September 22, 2003
California politics 2003 has not lacked for interesting political fodder. Since the announcement of the recall election, the Tonight Show has become a viable forum to launch political aspirations and gubernatorial debates now include the take home test format.
If that wasn’t enough, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals halting, at least temporarily, the recall election, invoke memories of “hanging chads” past. Meanwhile, flying below the electorate’s radar screen is Proposition 53.
Not to be confused with Proposition 54, which follows in the infamous tradition of California wedge issues, Prop. 53 addresses matters long overdue, while simultaneously demonstrating what is wrong with the state’s political process. Prop. 53 would require California to set aside a portion of the state’s General Fund for acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, modernization, or renovation of infrastructure. The question posed by this initiative: should California dedicate up to 3% of General Fund revenues annually to fund state and local infrastructure projects?
California became the nations most populous and economically powerful state after WWII because of the state’s commitment to infrastructure. California committed billions of dollars to building world-class highways, bridges, water and sewage treatment systems, parks, elementary and high schools, colleges and universities.
The political and financial support for this massive investment demonstrated an unwavering commitment to California’s future, and it fueled the state’s economic expansion. In recent years, there has been little expansion or improvement to the state’s infrastructure. The energy crisis was due in part to the states’ failure to commit resources that would keep pace with the increase in population and the demands for power.
According to the Legislative Analyst Office, as the state's population continues to increase, the need for investment in new capital facilities will also grow. Over the next five years, California has an estimated $54 billion in identified state infrastructure needs.
Let’s face it; infrastructure improvements are not sexy public policy issues. The gubernatorial race does not hinge on a candidate’s support or opposition to Prop. 53. But its failure to stir political emotions notwithstanding, Prop. 53 is bad for California.
California’s recent political frustration has been well documented. The frustration is partly due to the tension that exist between direct and representative forms of democracy. Voter referendums already account for all but 30 percent of the state budget.
Why continue a process that would further tie the hands of the legislature elected to do the people’s business? Each time the electorate siphons off a piece of the budget it places additional pressure on local communities to make tough financial decisions with money and resources they do not have. Proposition 53 locks in spending increases out of limited existing revenues. Because it does not raise new revenues, the money will come at the expense of other important services such as education, health care and public safety. Outside of excluding schools and community colleges, Proposition 53 does not specifically define the parameters of infrastructure. It allows the electorate to carry its own working definition into the voting booth.
It is not unrealistic to believe that support for Prop. 53 translates into highway improvements, for others it could mean new parks, and still others new bridges, while the legislature could have a different definition altogether. Without the necessary oversight or guidelines, which are missing from this initiative, Prop. 53 opens the potential door to more spending without addressing infrastructure needs.
But the need for a Proposition 53 is born out of a leadership vacuum that has ignored the very things that made California, California. Instead of another initiative it would be nice for the next governor, whoever they may be, to use the bully pulpit explaining why investing in the state’s long-term future is in everyone self interest.
Californians must understand where the greatest infrastructure needs lie, and when elected officials speak of infrastructure we know exactly what they are talking about. A ballot measure mandating infrastructure improvements cannot suffice for publicly making the case that leads to strong support politically and financially.
Proposition 53 is problematic because committing resources for infrastructure
requires more buy in than an Election Day decision. California definitely is in
need of infrastructure improvements. But it does not need another loosely worded
mandate that further ties the hands of the legislature on one hand and opens the
door for legislative abuses on the other.