Proposition 1A:
Transportation Funding Protection

Currently, the state levies two types of taxes on motor fuels: an excise tax of 18 cents per gallon on gasoline and diesel fuel (it’s generally referred to as the gas tax and raises about $2 billion per year) and a statewide 6 percent tax on the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel (which is generally called a sales tax and raises about $2 billion per year). Until Proposition 42 in 2002, most sales tax revenues were spent on general purpose government. Prop 42 required that, with some exceptions for fiscal emergencies, the sales tax must be spent on transportation. This measure requires Proposition 42 suspensions to be treated as loans to the General Fund that must be repaid in full, including interest, within three years of suspension. Further, the measure only allows suspension to occur twice in 10 consecutive years. We think it’s reasonable to devote taxes levied on gasoline and diesel fuel to transportation, and we support this measure.
We recommend a YES vote on Proposition 1A.

Proposition 1B:
Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, Port Security Bond Act of 2006
Proposition 1C:
Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006
Proposition 1D:
Education facilities—Kindergarten-
University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006
Proposition 1E:
Disaster Preparedness and
Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006

When legislators are desperate to appear to have accomplished something, particularly when an election approaches, they often turn to spending large amounts of money on massive projects. If they perceive a bonus for being bipartisan—in this case a Democratic legislature and Republican governor working together—they simply spend a little more until almost everyone has something to crow about. If the funds aren’t available to finance massive spending—i.e., we’re still operating with a long-term state budget deficit—then they float a bond and borrow more against the future. While this Schwarzenegger-Perata-Nunez package of funding targets popular and worthy projects, we approach with caution and a feeling that the larger picture may be missing.
Let’s see, do we want to prepare for disasters, provide efficient transportation, decent housing, a secure infrastructure and decent educational facilities? Well, yes, which is why the governor and legislators in Sacramento put this package together. Can we afford this? The transportation bond, 1B, would cost about $38.9 billion in principle and interest or $1.3 billion per year to repay over 30 years. The other three combined would cost about $34.4 billion and about $1.15 billion per year to repay over 30 years. The Legislative Analyst’s Office found that the 2006-07 state budget results in an operating shortfall (more expenditures than revenue) and that multi-billion dollar shortfalls would continue to occur through ’08-’09. If you see any of the four components of this package as a particular emergency, then vote for it. We’re inclined to not take on additional annual multi-billion dollar debt until we come closer to digging out of our annual multi-billion dollar deficits.
We recommend a NO vote on Propositions 1B,1C, 1D and 1E.

Proposition 83:
Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring. “Jessica’s Law”

This proposition’s campaign is chaired by state Sen. George Runner and Assemblymember Sharon Runner, married Republican members of the state Legislature, and is supported by both Schwarzenegger and Angelides. It increases penalties for sex offenders and child molesters, prohibits registered sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of a school or park, and requires lifetime Global Positioning System monitoring of felony registered sex offenders. It expands the definition of a sexually violent predator, and changes the current two-year involuntary civil commitment for a sexually violent predator to an indeterminate commitment, subject to annual review by the director of Mental Health. Costs are estimated to be in the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, due primarily to increased state prison, parole supervision and mental-health program costs plus state capital outlay costs in the low hundreds of millions of dollars for construction of additional state mental hospital and prison beds. The 2,000 feet requirement has been attacked for having the potential effect of virtually banning sex offenders from urbanized areas and relegating them to more rural parts of the state. Police-chiefs’, sheriffs’ and district-attorneys’ associations all support it. We think the enhanced public safety this measure provides makes it worthwhile.
We recommend a YES vote on Proposition 83.

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 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. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: State cost of about $10.5 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($5.4 billion) and interest ($5.1 billion) costs on the bonds. It has one of the longest lists of environmental supporters you’re ever likely to see including, locally, the Marin Conservation League and Marin Agricultural Land Trust. This measure is filled with worthy causes for which we have great sympathy, but see 1B-1E above.
We recommend a NO vote on Proposition 84.

Proposition 85:
Waiting Period and Parental Notification before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Amends California Constitution to prohibit abortion for a minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent or legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver. This amendment is similar to one defeated by voters last November. We have the same view now as we did then. It creates additional barriers and delays for pregnant minors seeking medical assistance and creates potential penalties for doctors who attempt to serve them using their best medical judgment. Californians strongly support freedom of choice. This initiative is an effort to get part of what anti-choice crusaders want, since they know they can’t win the battle head on. We believe family communication cannot effectively be legislated. Parental notification laws force some teenagers to choose between talking with parents or having illegal and unsafe abortions. Some choose an illegal abortion, resulting in greater numbers of serious injuries and deaths. The real answer to teen pregnancy is prevention—and strong, caring families—not new laws that endanger our daughters. Healthcare providers including the California Medical Association, the California Nurses Association and the California Academy of Family Physicians oppose Proposition 85. So do we.
We recommend a NO vote of Proposition 85.

Proposition 86:
Tax on Cigarettes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Imposes additional 13 cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($2.60 per pack), and indirectly increases tax on other tobacco products. It would result in estimated increase in new revenues of about $2.1 billion annually by 2007-08, declining slightly annually thereafter. The proposition provides funding to qualified hospitals for emergency services, nursing education and health insurance to eligible children. Revenue is allocated to specified purposes including tobacco use prevention programs, enforcement of tobacco-related laws, and research, prevention and treatment.
We recommend a YES vote on Proposition 86.

Proposition 87:
Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Establishes program to reduce oil and gasoline usage by 25 percent, with research and production incentives for alternative energy, alternative energy vehicles, energy-efficient technologies and education. Funded by a tax of 1.5 to 6 percent, depending on oil price per barrel, on producers of oil extracted in California. Prohibits producers from passing tax on to consumers. Estimate of new state revenues annually from $200 million to about $380 million. The initiative is supported by a broad group of environmental, public health and consumer groups and opposed by big oil companies and their allies. The question is whether massive oil company advertising can overcome initial strong public support for this measure. The credibility of the oil oligopoly, with its record profits of recent years, is increasingly taking its place beside that of tobacco companies.
We support Proposition 87.

Proposition 88:
Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax.
Provides additional public school funding for kindergarten through grade 12 by imposing a statewide $50 tax on each real property parcel. Funds must be used for class size reduction, textbooks, school safety. It exempts the disabled and most homeowners aged 65 or over. Annual revenue estimated at $450 million. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings is the major financial backer of Proposition 88. This initiative has the unusual distinction of being opposed by the state Democratic and Republican parties, League of Women Voters, the AFL-CIO and the California Taxpayers Association, as well as the California State PTA and the California School Boards Association, which has concerns about some of its more technical provisions. While we are sympathetic with the need for adequate education funding, we don’t like the regressive approach of this tax and are concerned about the effect of some of its provisions.
We recommend a NO vote on Proposition 88.

Proposition 89:
Public Financing for Campaigns and Contribution and Expenditure Limits. Initiative Statute.
The initiative is modeled after successful laws in other states and would establish tough limits on campaign contributions by corporations, unions and individuals, bar contributions by lobbyists and state contractors and establish a voluntary system of public financing of campaigns. The initiative is supported by the California Nurses Association and a wide range of consumer/good government groups such as the League of Women Voters, the California Clean Money Campaign, Common Cause of California, and the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, as well as Phil Angelides. It’s opposed by powerful vested interests across the political spectrum. The single most poisonous influence in government and politics today is big special-interest money. This is our current best chance to ensure our representatives vote and act based on the public interest and not based on contributions. This is the single most important item on the ballot, because it has the potential to have a positive effect on all other issues.
We strongly support Proposition 89.

Proposition 90:
Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property.
This initiative purports to reform California’s eminent domain laws by further restricting when governments can take private property or take an action that reduces the value of the property without compensating property owners. It further limits government authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and regulations and it voids some court decisions. It could result in large costs for the state and for local governments to pay damages and/or modify policies to comply with the measure. Major funding for this measure comes from wealthy New Yorker Howie Rich and from groups with which he is involved. He has backed similar measures in many other states. While eminent domain laws may need some reform—though we haven’t noticed an epidemic of California abuses—this measure’s less publicized provisions have the potential to effectively prevent the state and local governments from enacting laws to protect the environment and open space. It also would undermine the authority of locally elected leaders to do what they think is best in their communities and would create endless claims and litigation. Take a look at the disaster caused by a similar proposition, Measure 37, in Oregon. A Portland State University study concluded that “Measure 37 has disabled the tools used over the past four decades to prevent sprawl and preserve agricultural and forest land in Oregon.” Napa County voters defeated a local version of Proposition 90 recently. We strongly oppose Proposition 90.

Measure R: Sonoma-Marin
Area Rail Transit (SMART)
SMART is one of the most contentious issues to arise in Marin in some time and has split traditional allies in local government and the environmental community in a way that is seldom seen. Among the SMART opponents are Marin Conservation League (MCL), Marin Audubon, Marin United Taxpayers, supervisors Hal Brown and Susan Adams, both Judy Arnold and Pat Eklund (who are running for the open supervisor seat), and the Larkspur City Council. SMART supporters include the Sierra Club, Marin Bicycle Coalition, Greenbelt Alliance, League of Women Voters, various business and labor groups, supervisors Charles McGlashan, Steve Kinsey and Cynthia Murray, Jared Huffman, San Rafael Mayor Al Boro, Tiburon Mayor Paul Smith, Ross Mayor Richard Strauss and four members of the San Anselmo City Council. Both sides argue that their conclusions should be obvious based on the facts. Few things are simple and obvious about SMART.

This measure would add a quarter-cent to the sales tax in Marin and Sonoma counties with proceeds going to construct, operate and maintain a passenger-rail project along a publicly owned right-of-way from Cloverdale to Larkspur. The project also includes a bicycle/pedestrian pathway along the same corridor. SMART would increase sales tax in San Rafael from 8.25 cents to 8.5 cents and from 7.75 cents to 8 cents in other areas of the county. To pass, this measure needs a “yes” vote of more than two-thirds in Sonoma and Marin counties combined. According to the latest state information, Marin has 147,613 registered voters and Sonoma has 234,920. The measure could fall short of a two-thirds vote in Marin and still pass if offset by a higher percentage in Sonoma. SMART says the tax would raise $668 million over the 20-year period of the tax with $470 million coming from Sonoma and $198 million coming from Marin with annual revenue of about $33 million in today’s dollars. The sales tax revenue is projected to leverage total revenue of $1.4 billion from all sources including state and federal government and fares. Average fare is assumed to be $4 for each one-way trip. SMART’s capital costs for the rail project are projected to be some $387 million. Total capital cost of the bicycle-pedestrian pathway is projected to be $80.4 million with SMART contributing $46 million. Annual operating costs run some $16 to $17 million for all aspects of the project. The project would have 14 rail stations.

MCL disputes many of the SMART-produced numbers. SMART says cost per passenger mile is 79 cents. MCL says it’s $1.52. MCL says the $387 million cost number used for the SMART system is misleading because it doesn’t include inflation, which can also be found in SMART documents, bringing the cost to $435.5 million. Actually, the SMART campaign Web site, as of this writing, lists SMART total capital cost as $487 million. SMART says the industry standard for passenger mile cost does not include debt service or depreciation, which are included in the MCL number. Opponents raise a number of other issues: congestion concerns around SMART stations, noise of train horns in areas surrounding stations, diesel exhaust, impact on wetlands, and the fact that SMART may not go directly to Larkspur Ferry Terminal but, instead, require a four to 10 minute walk. The overriding charge is that SMART will simply not carry a sufficient number of passengers to justify its cost. Opponents are not well-stocked with alternative approaches but suggest various bus-related concepts and further study.

One fact that is not disputed is that congestion on the 101 corridor is bad and getting worse. We called Stuart Cohen, executive director of the Transportation and Land Use Coalition , a coalition of 90 Bay Area organizations dedicated to environmentally sustainable growth and transit policies, for his take. Cohen says longer-term growth projections, not included in SMART planning, see 250,000 additional people living in Sonoma County by 2050. He also says that the eventual widening of “Novato Narrows” will speed traffic from Petaluma to Novato but would also bring up to 2,000 additional cars per hour from Sonoma into Marin on 101. This 50 percent increase in vehicles would create a virtual parking lot on the freeway heading towards San Rafael.

Cohen also has some more hopeful information. SMART ridership numbers are based on the older Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 2002 projections which only go through 2025 and anticipate continued scattered development that sends almost all commuters onto 101 for their trips south. More recent projections by the regional agencies predict less sprawl and more walkable communities near transit. He says the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area’s regional transportation planning body, is backing up those projections by investing in new transit lines and implementing a transit-oriented development (TOD) policy which will condition transportation funding on policies that promote “old-fashioned” walkable downtowns. SMART stations in Sonoma could provide a hub for clustering new housing development along the transit corridor, making it easier for people to use the train. Without the intervention of investment in SMART, Cohen says, Sonoma will continue to sprawl, sending many more car trips into Marin.

After leaning both ways on the issue at various times over the course of studying it, we find merit in the arguments of both sides. The costs, based on SMART’s own ridership projections, may indeed be high. Freeway commute traffic may be severely congested even with SMART. However, we have to deal with the reality that regardless of what we do in Marin, substantial growth in Sonoma County will occur. If SMART is built, there is the potential for clustering much of it along the transit corridor, increasing SMART ridership and cutting some freeway trips. Train stations attract development more effectively than bus stations. If SMART isn’t built, the sustainable growth land-use incentive is gone, and scattered development that breaks out of urban limit lines is more likely. East Bay commuter traffic congestion is severe even with the ACE train and BART. But we don’t draw the conclusion that those trains should be eliminated. The SMART train would be more attractive and cost-efficient if it more directly connected major population centers. However, it will provide a viable alternative for many people and have some positive impact. For all the talk about it not connecting directly to the Larkspur ferry terminal, some have overlooked that it will connect directly to the downtown San Rafael transit center. Many riders may choose to take a Golden Gate Bridge District bus to the city rather than a ferry, in any event, because it may be faster for them. However, given the dire status of traffic congestion along 101 and the prospect that current conditions may look relatively good compared to future congestion, we would rather look to a future with SMART than one without it.
We support Measure R.

return to top

Our Endorsements:
(click here for a printable version)

SUN ENDORSEMENTS
Our picks for the November 7 Election

U.S. Senate
Dianne Feinstein

Governor
Phil Angelides

Lt. Governor
John Garamendi

Attorney General
Jerry Brown

Secretary of State
Debra Bowen

Controller
John Chiang

Treasurer
Bill Lockyer

Insurance Commissioner
Steve Poizner

State Board of Equalization
District 1
Betty T. Yee

Congress, 6th District
Lynn Woolsey

State Assembly, 6th District
Jared Huffman

Marin County Supervisor, District 5
Judy Arnold

Marin Healthcare District Board
Jonathan Frieman,
Richard Holland and James Clever

MMWD
David Behar

Sausalito City Council
Jonathan Leone, Dennis Scremin

Proposition 1A YES
Proposition 1B NO
Proposition 1C NO
Proposition 1D NO
Proposition 1E NO
Proposition 83 YES
Proposition 84 NO
Proposition 85 NO
Proposition 86 YES
Proposition 87 YES
Proposition 88 NO
Proposition 89 YES
Proposition 90 NO

Measure R (SMART) YES