Posted on 10/26/2006 3:55:37 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Standing on a wind-swept hill overlooking the ocean in San Pedro, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger stumped Wednesday on behalf of a slate of statewide ballot propositions aimed at cleaning up the coastline, protecting California's supply of drinking water and rebuilding levees and highways to serve a growing population.
"We still have a long way to go so that further generations can enjoy all the incredible landscape we have here in our beautiful state," Schwarzenegger told members of the media and others who gathered for the outdoor news conference.
The governor, speaking near the Korean Friendship Bell at Angels Gate Park, was joined by business and environmental leaders in urging voters to pass Proposition 84, the largest environmental bond measure in state history.
If approved Nov. 7, the measure would provide $5.38 billion in water and environmental programs throughout the state, including funds to help restore the Salton Sea and the Los Angeles River, build mountain hiking trails, and promote desalination and the return of salmon in neglected streams.
Locally, passage of Proposition 84 also could bring $5 million to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy in its effort to purchase about 200 additional acres for open space preservation, said Barbara Dye, executive director of the conservancy. The bond measure would bring in $215 million for clean drinking water, $72 million to clean up the San Gabriel and Los Angeles rivers, $45 million for Santa Monica Bay and the streams feeding into it, and $45 million for the Santa Ana River parkway. "Every year, more than 500,000 people are coming to California, so we need more drinking water and we must protect our water," the governor said.
But while enjoying bipartisan support, Proposition 84 also has picked up some opposition from anti-tax groups that say the interest over the 30-year life of the bond would push the final price tag up to $10.5 billion.
(snip)
"Our levees are outdated; they were built 100 years ago in California," the governor said. "We're literally one big storm or one earthquake away from a major disaster to our levees, which means there are hundreds of thousands of people who are living at risk all the time."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger came to the land of sea otters and tidepools Wednesday to push a $5.4 billion initiative touted by supporters as a solution to the state's water dilemmas.
With the Monterey Bay as his backdrop, the governor told reporters outside the Monterey Bay Aquarium: "We still have a long way to go to protect and clean our environment."
Schwarzenegger spoke in favor of Proposition 84 on next month's ballot, which supporters say will provide money to state and local agencies to tackle a variety of problems, including unsafe drinking water, ocean pollution and inadequate flood protection.
The measure is also a piece of Schwarzenegger's greater thrust over the past year to improve California's infrastructure, which he said has not kept up with the state's growing population. As an example, he described the state's levees as being "one big storm or one earthquake away from a major disaster."
Along with Proposition 84, the governor encouraged voters during his hourlong stop to support Propositions 1A through 1E, which deal with transportation, housing and school infrastructure improvements.
California residents, he said, need to recognize that "to not get stuck in traffic, to not have crowded classrooms, to have safer drinking water," the state must fund the basics.
Proposition 84 would authorize the sale of $5.4 billion in bonds. Over 30 years, it will cost $10.5 billion to repay those bonds, according to the state legislative analyst's office.
Propositions 1A-1E would authorize the sale of a total of $37 billion in bonds.
State legislators attempted to pass bills earlier this year that would have funded many of the same projects, but those efforts failed.
Critics of the propositions have argued that if the state is unable to make the bond payments, residents would have to be taxed. A call to the California Taxpayer Protection Committee, a Proposition 84 opponent, was not returned Wednesday.
Supporters of the infrastructure bonds counter that the state would be spending less than 6 percent of the state's general fund to pay off the bonds.
Schwarzenegger stumped along the Monterey Bay -- and the accompanying odor of seaweed -- with aquarium Executive Director Julie Packard, president of the Association of California Water Agencies Randy Fiorini, and Pacific Region director of The Ocean Conservancy Tim Eichenberg.
During the aquarium's 22 years, Packard told the small group of reporters and campaigners, the ocean's ecosystems have been changed by water pollution, diseased wildlife and a decrease in the numbers of fish being caught.
"Beneath the ocean, there are truly problems going on," she said. "I would hate to see a day when the only healthy California kelp forest you could see is here in the Monterey Bay Aquarium."
Proposition 84, Packard said, will help protect the health of the ocean and coastal areas, in turn protecting wildlife, beach-goers and tourism and fishing economies tied to the ocean.
Fiorini, whose group helped write the initiative, said the money will help protect groundwater from contamination and surface water from pollution, an area of focus that has garnered local attention lately with the recent spinach scare involving E. coli.
If Proposition 84 passes, the benefits for local residents will include reliable drinking water, upgrades of waste-water treatment facilities, wetland restoration, beach cleanups, storm water pollution prevention, flood protection, and coastal and wildlife safeguards, said Fiorini, Eichenberg and others.
Smaller, rural communities like Chualar and King City could be eligible for grants to improve the quality of their drinking water, said Michael Mantell, chairman of the Proposition 84 campaign.
Nick Papadakis, executive director of the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, one of the local organizations supporting the proposition, said he sees a lot of potential benefits locally if the proposition passes.
Papadakis said money could be used for flood control of the Pajaro River and for funding regional water projects.
Funds for many of the concerns addressed by Proposition 84 were supposed to be available when Proposition 50 was passed in 2002. But much of that funding never came through for local water-related programs, he said.
"Every time you have a statewide program, money is never enough," Papadakis said. "We view this as a great addition to the funding. We won't know how much until all the process has taken place, but our chances of getting more money will improve substantially."
I dunno what to say. At least some of this stuff actually makes sense, as opposed to some of the environ-MENTAL crap that Americans put up with on a day-to-day basis.
Oh please spend my money mr rino politician!!! There should be no end to Do-Goodery.
"Environmental" is a dirty word.
Here's teh abnalysis of Prop 84 by Republicn Board of Equalization Member Bill Leonard.
Bill Leonard writes...
Proposition 84 is an enormous $5,388,000,000 bond that was placed on the November ballot through the initiative process by liberal special interests that stand to receive taxpayers’ money from the bond. I consider this an abuse of the initiative process. It is not only a bad idea; it should be illegal.
Unlike the other bonds, which are vague about the projects that might be funded, the proponents of Proposition 84 made so many log-rolling promises to their self-interested supporters that this bond now resembles the notoriously corrupt “Ham and Eggs” initiatives of the 1930s that led to the Single Subject Rule for initiatives. This measure surely violates that constitutional rule, unless you consider “government spending” to be a single subject.
What is most troubling, the proponents call Prop. 84 a “water bond,” even though it contains no funding at all for new reservoirs, dams, canals, aqueducts, or water storage. There is some funding for more studies, just in case someone thinks that government studies produce water.
It is also called a “flood bond” even though it allocates less than 15% of bond funds for flood control projects (and even these meager funds might be squandered on bureaucratic studies, environmental planning, and environmental mitigation, rather than building any actual levees).
If you read the text carefully, you will notice that the sponsors cleverly exempted Proposition 84 from Legislative oversight and from audits by the State Controller, the State Auditor, and the Legislative Analyst. Bond programs would even be exempt from the normal review by the Office of Administrative Law under the Administrative Procedures Act. Before voting for a bond like this one, I think people should demand to know why the proponents are trying to avoid any public oversight over a plan to spend nearly $11,000,000,000 in principal and interest over the next 30 years.
I am also concerned that Proposition 84 contains statewide funding for local projects that have no real statewide benefit. Local communities should be expected to pay for local facilities in the normal manner. This kind of statewide bond creates a situation where taxpayers throughout the state will be forced to pay for expensive projects in politically-influential districts, without regard for statewide priorities and without statewide oversight. This makes no sense. I suggest a NO vote on Proposition 84.
I make a lot of typos when I'm angry.
"What water bond?" said Assemblyman Doug La Malfa (R-Richvale). "You mean the land acquisition bond?"
This is an area of constant abuse of the initiative process that needs to be explored. Prop 76, in 2005, was another excellent example of "Ham and Eggs".
Unfortunately one of the obvious solutions is to delay voting until a reasonable period of time has passed to evaluate and judge the constitutionality of the measures qualified or place each proposed initiative through and evaluation period before signatures can be gathered.
Both solutions, however, work to suppress direct democracy and extend the tyranny of the political class. Waiting periods of up to two years would facilitate, and in a way authorize, the continuing abuses that these initiatives propose to resolve.
| Proposition 84 - Uses of Bond Funds | Amount |
| . | (In Millions) |
| Water Quality | 1,525 |
| Integrated regional water management. | 1,000 |
| Safe drinking water. | 380 |
| Delta and agriculture water quality. | 145 |
| Protection of Rivers, Lakes, and Streams | 928 |
| Regional conservancies. | 279 |
| Other projects—public access, river parkways, urban stream restoration, California Conservation Corps. | 189 |
| Delta and coastal fisheries restoration. | 180 |
| Restoration of the San Joaquin River. | 100 |
| Restoration projects related to the Colorado River. | 90 |
| Stormwater polution prevention. | 90 |
| Flood Control | 800 |
| State flood control projects—evaluation, system improvements, flood corridor program. | 315 |
| Flood control projects in the Delta. | 275 |
| Local flood control subventions (outside the Central Valley flood control system). | 180 |
| Floodplain mapping and assistance for local land use planning. | 30 |
| Sustainable Communities and Climate Change Reduction | 580 |
| Local and regional parks. | 400 |
| Urban water and energy conservation projects. | 90 |
| Incentives for conservation in local planning. | 90 |
| Protection of Beaches, Bays, and Coastal Waters | 540 |
| Protection of various coastal areas and watersheds. | 360 |
| Clean Beaches Program. | 90 |
| California Ocean Protection Trust Fund—marine resources, substainable fisheries, and marine wildlife conservation. | 90 |
| Parks and Natural Education Facilities | 500 |
| State park system—acquisition, development, and restoration. | 400 |
| Nature education and research facilities. | 100 |
| Forest and Wildlife Conservation | 450 |
| Wildlife habitat protection. | 225 |
| Forest conservation. | 180 |
| Protection of ranches, farms, and oak woodlands. | 45 |
| Statewide Water Planning | 65 |
| Planning for furture water needs, water conveyance systems, and flood control projects. | 65 |
| Total | 5,388 |
Of all the bonds we might at least benefit from somewhat, this is the one in worst shape per the PPIC poll.
This Big Bang approach didn't work before and likely won't work again..
Ya gotta love these mad politicos,, they just don't learn..
We have a legislature that can't get the job done and a bunch of "leaders' who just don't get it, no matter how many times they claim we must live within our means, they spend all their revenue like durnken sailors and then run to the bond agencies to bail their them out from there own deficiencies in getting things done the old fashioned way, Pay as you go..
These liberal proposals have unified aims:
To spread the cost of local and special interest wants and needs across a broader tax base.
To advance a minority agenda, through simple majority approval, at the expense of the whole.
The repeated success of this simple, democratic sounding gambit, motivates the minority to continually replicate the ploy.
Drunken sailors -- you got it! All of these big-government politicos just aren't listening!
I agree, after reading about the details; the devil is always in the details.
Thank GOD we don't have Cruz Bustamante! Or Angelides!
"He's no good... He's no good... baby, baby, he's no good... Lemme say it again... He's no good... He's no good... He's no good..."
But, but, but... Bustamante!
You just want Angelides to win < /FO >
Stop depriving one our three blind mice of their moment of glory, through outspoken defiance of logic, in the face of their numerically superior conservative enemy.
If conservatives keep offending the Republican emissaries sent to our halls, who will provide the entertainment during the silly season?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.