Posted on 09/16/2006 8:56:32 AM PDT by calcowgirl
SACRAMENTO — Public-works bond supporters fear they won't have the cash to sell voters on costly infrastructure improvements because monied oil and tobacco firms fighting propositions are inflating the political television ad market.
At the same time, other problems are piling up — uneven support based on regional concerns, awkward politics, the sheer size of the multibillion-dollar bond total, and disclosures that much of the money for transportation would not go directly to easing traffic congestion.
"It's going to be difficult to have a voice to be heard in this election" with advertising costs hitting $5 million a week, said state Senate leader Don Perata, an Oakland Democrat and key engineer of the public-works bonds on the Nov. 7 general election ballot.
"We're not going to be able to be competitive in a $50 or $60 billion campaign marketplace and that's where we're headed," Perata said.
Polls show tepid backing for nearly $43 billion in bonds, though $37.3 billion for transportation, schools, flood control and housing were placed on the ballot by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and a Democrat-dominated Legislature.
Regional bias is producing some of the uneven support, or "regional myopia," as Tim Hodson, the director of the Center for California Studies in Sacramento, calls it.
"Despite a history of floods in Ventura and other areas in Southern California, for example, flood control is seen by many in the south state as primarily a Northern California concern," Hodson said.
Awkward politics isn't helping either, according to analysts. The campaign for the bonds is complicated by Democrats jointly campaigning with Schwarzenegger, who is seeking re-election, supposedly without Democrats harming Democratic challenger Phil Angelides' campaign.
A separate $5.4 billion water and parks bond initiative was put on the general election ballot through signature gathering of various interests, bringing the total to nearly $43 billion.
The sheer size of the total debt is intimidating voters, said Mark Baldassare, director of the Public Policy Institute of California. For example, the nearly $20 billion transportation bond, Proposition 1B, is the single largest bond ever placed before California voters.
"Californians support the concept of using state bonds for infrastructure projects by a nearly two-to-one margin," Baldassare said. "But many likely voters who say they would vote 'yes' on the individual bond measures think the total amount is too much."
TV ads get pricey
To convince voters otherwise, bond supporters, who haven't purchased all their ad time already, must compete with the ever-increasing cost of political TV ads.
Oil companies are dumping huge sums into battling Proposition 87, which would hike the tax on oil extracted from California to finance alternative energy programs.
Likewise, tobacco firms are fighting Proposition 86, which would boost the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $2.60 to raise funds for health care.
"The oil companies and the tobacco companies, in fighting initiatives that are on the ballot, have caused the pricing of political advertising to go up vertically," Perata said. "They're now talking about something like $5 million a week going into October for the adequate number of rating points."
"The biggest problem I thought all along was going to be just giving people a clear idea that this is an investment in the future of the state. I add to that now being heard," as a big problem, he said.
And supporters have yet another problem — voters questioning whether they will get their money's worth.
The Associated Press reported that more than 40 percent of Proposition 1B will not go toward the well-advertised road projects. Rather, billions will go toward projects that have tenuous connections to relieving the state's worst traffic jams.
New fences around ports in Long Beach and Oakland, school buses for Los Angeles, and security cameras and disaster-plan studies for San Francisco's subway and ferry terminals are just a few of the projects that would see a slice of the money if voters say yes.
Billions also would go to buying land for railroad crossings, expanding programs to reduce harmful emissions and perhaps even building a new border crossing into Mexico.
"Will it make your commute better? That's a tough question to answer and a promise we're not ready to make," said John Barna, executive director of the nine-member California Transportation Commission, which would be charged with deciding how almost $12 billion of the bond money would be spent.
But supporters such as Perata are still optimistic.
"Voters have already figured out traffic in California is awful, that congestion is not only ruining their lifestyle but also making it almost impossible for people to live here," he said.
It's always the fault of some big conspiracy when people don't agree with big-government liberals.
HA! Even the dimmiest of Kaleefornianiacs know that the money will not go to ease traffic congestion! It will be squandered for pork pie and pork rind projects.
Arnold is just trying to solve the deficit problem by making it twice as large. Californians are so ungrateful!
"Voters have already figured out traffic in California is awful, that congestion is not only ruining their lifestyle but also making it almost impossible for people to live here," he said.
So...give us the money...and we won't apply it toward the problem?
I am amazed at the arrogance.
LOL. I thought the same thing. Tobacco and Oil Companies, being assaulted at the ballot box by billionaire robber barons and commies, are painted as the evil ones for defending themselves! Amazing.
and opposite to what San Jose Mercury News is touting
and opposite to what San Jose Mercury News is touting
The road to Punta Colonet, perhaps?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
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.