|
|
|
BERKELEY -- California voters Tuesday rejected a well-funded but much-criticized ballot measure that would have shifted millions in state funds to transportation projects -- many of them supported by developers who contributed to the campaign. Updated Nov. 6, 1:00 pm
With nearly two-thirds of precincts counted, 58 percent of voters opposed the measure and only 42 percent approved. The proposition trailed in 56 of the state's 58 counties.
"It seems that voters have rejected Prop. 51 more out of a concern that campaign contributions unduly affected the content of the initiative," said Eric Wooten of the League of Women Voters of California, one of the proposal's active opponents.
Supporters of Proposition 51, also known as the "Traffic Congestion Relief and Safe School Bus Trust Fund," said it would provide much needed money for programs ranging from light rail projects to wildlife crossings to new school buses.
It would require the state to redirect 30 percent of all revenues from vehicle sales taxes to the newly created transportation fund. The state attorney general estimates the fund would total $910 million in its first full year, and increase annually in line with sales taxes.
"California has the worst traffic congestion in the nation and the worst school bus fleet," said Eddy Moore of the Planning and Conservation League, the measure's chief sponsor.
Delaine McCullough of the California Budget Project said Proposition 51 would earmark an average of $130 million a year for 10 years for already designated projects. The measure would not raise taxes.
Some of these projects drew vehement criticism from the measure's opponents, who said donors had too much control over the projects that were selected. One such project is a $120 million rail line that would help serve a casino run by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, which gave $500,000 to help get Proposition 51 passed.
"It's politics by contribution at its worst," said Berkeley councilwoman Miriam Hawley, who sponsored a city declaration of opposition. "We have needs that might be more pressing than a rail line to an Indian casino."
But Moore said donors didn't have the final say on which projects were chosen.
"There's nothing wrong with people who think they're going to benefit if a project gets built … supporting the project," said Moore.
Others were concerned that forcing the state to expend certain funds on transportation without raising taxes could force it to cut vital programs during difficult financial times.
"This robbing Peter to pay Paul, we just can't be a part of that," said Wooten.
In the heated debate, both sides worked fiercely to sway public opinion.
Supporters raised more than $4.7 million in support of Proposition 51. Opponents raised just $95,000.
But opponents came out swinging in newspaper editorials and in public exchanges with supporters.
In a public letter addressed to the Planning and Conservation League, Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, D-San Francisco, said: "My astonishment and fury continue to escalate at the shortsighted, simplistic and heartless approach that the Planning and Conservation League (PCL) is trying to impose on the State of California's budget."
The Planning and Conservation League said the media have been distracted by the measure's donor list.
"The story that's been missed is simply telling people what Proposition 51 does," said Moore. "A total of 10 percent of the money in the first 10 years goes to projects. After that, 98 percent is non-project-specific funding."
"In the long run, we have always under-invested in school transportation," said Delaine Eastin, the state superintendent for public schools, who also supported Proposition 51.
Other money earmarked as part of Proposition 51 included:
$137 million to build connections between Route 56 and Interstate 5 near San Diego;
$10 million to help build the Oakland School for the Arts;
$7 million for the California State Railway Museum.
By far, the biggest portion of funds, totaling 48 percent, would have been allocated for passenger rail and bus systems, aimed at increasing use of public transit. Eight percent would have been used to buy new school buses. Other spending would have gone to projects attempting to improve bicycle and pedestrian travel, reduce traffic congestion, increase safety, purchase land for wildlife and lower diesel emissions.