into both funds, if 91 passes, it’ll only be able to tap into the public transportation account. Basically, highway money would get more protection under prop 91, while the public transport money would get no additional protection — thereby making it more vulnerable.
So yes, it’s the existing law that allows the general fund to borrow from the state transportation funds that is the root of the problem, but fixing the loophole for freeway money while not fixing the one for public transportation money is not an acceptable solution, IMHO.
I’ll have to disagree and say that roads benefit transit too, and vice versa. It is short sighted to think that improvements in local streets won’t help transit, or that $61 million in LA County unincorporated funds potentially missing if Proposition 91 fails won’t hurt transit riders as well (since that money in the road fund goes for road resurfacing, crosswalks, traffic signals, etc. which help all users in the road right of way… remember that most new local streets nowadays in LA County are paid for by developers anyway). I hate this knee jerk attitude that “roads bad, transit good” which you are claiming, and closing one loophole will indirectly help the other, not hurt transit users. But to each their own and I am disappointed in your opposition.
[crossposted on greenlagirl.com]
I agree that buses also do use roads, obviously. But your comment elides the issues I raised altogether. My point was that the passage of prop 91 would tighten restrictions on siphoning off the transportation investment fund, while leaving the public transportation account as vulnerable as it already is (and potentially more vulnerable, since the TIF can no longer be tapped as easily for the general fund, thus leaving the PTA as the only transit-related fund to be tapped).
Your argument on your MetroRiderLA post — and your comments on that post, not only failed to mention the issues I raised but worked to obscure them. You argued that Prop 91 simply closes loopholes, without mentioning the fact that the prop closes loopholes ONLY for the TIF.
While I’m sure that MetroRiderLA readers and writers recognize that improved roads would benefit Metro buses, I also believe most MetroRiderLA readers and writers would agree that such improvements would benefit individual drivers much more than they do transit riders. The costs of the improvements, of course, would weigh as heavily on transit riders as they do on drivers.
At this point, your basically arguing that despite the fact that Prop 91 might siphon off public transit funds, we should still vote for it because it would improve roads. Never in your argument do you point out that the improvements will benefit individual drivers much more than they do public transit takers.
I’ve never said that roads are bad — after all, buses drive on roads, and I take those all the time! I’ve said that I’m against the expansion of freeways, and that I’m against funds going towards that effort.
Prop 91’s already a dead issue, so perhaps arguing this is a bit of a moot point. Still, I’m both puzzled and disappointed by your effort to obfuscate the issue, clouding the facts while pretending to clarify the measure for MetroRiderLA readers. I don’t know what your background or history is, and I have no idea why you’re in support of this bizarre measure or what you might have to gain from it. But more than anything, if what you really think we’ll get out of Prop 91 is simply better roads that’ll mostly benefit drivers, I’m confused as to why you’re going into great lengths to promote the measure on a blog that’s concerned with benefiting transit riders.
(crossposted on metroriderla.com) I find it bizarre that you are now attacking my motives (I’ve posted on metroriderLA for quite some time) and I’m not going far off the reservation… SO.CA.TA has taken a position on this, and for good reason. And Prop 91 never siphoned off all PTA funds (that’s not what the strikethrough did). Would you like it if your motives were questioned? Then please read what you see and step back before you question mine.
In any case, you should be glad that 91 is failing, but I am glad that, despite virtually no campaign for the measure and the overwhelming newspaper and popular consensus against, it’s still getting 45% of the vote, more than a measure (92) which actually had a campaign for and against.
I find it interesting that you are no longer even addressing my arguments — or defending your own — on Prop 91.
Of course Prop 91 never siphoned off all PTA funds — It’s not even passing, let alone taking effect to siphon off any funds. I actually don’t understand large parts of your comment (what does “I’m not going far off the reservation” or “please read what you see” mean? I have no idea what “reservation” you’re talking about, or how I’m not reading what I see….). In any case, I’m glad the measure’s failing.