November 20, 2006

Californians Agree with Chamber on November 2006 Propositions

Californians overwhelmingly agreed with the Corona Chamber on the 2006 propositions. “This was a very successful election for the economy and citizens of California. The people have voted to re-elect Governor Schwarzenegger, who is committed to a strong economy, favorable business climate and job creation,’ stated Bobby Spiegel, President and CEO of the Corona Chamber.

“Californians have rejected: anti-business tax increases, increased gasoline prices and an attempt to stifle the ability of the business community to communicate with the voters,” stated Tom Kenney, Chairman of the Corona Chamber’s Legislative Action Committee. “In rejecting these propositions, Californians have demonstrated also their distaste for the creation of new, unaccountable bureaucracies and programs that operate outside the normal legislative budget and oversight process,” Kenney continued.

The following is a detailed review of the impact of the Corona Chamber-supported Propositions approved by the voters on November 7, 2006:

Proposition 1A

California voters in 2002 overwhelmingly approved Proposition 42, which directed that sales taxes on gasoline be spent on transportation. The money previously was sent to the state’s General Fund. However, Proposition 42 included a loophole that lets Governors take or borrow the money in any budget year. The borrowing now exceeds $3.3 billion and has slowed or stalled transportation projects across the state. Proposition 1A prevents the legislature and the Governor from borrowing from the Proposition 42 transportation funds.

Proposition 1B

Proposition 1B enacts a $19.9 billion general obligation bond to fund repairs, reduce congestion, improve bridge safety, expand public transit, and improve port security statewide. The bond proposal also authorizes public/private transportation partnerships, application of the Design-Build method for these projects, and legislation to streamline the environmental review process.

Proposition 1C

This $2.85 billion housing bond provides funding for financial assistance to first-time homebuyers, incentives to build affordable rental housing, construction of temporary and permanent homeless shelters and helping urban communities develop vacant parcels.
 

Proposition 1D

Proposition 1D authorizes a $10.4 billion in general obligation bond to fund K-12 and Higher Education. Of this, $1.9 billion is allocated for K-12 new construction and $3.3 billion is allocated for K-12 modernization projects. The bond also provides $3.087 billion to public colleges and universities.

Proposition 1E

This $4 billion levee repair and flood control bond measure includes $3 billion for evaluating, repairing and replacing levees and flood control infrastructure in the Central Valley and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.  The Delta is made up of more than 1,100 miles of levees and is the source of drinking water for two-thirds of California’s population, as well as irrigation water for millions of acres of crops. The Delta also offers vital flood protection for the California Central Valley flood plains.

Proposition 84

This $5.3 billion general obligation bond funds projects relating to safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, waterway and natural resource protection, water pollution and contamination control, state and local park improvements, public access to natural resources, and conservation efforts. It also provides funding for emergency drinking water, and exempts such expenditures from public contract and procurement requirements to ensure immediate action for public safety.

The following is a detailed review of the impacts of the Corona Chamber-opposed Propositions rejected by the voters on November 7, 2006:

Proposition 86:

Proposition 86 would have raised taxes on a pack of cigarettes by $2.60, raising California’s excise tax to $3.47 on a single pack of cigarettes. The Corona Chamber believed increasing taxes on 14% of Californians (the number of people who use tobacco products in California) to fund 38 pages of new programs (as outlined in Proposition 86) is bad public policy.

Proposition 87

This measure would have imposed a tax on oil production in California to generate revenues to fund $4 billion in alternative energy programs over time.

Proposition 88:

Proposition 88 would have created a statewide parcel tax to fund specific K-12 education programs. The measure would have added a new section to the State Constitution that establishes an annual $50 tax on most parcels of land in California.

Proposition 89:

This measure would have made significant changes to state laws regarding the financing of campaigns for elected state offices and state ballot measures. Specifically, this proposition would have increased income tax rate on corporations and financial institutions by 0.2 percent to fund the financing of political campaigns.
 

Proposition 90:

Proposition 90 would have amended the California Constitution to require government to pay property owners for substantial economic losses resulting from some new laws and rules and will limit government authority to take ownership of private property. Proposition 90 was too extreme and poorly thought out. The Chamber opposed Proposition 90 because it contained hidden provisions that are unrelated to eminent domain and will cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

“California and our regional economy and population will continue to grow. We must prepare our state and region for the commerce and communities that will come. Californians have voted to invest in the critical infrastructure of our state and put us on the path to continued progress. They have voted to require that gas tax dollars paid at the pump be spent on transportation needs, and to expand and improve our state’s transportation, housing, education and levee systems. The Corona Chamber has been a strong supporter of this plan to improve our state’s infrastructure and we will remain at the forefront to help guide its implementation,” stated Kenney.

RECENT Story

October 25, 2006

Corona Chamber Urges  Community to Vote November 7th

The Corona Chamber urges its business community to vote on November 7, 2006. The Chamber recommends the following propositions on the ballot:

- SUPPORT Proposition 1A: Transportation Loop Hole
- SUPPORT: Proposition 1B: Transportation
- SUPPORT: Proposition 1C: Housing

- SUPPORT: Proposition 1D: Education
- SUPPORT: Proposition 1E: Levees/Flood Control
- SUPPORT: Proposition 84: Water Quality

- OPPOSE: Proposition 86: Tax on Cigarettes
- OPPOSE: Proposition 87: Oil Tax
- OPPOSE: Proposition 88: Parcel Tax Increase
- OPPOSE: Proposition 89: Political Campaign Funding
- OPPOSE: Proposition 90: Taxpayer Trap
 

- NO POSITION: Proposition 83: Sex Offenders

- NO POSITION: Proposition 85: Parental Abortion Notification

SUPPORT
Proposition 1A:
Transportation Investment Fund

California voters in 2002 overwhelmingly approved Proposition 42, which directed that sales taxes on gasoline be spent on transportation. The money previously was sent to the state’s General Fund. However, Proposition 42 included a loophole that lets Governors take or borrow the money in any budget year. The borrowing now exceeds $3.3 billion and has slowed or stalled transportation projects across the state. The measure is part of a statewide infrastructure improvement package by Senate Democrats. Torlakson and Sen. Don Perata have introduced the centerpiece proposal, SB 1024. This $10.3 billion infrastructure bond includes funding for transportation, affordable housing, shipping ports, rail transit, and related program.

SUPPORT
Proposition 1B:
Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, Port Security Bond Act

If approved by voters in November Proposition 1B will enact a $19.9 billion general obligation bond to fund repairs, reduce congestion, improve bridge safety, expand public transit, and improve port security statewide. The bond proposal also authorizes public/private transportation partnerships, application of the Design-Build method for these projects, and legislation to streamline the environmental review process.

SUPPORT
Proposition 1C:
Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006

The $2.85 billion housing bond will be Proposition 1C on the November ballot. The bond will provide funding for financial assistance to first-time homebuyers, incentives to build affordable rental housing, construction of temporary and permanent homeless shelters and helping urban communities develop vacant parcels:
 

SUPPORT

Proposition 1D

Education Facility Funding

Proposition 1D will authorize a statewide general obligation (G.O.) education in the amount of $10.416 billion. The education bond proposal authorizes the placement of a 10.4 billion general obligation bond to fund K-12 and Higher Education. Of this, $1.9 billion is allocated for K-12 new construction and $3.3 billion is allocated for K-12 modernization projects. The bond also provides $3.087 billion to public colleges and universities.

SUPPORT
Proposition 1E:
Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006

The $4 billion levee repair and flood control bond measure, AB 140 (Núñez; D-Los Angeles) will be Proposition 1E on the November ballot.

It includes $3 billion for evaluating, repairing and replacing levees and flood control infrastructure in the Central Valley and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
The Delta is made up of more than 1,100 miles of levees and is the source of drinking water for two-thirds of California’s population, as well as irrigation water for millions of acres of crops. The Delta also offers vital flood protection for the California Central Valley flood plains.

SUPPORT
Proposition 84:
Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements. Bonds. Initiative Statute.

Authorizes $5,388,000,000 in general obligation bonds, payable from the state’s General Fund, to fund projects relating to safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, waterway and natural resource protection, water pollution and contamination control, state and local park improvements, public access to natural resources, and conservation efforts. Provides funding for emergency drinking water, and exempts such expenditures from public contract and procurement requirements to ensure immediate action for public safety.

OPPOSE
Proposition 86:
Tax on Cigarettes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

This measure increases excise taxes on cigarettes (and, as discussed below, indirectly on other tobacco products) to provide funding for hospitals for emergency services as well as programs to increase access to health insurance for children, expand nursing education, support various new and existing health and education activities, curb tobacco use and regulate tobacco sales.

OPPOSE
Proposition 87:
Severance Tax on Oil Production in California.

Beginning in January 2007, the measure would impose a severance tax on oil production in California to generate revenues to fund $4 billion in alternative energy programs over time. (The term “severance tax” is commonly used to describe a tax on the production of any mineral or product taken from the ground, including oil.) The measure defines “producers,” who are required to pay the tax, broadly to include any person who extracts oil from the ground or water, owns or manages an oil well, or owns a royalty interest in oil.

OPPOSE
Proposition 88:
Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Proposition 88 creates a statewide parcel tax and uses the resulting revenue to fund specific K-12 education programs. It would take effect July 1, 2007. The measure adds a new section to the State Constitution that establishes an annual $50 tax on most parcels of land in California. (This dollar amount would not change over time.) For purposes of the measure, a “parcel” is defined as any unit of real property in the state that currently receives a separate local property tax bill. This definition would result in the vast majority of individuals and businesses that currently pay property taxes being subject to the new parcel tax. The measure exempts from the new tax any parcel owner who: (1) resides on the parcel, (2) is eligible for the state’s existing homeowner’s property tax exemption, and (3) is either 65 years of age or older or a severely and permanently disabled person.

OPPOSE
Proposition 89:
Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Contribution and Expenditure Limits. Initiative Statute.

This measure makes significant changes to state laws regarding the financing of campaigns for elected state offices and state ballot measures. The measure’s provisions regarding candidates for office generally affect only state elected officials. Specifically, this proposition increases income tax rate on corporations and financial institutions by 0.2 percent to fund program.

The proposition provides that candidates for state elective office meeting certain eligibility requirements, including collection of a specified number of $5.00 contributions from voters, may voluntarily receive public campaign funding from the Fair Political Practices Commission, in amounts varying by elective office and type of election. Increased revenues (primarily from increased taxes on corporations and financial institutions) totaling more than $200 million annually to pay for the public financing of political campaigns for state elected offices.

OPPOSE
Proposition 90:

Taxpayer Trap

Proposition 90 amends the California Constitution to require government to pay property owners for substantial economic losses resulting from some new laws and rules and will limit government authority to take ownership of private property. It is true, California may need to take policy steps to address eminent domain issues in our state but Proposition 90 is too extreme and poorly thought out. The Chamber opposes Prop 90 because it contains hidden provisions that are unrelated to eminent domain and will cost taxpayers billions of dollars. More importantly, Prop 90 will threaten our economy and job creation here. To make matters worse, provisions in Prop 90 will encourage thousands of frivolous and time-consuming lawsuits, and will tie up needed land-use planning in litigation delays. We agree, we need to find a better way to address eminent domain in our state, but proposition 90 does not do the job.