October 31, 2006

Dear Friend:

Once again, people have asked me to share my thoughts about the upcoming election. I don’t presume to know everything, but I try to talk to a lot of people who are well informed about the issues and candidates.

First of all, if you have questions about how or where to vote, consult San Mateo County’s official voter info site, ShapetheFuture.org, or the League of Women’s Voters site, SmartVoter.org. Want to know how to vote early or what to do if your absentee ballot doesn’t arrive? See Election Q&A for San Mateo County Voters on my Web site.To track the money behind the campaigns, go to CalVoter.org.  And here’s a helpful new discovery: ElectionInfo.org summarizes the "yes" and "no" positions of major political parties and other groups in California regarding the state propositions with a handy chart.

Second, if you read no further, please note that I feel very strongly about two measures on the ballot. I urge you to vote "yes" on Measure H, a Burlingame bond measure that would fix our flooding problems and make important upgrades to a few city buildings. And I recommend that you vote "no" on Proposition 90, which is an attack on local government that is masquerading as eminent domain reform.

STATE PROPOSITIONS

Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E, which were placed on the ballot by the state Legislature, and Proposition 84, which qualified for the ballot with voter signatures, all deal with the state’s infrastructure. People have different attitudes toward bonds, and you need to gauge your own comfort level with these. On the one hand, our state definitely needs to upgrade its infrastructure; on the other, doing so will saddle us and our children with debt for a long time. (These are all 30-year bonds.) Another consideration is whether approving too many bonds all at once might weaken the state’s financial rating, thus making it more difficult for California to qualify for the most favorable interest rates.

Proposition 1A would have no fiscal impact; it asks if the state Constitution should be amended to protect transportation-related sales tax revenues from being borrowed for other uses, and it requires that any funds borrowed be repaid to the transportation fund.

Pro/Con: Supporters say Prop 1A closes a loophole in the current law and ensures that gas taxes are spent as designated. Opponents argue that the Legislature and governor need the flexibility to shift funds temporarily.

Fiscal Impact: None.

How I’m Voting: Yes. This is a no-brainer to me. State legislators have been raiding our transportation funding for years, resulting in poorly maintained highways and a shortage of funds for mass transit. There is a clause that allows suspension of this requirement twice in 10 consecutive fiscal years, should a true emergency exist, but no suspension could occur unless prior suspensions have been repaid in full.

Proposition 1B would approve a $19.9 billion bond to fund state and local transportation improvement projects to relieve congestion, improve movement of goods, improve air quality, and enhance safety and security of the transportation system.

Pro/Con: Basically, you need to decide if you think our transportation system needs a shot in arm or if it can exist on current funding.

Fiscal Impact: The total cost of the bond is estimated at $38.9 billion over 30 years.

How I’m Voting: Yes. I was happy to see that $4 billion of this funding would go toward public transportation, which continues to limp along with inadequate funding in the Bay Area. Prop 1B would also bring $375 million to the Bay Area for road fixes. Our public works director estimates Burlingame would receive a one-time amount of about $900,000 in funding for street paving if Prop 1B passes.

Proposition 1C would authorize a $2.9 billion bond to fund housing for lower-income residents and to assist development in urban areas near public transportation.

Pro/Con: Supporters argue that this bond act would help provide homes for working families and disabled Californians. Opponents say the bond is too small to make much of a difference in a state of 37 million people.

Fiscal Impact: The bond would cost an estimated $6.1 billion over 30 years.

How I’m Voting: Yes. The previous bond package proposed by the Legislature did not include transit-oriented housing; this one allocates $300 million. It would also fund $800 million in development in urban areas. This bond is a step in the right direction.

Proposition 1D would allow the state to sell $10.4 billion in general obligation bonds to fund repairs and upgrades to public schools, including kindergarten through grade 12, community colleges and state universities. It requires matching funds from local districts.

Pro/Con: Supporters say Prop 1D would make our schools earthquake safe, reduce overcrowding and update technology. Opponents say the money would go to some untested programs, such as career and technical education facilities and energy efficiency incentives, and that it would fund only the next two years of need.

Fiscal Impact: The cost of this bond is estimated at $20.3 billion over its 30-year life.

How I’m Voting: No. Although this bond would help bring schools into the 21st century, I feel more strongly about some of the other infrastructure needs.

Proposition 1E would approve a $4.1 billion bond to finance disaster preparedness and flood prevention projects at the state and local levels. The bulk of the funding ($3 billion) would go to upgrading the state’s levees in the Central Valley. Only $300 in funding is designated for non-Delta work throughout the state, of which the Bay Area would receive about $60 million (to help with needs estimated at $2 billion).

Pro/Con: Proponents say Prop 1E would ensure that clean water is available by preventing pollution and safeguarding water sources. Opponents argue that we cannot afford this new debt, that it will not build a single reservoir or water treatment plant, and that it would use public money to pave the way for private housing developments that otherwise couldn’t be built.

Fiscal Impact: It would cost an estimated $8 billion to pay off this bond over 30 years.

How I’m Voting: Yes. This bond won’t help Burlingame. We have applied for state grants for our flood projects in the past and have scored poorly due to the lack of regional significance. In any case, a 50 percent match would be necessary. However, the Delta levees are in terrible shape and their failure would impact the entire state’s economy. I say, go for it while we still have Hurricane Katrina’s consequences uppermost in our minds.

Proposition 83 would increase criminal and civil penalties and provide lifetime global positioning system (GPS) monitoring of convicted sexual predators. It would make it impossible for some to live within a half-mile of a school or park.

Pro/Con: Advocates contend that this measure would ensure that sex offenders serve their full sentence. Opponents say it will impose lifetime restrictions and monitoring of people who have lived law-abiding lives for decades and that similar measures have not been effective in other states.

Fiscal Impact: The state figures it would cost up to $200 million annually.

How I’m Voting: No. Prop 83 would make it impossible for these individuals to live anywhere in urban areas. Other states, such as Iowa, have repealed similar measures because they have proven to be ineffective and a drain on law enforcement resources. Furthermore, the draconian language in this bill, which was written by conservative Republican legislators, could make a 19-year-old boy subject to lifetime monitoring for having sexual contact with his 17-year-old girlfriend.

Proposition 84 would allow the state to issue $5.4 billion in bonds for a wide variety of projects related to water safety, rivers, beaches, levees, watersheds, parks and forests.

Pro/Con: Supporters say Prop 84 will ensure that all Californians have access to safe drinking water, better protection from floods and opportunities to enjoy public open spaces. Those who oppose it call it "special interest legislation" with benefits going to the groups sponsoring it and say we don’t need both Prop 1E and Prop 84.

Fiscal Impact: The state estimates this bond would cost $10.5 million over a 30-year period.

How I’m Voting: No. While some very worthy environmental organizations are backing this measure and this funding would help some of them make more land acquisitions for the public, I think we need to draw the line somewhere. The other infrastructure needs are greater.

Proposition 85 would impose a waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor’s pregnancy.

Pro/Con: Supporters say this measure would decrease pregnancies and abortions. Opponents say it would not protect teens who live in dangerous homes, where girls cannot tell a parent without fear of retaliation, and that similar laws in other states have done harm to teens.

Fiscal Impact: The cost would be around several million dollars annually.

How I’m Voting: No. The debate over this proposition breaks down predictably according to how you feel about a woman’s right to choose.

Proposition 86 would add a tax of $2.60 per cigarette pack to fund new and expanded health services, health insurance for children and expanded tobacco use prevention programs.

Pro/Con: Those who support Prop 86 believe it will decrease smoking and cut spending on health care. Those opposing it say the largest share of funding, nearly 40 percent, goes to hospitals, many of which are funding the campaign.

Fiscal Impact: Prop 86 would increase revenues by about $2.1 billion annually in 2007-08 and slightly less each year thereafter.

How I’m Voting: No. I agree with law enforcement groups that argue this measure would probably cause a black market for cigarettes. Although tobacco companies are spending big bucks to defeat this measure, I believe it is overwritten legislation that will unfairly target lower-income people, who are more likely to smoke and unlikely to give up the habit. It’s also a constitutional amendment, which is inappropriate for a tax increase.

Proposition 87 would tax California’s oil producers to fund a $4 billion Clean Alternative Energy Program, with the goal of reducing oil and gasoline consumption through incentives for alternative energy, education and training.

Pro/Con: Supporters, including Al Gore, point out that other states, including Texas, already require oil companies to pay billions in drilling fees, that Prop 87 forbids oil firms from raising gas prices to compensate for these fees and that this measure would create thousands of jobs and reduce air pollution. Opponents say it would create a new state bureaucracy, reduce in-state oil production and increase dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Fiscal Impact: This tax could raise $225 million to $485 million annually.

How I’m Voting: Yes. I currently sit on a county task force working on energy planning, and I feel strongly that we need to create incentives to reduce oil consumption. Oil companies made obscene profits last year; I don’t feel bad about using some of them to promote sustainability. Full disclosure: I work for the guy who financially backed An Inconvenient Truth.

Proposition 88 would amend the state Constitution to levy an annual $50 tax on most parcels, with funds allocated to five specified kindergarten-12 education programs.

Pro/Con: Proponents say this is a relatively small assessment to fund measures that will promote student achievement. Opponents, including education groups, note that it is the first statewide property tax since 1910, that it’s permanent and would make it harder for local school organizations to raise funds from the public.

Fiscal Impact: This tax would raise about $450 million annually.

How I’m Voting: No. This is a bad idea. It’s a permanent tax that comes with lots of regulations that limit how schools can spend the money.

Proposition 89 would allow candidates running for statewide offices to receive public campaign funding by meeting certain eligibility requirements. It would also impose new limits on campaign contributions and place new restrictions on contributions by corporations and lobbyists.

Pro/Con: Advocates argue that this measure would prevent corporations and special interests from influencing candidates. Opponents say it would give politicians public money that might be used to produce negative TV ads and junk mail, that it limits the ability of small and large businesses to back candidates and that it allows unions to make unlimited contributions.

Fiscal Impact: This new tax would raise more than $200 million each year in public funding for political campaigns.

How I’m Voting: Yes. I believe we need campaign finance reform. It’s a given that state legislators will never come up with meaningful restrictions. Even though Prop 89 contains some loopholes that benefit certain groups, such as the California Nurses Association, I think this measure will help curb the influence of special interests, which make it nearly impossible for candidates to run for statewide office without making promises to well-financed groups.

Proposition 90 would amend the state Constitution to require government to pay property owners for substantial economic losses resulting from some new laws and rules, and limit government authority to take ownership of private property through eminent domain.

Pro/Con: Proponents say Prop 90 will limit the power of eminent domain to projects that are for public use and that it will compensate owners whose property is taken or damaged. Opponents say it is trap that will lead to huge new costs for all taxpayers as unscrupulous property owners exploit the new provisions.

Fiscal Impact: The state legislative analyst says the costs incurred to state and local government could be "significant."

How I’m Voting: No. Full disclosure: I have been campaigning against this measure, which some have dubbed "the lawyer’s full-employment proposal." A page one San Francisco Chronicle article on October 5 pointed out Prop 90 is heavily financed by out-of-state Libertarians, primarily Howie Rich, who believe in limited government. Prop 90 would make it virtually impossible for cities to plan developments and protect the environment. Please don’t fall for this wolf in sheep’s clothing.

SAN MATEO COUNTY MEASURES

Measure A would raise the county’s sales tax by 1/8 cent for 25 years to support parks and recreation services provided by cities, the county and special districts.

Pro/Con: Supporters point out that there is no dedicated source of funding to maintain and enhance parks and that the average cost per person is just $18 annually. Opponents say there are already substantial tax revenues dedicated to parks, that Measure A will increase the cost of living and harm our economy.

Fiscal Impact: This tax would raise about $16 million each year.

How I’m Voting: Yes. Although I hesitate to increase the county’s sales tax for any reason, I realize that parks and recreation services are the poor stepchild of the county government’s budget. There never seems to be enough money to fund them adequately. We all enjoy parks throughout the county. This modest increase will go a long way to increasing our enjoyment of open spaces.

Measure H would authorize the City of Burlingame to sell $37 million in bonds to improve aging and undercapacity flood control infrastructure and $7 million to make seismic safety, disabled access and other improvements to existing city buildings.

Pro/Con: Supporters say our 75-year-old flood control system is rapidly deteriorating and costs about $2 million to patch. When it is overwhelmed, raw sewage flows into our streets and the bay, making up subject to state fines of up to $10,000 per day. The building improvements are only the most critical repairs needed to current facilities; no new construction would be authorized. Opponents say this tax is unfair to new homeowners, who would pay more than those who have lived in Burlingame a long time. They say there are more equitable ways to raise the money.

Fiscal Impact: The city’s best estimate is that this tax would cost an average of $30.22 per $100,000 of assessed value of taxable property in the city over the 30-year life of the bond.

How I’m Voting: Yes. Full disclosure: I am co-chair of the Yes on Measure H campaign. Opponents do not dispute the need for the improvements; their quarrel is with the method of financing them, which uses the same formula as Prop 13. Taxing property in this way is the most common way of financing infrastructure improvements in California. The city has investigated many other taxing methods and has concluded that this method is the most equitable to the largest number of people. The opponents have not suggested a fairer method. If we don’t make these improvements now, we will pay at least $1 million more per year in escalating construction costs. For more information, please see "The Facts About Measure H" on my Web site and visit http://www.protectburlingame.org

Measure M would authorize the San Mateo Union High School District to sell $298 million in bonds to finance school improvements. The specific improvements are listed in your Sample Ballot.

Pro/Con: Advocates say this bond would finish the work that was begun under the previous $120 million bond, including seismic retrofits, removal and disposal of hazardous materials, remodeling remaining classrooms, improving exterior lighting for safety, make accessibility upgrades and more. Opponents have focused on the district’s recent financial problems. (Due to a miscalculation, the district recently had to cut its budget drastically.) They say the money from the first bond should have covered some of the improvements on the "to do" list.

Fiscal Impact: This measure would cost an average of $16 per $100,000 of assessed value of taxable property in the school district over the 25-year life of the bonds.

How I’m Voting: It’s up to you. On the one hand, the schools still have facilities that badly need upgrading. On the other, the most critical improvements have already been made.

LOCAL CANDIDATES

In effort to make this newsletter a bit shorter, I won’t go into details and will just give you my picks.

STATEWIDE CANDIDATES

Here are my picks:

Thanks for voting!


Terry Nagel