On Tuesday, Nov. 7, citizens across the city will head to the polls. With a number of important propositions on the ballot, the North Shore/Point Loma unit of the League of Women Voters of San Diego wants its residents to be prepared. The group held a open forum on the pros and cons of California ballot measures on Wednesday, Oct. 11, at the Pacific Beach Taylor Branch Library.
“Democracy is not a spectator sport, you have to be informed,” said Nancy Witt, co-chair of the North Shore/Point Loma unit, before she introduced Anne Hoiberg, a member of the league’s speakers bureau.
Hoiberg explained that the league has two separate and distinct roles: voter service and citizen education, and action and advocacy. While the league is a nonpartisan political organization, the action and advocacy portion does hold a position on the ballot measures.
“I haven’t even looked at the league’s positions,” Hoiberg began. “I’m trying to be as unbiased as possible.”
While there are three city measures and one county measure, Hoiberg’s presentation focused on the 13 state propositions.

PROP 1A
Hoiberg began with Proposition 1A, which proposes to amend the California Constitution for transportation funding protection. Hoiberg explained that in 2002 voters amended the California Constitution so that the 6 percent sales tax on gasoline, which raises about $2 billion a year for state governments, be used for transportation, except in a state budget emergency.
According to the 2006 Easy Voter Guide, between 2003 and 2005, this money was used to help balance the state budget, not for transportation. Proposition 1A would make further changes to the California Constitution to ensure that those funds are used for transportation, including traffic congestion relief projects, safety improvements and local streets and roads.
The amendment would only authorize loans of these funds in the case of severe state fiscal hardship and would restrict the number of loans to no more than two in any 10-year period and must be repaid with interest to transportation within three years.
Hoiberg added that this, along with some of the other propositions, is a California Constitutional amendment. “Those are something you want to look at more closely,” Hoiberg said.
She explained that Propositions 1B through 1E are bond issues. Bonds are a way for the government to borrow money: the government sells the bonds for cash and pays them back with interest, usually over 30 years, out of the state budget’s General Fund.

PROP 1B
Proposition 1B would borrow nearly $20 billion to fund various transportation improvements and repairs such as adding lanes to reduce traffic congestion, expanding local transit and improving air quality, earthquake safety and security. It would cost the state $39 billion to pay off the bond: $20 billion in principal plus $19 billion in interest over 30 years.

PROP 1C
Proposition 1C would borrow $2.85 billion for housing projects and related development in urban areas and near public transportation. It would also provide assistance for renters, first-time and low-income homebuyers, as well as provide farm worker housing, homeless shelters and other programs. It would cost the state $6.1 billion to pay off the $2.85 billion bond plus thanks to $3.3 billion in interest over 30 years.

PROP 1D
Proposition 1D would borrow $10.4 billion to build and upgrade educational facilities; $7.3 billion would go to kindergarten through grade 12 schools, most of which would require local matching funds; $3.1 billion would go for community colleges and public universities. It would cost the state $20.3 billion to pay off the $10.4 billion bond due to $9.9 billion in interest over 30 years.

PROP 1E
Proposition 1E would borrow $4.1 billion for flood control projects, $3 billion to repair levees and add flood protection in the Central Valley and $1.1 billion for flood safety projects elsewhere in California. It would cost the state $3.9 billion in interest after paying off the $4.1 billion bond over 30 years, adding up to a cool $8 billion.
According to Hoiberg, it comes down to priorities and money management. Many residents at the meeting suggested that the borrowing more money would simply increase the state’s budget problems. Each proposition accrues interest equal to or greater than the principal, meaning that the state really is going to pay as much for the loan as it will get out of the deal.
“Not only will we be paying these debts, but our children and grandchildren, and I don’t think that’s fair,” said one guest. However, others expressed concerns over flooding after the tragic events of hurricane Katrina, as well as the high numbers of homeless people in San Diego, which could be addressed with these propositions.
Among the more controversial ballot issues are Propositions 83, 85, 86 and 87. All except Proposition 83 are California Constitutional amendments.

PROP 83
Proposition 83, also known as Jessica’s Law, would increase penalties for offenses by broadening the definition of certain sex offenses, providing longer penalties for specified sex offenses, prohibiting probation instead of prison for some sex offenses and extending the parole period for specified sex offenders.
It would also require registered sex offenders to wear a Global Positioning System (GPS) device for the rest of their lives and would prohibit the offender from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park. Finally, the proposition would change the law regarding sexually violent predators (SVP).
This measure would have numerous fiscal effects on the state and local agencies, including increases in state prison, parole, GPS monitoring and state SVP program costs. According to Hoiberg, the public has to “decide whether or not it’s to our benefit.”

PROP 85
Proposition 85 regards a waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor’s pregnancy. Currently a pregnant minor (an unmarried girl under 18 years old) can get an abortion in California without telling her parents. Proposition 85 would change the California Constitution to require a doctor to notify a parent or guardian at least 48 hours before performing the abortion. The law would not require the parent to agree to the abortion.
The physician would provide notification through personal written notification or mail notification. The parent or guardian does not have to be notified in the case of medical emergency if the minor has a waiver approved by the parent or guardian or a waiver approved by the courts. The state would also have to report certain information to the state Department of Health Services.
The full fiscal impact of this measure is unknown; however, there will be increases in state health agency administrative costs to develop the new forms needed to implement the measure. The measure would also increase juvenile and appellate court administration costs.
Many audience members expressed concern that this measure proposes a constitutional amendment, which would make it harder to reverse in the future, and wondered why it could not simply be a state law.

PROP 86
Proposition 86 would impose an additional $.13 tax on each cigarette distributed ($2.60 per pack) and comparable tax increases on other tobacco products such as loose tobacco and snuff. The money raised from this tax would be spent only on hospital emergency care, children’s health insurance and other health programs.
While audience members agreed that the money raised would be used well, some raised concerns about what other “bad habits” could be taxed in the future.
“Are they going to start chipping away at our right to live dangerously?” Hoiberg reiterated after an audience member pondered the possible tax increase on another guilty pleasure, Coca-Cola.

PROP 87
Finally, Proposition 87 would establish a $4 billion program with the goal to reduce petroleum consumption by 25 percent, with research and production incentives for alternative energy, alternative energy vehicles, energy-efficient technologies and for education and training.
A severance tax of 1.5 percent to 6 percent (depending on oil price per barrel) on producers of oil extracted in California would fund the program. The measure would also prohibit the producers from passing the tax on to consumers. The tax would only be issued as long as it takes to bring in the $4 billion to pay for the program.
Major concerns about this measure are that with the high tax California will produce less oil and therefore become more dependent on foreign oil, which could in turn increase gas prices at the pump. However, the purpose of the measure is to shift away from dependence on gasoline and diesel fuel and find alternative sources of energy.
Hoiberg concluded the meeting by reminding the audience to carefully consider their decisions at the ballot box.
For more information, visit the Secretary of State’s Web site at www.ss.ca.gov or refer to the California General Election Official Voter Information Guide.