XX

Go Back

November, 2002 Ballot Propositions
Recommendations from the Board of Directors of
California Church IMPACT

PROPOSITION 46: Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002

Proposition 46 is a legislative bond measure that would permit the state to issue $2.1 billion in general obligation bonds to fund a number of programs that provide housing for moderate and low-income and homeless Californians.

Program components include: low-interest loans and grants to private and non-profit developers and cities for the construction of apartments; down payment assistance for low- and moderate-income families to enable them to purchase homes; loans and grants to developers of farm worker housing; and funds for the construction of homeless shelters.

Proponents state that the bonds will be paid back out of existing resources and will not require a tax increase. Supporters point out that the State Department of Housing reported that over 360,000 Californians are homeless. This measure would double the number of emergency shelter beds and increase the number of shelter beds for battered women. In doing this the state will help homeless children attend neighborhood schools. Proponents also say that the measure would help provide safe and clean housing for senior citizens and low income families, affordable housing for working people, accessibility improvements for disabled Californians, and loan assistance for military veterans, teachers, police, and firefighters.

Opponents argue that money to repay the bonds comes from the general fund, which means that since there is no surplus there, repayment can come only from other programs or a tax increase.

Opponents say that there is no mention of battered women's housing in the measure and programs to provide such housing will have to compete for funds with all other proposals that developers might make. They claim that the places where affordable housing is most needed - the suburbs of large cities - won't qualify because the measure was written to favor urban downtowns. Opponents also state that the best way to get more housing built is to reduce the red tape builders experience. Prop. 46 does not address that problem.

The Board of California Church IMPACT recommends a "YES" vote on Proposition 46. The evidence of the need for more housing for low- and moderate-income and homeless Californians is obvious and undeniable. Governments are an important player in solving the problem. While bond measures are not free money, California is a wealthy state, even with the present budget crisis. The state finds ways to aid business, farmers, movie-makers, and other groups. It can surely fund this bond measure to assist these other Californians in need.

PROPOSITION 47: Education Facilities Bond Act of 2002

Proposition 47 is a legislative bond measure that would permit the state to issue $13 billion in general obligation bonds to fund construction and renovation of K-12 and higher education facilities.

Proponents point out that students can't learn and teachers can't teach in overcrowded and rundown classrooms. This measure they say will build new schools; repair and renovate old and outdated schools; fix leaky roofs, repair bathrooms, and put heating and air conditioning in classrooms. Further, supporters say, the measure guarantees that new schools will be built where classes are already overcrowded and in new communities to build the schools they need. It will also build new college classrooms to accommodate the tens of thousands of new students who will enter the state's campuses in the next few years. Proponents also say that the measure provides for audits, cost controls, and other accountability efforts to guard against waste and mismanagement.

Opponents state that the state is already overburdened with bond debt. As a result, the bond grading services have reduced California's credit rating to the third lowest in the country.

Opponents point out the way the measure is written, the Los Angeles school district is eligible for more than 24% of the funds though it serves only 12% of the states students. They further say that because of the way the measure is written school districts may tie up large sums of money without building or repairing any schools while districts with great needs wait for funds to be available.

The Board of California Church IMPACT recommends a "YES" vote on Proposition 47. Even opponents of Proposition 47 agree that there "is no doubt that the school facilities shortage in our state is a serious problem that needs to be addressed." State- sponsored bond measures have worked well in the past to deal with similar problems at both K-12 and college levels. Proposition 47 carries enough internal controls to assure that funds are used properly to meet those needs.

Proposition 48: Court Consolidation. Legislative Constitutional Amendment

Proposition 48 is a legislative constitutional amendment which makes technical changes to the state constitution related to the court consolidation measure (Proposition 220) passed by California voters in 1998. Prop. 48 deletes obsolete provisions relating to the creation of municipal courts, eligibility requirements for municipal court judges, and the consolidation of municipal and superior courts.

Proponents argue that these are simply technical changes in the state constitution passed unanimously by the Legislature to implement Prop. 220 adopted by the voters four years ago.

Opponents suggest the elimination of municipal courts (which the voters enacted in 1998) in favor of a single "superior court" in each county has created at least the appearance of unfairness and has made local courts more insular and less accountable.

The Board of California Church IMPACT takes "NO POSITION" on Proposition 48 because the substance of this Proposition falls outside the purview of our work.

Proposition 49: Before and After School Programs. Initiative Statute

Proposition 49 is an initiative statute that would increase state funding for after-school programs beginning in fiscal year 2004-2005. Currently, California spends $136.8 million (this includes both state and federal funds) for after-school programs in public elementary and junior high schools. Currently, about 10% of eligible students participate in these programs, which provide tutoring and recreational activities outside the regular school day. Beginning in 2004, Proposition 49 would increase state spending to $550 million annually if state revenues grow beyond a specified target. Every public elementary and junior high school in the state would be eligible to receive funding under Proposition 49.

Proponents argue that current spending levels are woefully inadequate to meet the needs of students after the end of the school day. Studies demonstrate that high quality after-school programs increase academic test scores and dramatically reduce youth crime rates during the 3 p.m. -6 p.m. weekday hours. Prop. 49 also provides more funding flexibility, allowing community and faith-based groups to partner with the public schools in expanding programs in needed communities.

Opponents suggest that given California's fiscal distress, the state can ill-afford to earmark any additional money for after-school programs when huge deficits continue to loom on the horizon. Prop. 49 amounts to "ballot box budgeting," opponents suggest. The state's fiscal priorities should be set by the Legislature, and should be weighed against all the state's pressing needs.

The Board of California Church IMPACT recommends a "YES" vote on Proposition 49 because after-school programs serve two critical goals: improving academic performance and reducing crime rates. While the IMPACT Board is generally wary of ballot-box budgeting, California has severely under-funded this important program area. Prop 49 specifically allows the state to make a quantum leap in expanding after school programs to virtually every elementary and middle school in California.

Proposition 50: Water Quality, Supply and Safe Drinking Water Projects. Coastal Wetlands Purchase and Protection. Bonds. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 50 is an initiative supported by environmental groups which would authorize $3.44 billion in general obligations bonds, to be repaid from the state's General Fund. Prop. 50 would pay for a variety of water projects, including: CALFED Bay-Delta programs, urban and agricultural water efficiency projects, efforts to reduce Colorado River use, preservation of coastal wetlands, and drinking water supply, quality and security projects. A water bond proposal placed on the ballot by the Legislature was approved by voters in 2000, and been committed to projects. Had California's fiscal health not deteriorated, the Legislature may have approved a similar measure this year, choosing instead the housing and school facilities bonds as its priorities.

Proponents claim that pollution, drought, and population growth threaten safe and reliable water supplies, and argue that the increased threat of terrorism requires additional efforts to protect California's domestic water resources. The cleanup of pollution will safeguard drinking water and beaches and coastal fisheries.

Opponents, who include taxpayer groups, acknowledge the growing water crisis, and claim too much of previous bond funds have been spent on studies, to the neglect of increasing water supplies. They argue that the funds on Prop. 50 would be better spent on building large storage reservoirs, and that Prop. 50 is weighted too heavily toward environmental interests at the expense of long range supply.

The Board of California Church IMPACT recommends a "YES" vote on Proposition 50. The IMPACT Board is concerned about committing General Fund resources through the initiative process, which circumvents the normal legislative process. Nevertheless, Prop. 50 would maintain momentum in addressing California's urgent water challenges, which most careful observers believe will evolve into a more severe period of ongoing crises and conflicts. Proposition 50 would advance the common good by protecting and developing California's water resources in ways which improve efficiency and protect the environment.

Proposition 51: Transportation. Distribution of Existing Motor Vehicle Sales and Use Tax. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 51 is an initiative statute which would make changes in the way that the state funds transportation-related projects. Specifically, this initiative would transfer 30 percent of the state's share of sales tax revenues generated by automobile sales to a variety of transportation and environmental programs, allocating these funds to 17 specific spending categories.

Proponents argue that the cost of meeting the state's transportation infrastructure is greater than the current level of resources dedicated to this purpose. They suggest that Prop 51 would provide additional resources to fund critical transportation systems that are susceptible to political gridlock through the legislative process.

Opponents argue that Proposition 51 is another illustration of "ballot box" budgeting, and would, over the long term, reduce funds available for other important programs and services, including health care, local government, public safety and higher education. Earmarking state resources for specific purposes reduces the state's ability to respond to changes in the state's fiscal circumstances and adapt to changing needs and priorities.

The Board of California Church IMPACT takes "NO POSITION" on Proposition 51. While acknowledging the many important transportation projects funded under Proposition 51, the IMPACT Board does not believe that these issues should be addressed through the initiative process.

Proposition 52: Election Day Voter Registration. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 52, placed on the ballot by initiative petition, would allow persons who are legally eligible to vote and have valid identification to register to vote on election day at their polling place. Proposition 52 also requires trained staff at polling places to manage registration. It would increase penalties for fraud, and make conspiracy to commit voter fraud a crime.

Proponents say that current fraud provisions in election law are too weak and that Prop. 52 will make voter fraud more difficult by increasing penalties and by requiring election officials to report suspected fraud to district attorneys. They say Prop. 52 will help turn around dismal voter turnout.

Opponents say that the fraud protections in Prop. 52 are ineffective and difficult to enforce, which will allow felons and non-citizens to vote, and that the rights of legitimate voters to have their votes counted will be compromised. They assert that this proposition will be ineffective in reversing low turnout.

The Board of California Church IMPACT recommends a "YES" vote on Proponents 52, as a means of making voting more accessible to those who would otherwise be eligible. Proposition 52 will not by itself reverse the declining rates of civic engagement and voter participation, but it is a step in the right direction and will enable voting by citizens who, for a variety of legitimate circumstances, are now excluded.

clip and save

Proposition 46 YES

Proposition 47 YES

Proposition 48 NO POSITION

Proposition 49 YES

Proposition 50 YES

Proposition 51 NO POSITION

Proposition 52 YES

clip and save

Go Back