Written by Dan Smith
Last Modified: Saturday, Sep. 11, 2010 - 12:37 am
Proposition 22: Should the state be banned from taking or borrowing funds from local government and redevelopment agencies?
For nearly two decades, the state at various times has turned to cities, counties, special districts and redevelopment agencies for money to help bridge state budget gaps. Largely, the effort has involved "shifting" property tax funds from local governments to school districts, thereby reducing the state's obligation to use state funds to meet the minimum school funding level under Proposition 98. State officials also have taken aim at transportation funds, using gasoline tax money to pay for state transportation bonds, for instance, instead of sending the money to local agencies.
These practices have been the subject of lawsuits, and the state's approach has been altered at various times by ballot measures pushed by local government interests.
In 2004, voters required the Legislature to repay property tax money taken from local government, within three years. In 2006, gasoline taxes were restricted.
The debate comes down to public money and who should spend it � local governments or state government?
WHAT IT DOES
• Eliminates the state's ability to use gasoline tax revenue to repay transportation bonds that have been sold and restricts its ability to use the money for future bonds.
• Bans the state from using gasoline tax revenue to help balance the state budget or bridge a cash-flow crisis, and makes it more difficult for the Legislature to change the distribution of funds for state and local transportation needs.
• Bans the state from shifting property tax funds from local redevelopment agencies to schools.
• Bans state from shifting property taxes from local governments to schools to temporarily solve a state fiscal crisis.
• Forbids the Legislature to take any action that conflicts with the measure until Election Day.
WHAT IT COSTS
• According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the state would have about $1 billion less in the current fiscal year to help close the budget deficit.
• Because the gasoline tax money could not be used to repay transportation bonds, over the next 20 years the state would have about $1 billion less each year to make those payments.
• The inability to take or borrow redevelopment funds means that the state would have up to several billion less each year to help balance the budget.
• With the state restricted from borrowing or taking their money, local governments would have more money to spend on services.
MONEY WATCH
• Supporters have raised about $3.2 million, most of it from the League of California Cities. The league collects public funds from cities for its lobbying activities, but the campaign cash, under law, comes from the association's private enterprises, such as magazine advertising sales.
• Other large contributors include the California Transit Association and the California Alliance for Jobs.
• Opponents, led by public employee unions that stand to lose if more state budget cuts result from Proposition 22's passage, have created a campaign committee but have yet to file a report.
SUPPORTERS
• League of California Cities
• California Transit Association
• California Alliance for Jobs, a coalition of infrastructure construction companies and related labor unions
WHAT THEY SAY
• State officials' frequent raids on local government coffers to balance the state budget are hurting local services such as police and fire protection and road repairs.
• Gasoline taxes should be used for transportation purposes, not to help balance the state budget.
• Lawmakers exploit loopholes in current law to take local funds to spend as they please.
OPPONENTS
• California Teachers Association
• California Nurses Association
• California Professional Firefighters
WHAT THEY SAY
• The measure would remove money from the state budget, forcing cuts in schools and statewide emergency services and health care.
• The measure locks in funding for redevelopment agencies, which use property tax funds to make deals with developers and take property through eminent domain.
• The measure represents more "ballot-box budgeting," further restricting the choices officials have to balance the state's books.
ON THE WEB
http://www.savelocalservices.com
http://votenoprop22.com
Sources: Secretary of state, Legislative Analyst's Office, attorney general's office
© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.
For nearly two decades, the state at various times has turned to cities, counties, special districts and redevelopment agencies for money to help bridge state budget gaps. Largely, the effort has involved "shifting" property tax funds from local governments to school districts, thereby reducing the state's obligation to use state funds to meet the minimum school funding level under Proposition 98. State officials also have taken aim at transportation funds, using gasoline tax money to pay for state transportation bonds, for instance, instead of sending the money to local agencies.
These practices have been the subject of lawsuits, and the state's approach has been altered at various times by ballot measures pushed by local government interests.
In 2004, voters required the Legislature to repay property tax money taken from local government, within three years. In 2006, gasoline taxes were restricted.
The debate comes down to public money and who should spend it � local governments or state government?
WHAT IT DOES
• Eliminates the state's ability to use gasoline tax revenue to repay transportation bonds that have been sold and restricts its ability to use the money for future bonds.
• Bans the state from using gasoline tax revenue to help balance the state budget or bridge a cash-flow crisis, and makes it more difficult for the Legislature to change the distribution of funds for state and local transportation needs.
• Bans the state from shifting property tax funds from local redevelopment agencies to schools.
• Bans state from shifting property taxes from local governments to schools to temporarily solve a state fiscal crisis.
• Forbids the Legislature to take any action that conflicts with the measure until Election Day.
WHAT IT COSTS
• According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the state would have about $1 billion less in the current fiscal year to help close the budget deficit.
• Because the gasoline tax money could not be used to repay transportation bonds, over the next 20 years the state would have about $1 billion less each year to make those payments.
• The inability to take or borrow redevelopment funds means that the state would have up to several billion less each year to help balance the budget.
• With the state restricted from borrowing or taking their money, local governments would have more money to spend on services.
MONEY WATCH
• Supporters have raised about $3.2 million, most of it from the League of California Cities. The league collects public funds from cities for its lobbying activities, but the campaign cash, under law, comes from the association's private enterprises, such as magazine advertising sales.
• Other large contributors include the California Transit Association and the California Alliance for Jobs.
• Opponents, led by public employee unions that stand to lose if more state budget cuts result from Proposition 22's passage, have created a campaign committee but have yet to file a report.
SUPPORTERS
• League of California Cities
• California Transit Association
• California Alliance for Jobs, a coalition of infrastructure construction companies and related labor unions
WHAT THEY SAY
• State officials' frequent raids on local government coffers to balance the state budget are hurting local services such as police and fire protection and road repairs.
• Gasoline taxes should be used for transportation purposes, not to help balance the state budget.
• Lawmakers exploit loopholes in current law to take local funds to spend as they please.
OPPONENTS
• California Teachers Association
• California Nurses Association
• California Professional Firefighters
WHAT THEY SAY
• The measure would remove money from the state budget, forcing cuts in schools and statewide emergency services and health care.
• The measure locks in funding for redevelopment agencies, which use property tax funds to make deals with developers and take property through eminent domain.
• The measure represents more "ballot-box budgeting," further restricting the choices officials have to balance the state's books.
ON THE WEB
http://www.savelocalservices.com
http://votenoprop22.com
Sources: Secretary of state, Legislative Analyst's Office, attorney general's office
© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/09/11/3021098/ballot-watch-ban-on-state-using.html#ixzz0zMejYWXW
No comments:
Post a Comment