Prop. 91 -- Transportation
Recommendation: NO
Write-up author: Jan Arnold, Alameda County

This proposal has an unusual history. The "Transportation Funding Protection
Act" (TFPA) was an initiative circulated by an alliance of construction
companies and building trades unions who were frustrated by years of
diversions (by the State legislature) of transportation money set aside
under Proposition 42 (which passed in 2002). That measure dedicated most of
the gas tax revenue to improving streets, highways, and transit systems. The
proponents paid for about a million signatures. Legislative leaders got the
message and placed Proposition 1A on the November 2006 ballot, covering the
same issues, where it passed easily. The proponents of the TFPA turned in
some, but not all, of their signatures, while they were keeping the
conversation going with legislative leaders, but they were not intending to
actually qualify the measure. Because of a higher than expected signature
validity rate, the initiative qualified.

Meanwhile, its proponents had decided Proposition 1A was good enough to
support. In the space where we would expect to see an argument FOR Prop 91,
there's a request that we vote No, as the TFPA is no longer needed. (Nobody
submitted an argument against it.) But sometimes the original proponents are
settling for less than an ideal solution and we Greens (who take our stand
based on future focus) might actually want to pick up the banner that they
have dropped. Could this be one of those times?

The official Ballot Label says this measure, if passed, "increases stability
of state funding for highways, streets, and roads and may decrease stability
of state funding for public transit. May reduce stability of certain local
funds for public transit." That suggests Greens and other advocates of
transit funding should vote No. There's a general question about keeping
some public funds in a "lockbox." In this case, both the existing law (1A)
and this proposal allow for emergency exceptions, which is something we
should accept. (If a family member had a serious emergency, you might raid
your retirement fund despite your original plans.)  Since transportation
money is mostly going for roads, how serious are we about keeping it in a
lockbox? (But it seems that when transportation money is raided, the FIRST
to be raided is NOT the roads, but the transit stuff that we are really
trying to get more of.)

  Although these issues are complex, one progressive non-profit
transportation group that we are in touch with has told us they will likely
be opposing it, and we have not heard of any progressive groups or
individuals who are inclined to support it. In fact, we haven't heard of any
significant organizations at all who are supporting Prop. 91. Therefore, in
view of all of the above, we recommend a "No" vote on Prop. 91

=====================================================================

From San Francisco:


NO on 91: Prop 98 created funding for transit projects from Gas taxes, 20% goes
to public transportation, and 80% to roads. At the time, the SFGP opposed this
because too much funding was allocated to road development. Prop. 91 will
prevent the Governor and Legislature from raiding Prop 98 (Gas Tax) funds. This
closes the loophole that allows transportation funds to be borrowed. In 2006,
Prop 1A prevented the Governor from borrowing local government transportation
funding, which passed, so some funds within Prop 98 are banned. Recommend NO on
91, to allow the Governor to borrow these funds, in protest to the
disproportionate funding for highway projects over public transit.