53.7 F
San Diego
Thursday, Mar 28, 2024
-Advertisement-

Water Pollution, Transportation Subjects of Props 50, 51

Water Pollution, Transportation Subjects of Props 50, 51

Politics: Critics Fear a Lack of Control, High Cost

BY LEE ZION

Staff Writer

Two initiatives on the Nov. 5 ballot could bring a total of more than $1 billion to San Diego County for infrastructure projects. However, some agencies worry the costs may be too high.

Proposition 50 would sell $3.44 billion in bonds to clean up water pollution throughout the state. Proposition 51 would divert 30 percent of sales tax money from vehicle purchases and leases into a special account to pay for transportation projects.

The San Diego County Taxpayers Association opposes both. So does the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce.

Geoff Patnoe, executive director of the taxpayers’ association, strongly objected to Proposition 50. The water bond would cost $3.5 billion just in interest, in addition to the $3.44 billion face value of the bond, he said.

“A very small portion” would go to San Diego County, he said.

Proposition 50 will also force local taxpayers to pay without getting anything in return, he said.

“The measure is another example of the long history of statewide water bonds that basically leave out any reference to San Diego County,” he said. “There really is no direct appropriation in the bond for local programs.”

The county could apply for money, but has to stand in line. Meanwhile, large projects in Northern California are directly funded, Patnoe said.

Andrew Poat, director of the Governmental Relations Department for the city of San Diego, said the city has taken no position on Proposition 50. However, he echoed some of Patnoe’s sentiments.

The initiative would sell bonds for safe drinking water, desalination technology and Colorado River projects. Out of about $1.5 billion earmarked for specific projects, none directly benefit the San Diego area, Poat said.

But out of the remaining $2 billion, San Diego could still get $600 million due to language in Proposition 50 to fund Colorado River projects. The water transfer deal between Imperial Irrigation District and the San Diego County Water Authority, signed last month, depends on environmental projects that the initiative could fund, he said.

Stacie Gallenstein, program and outreach coordinator for local environmental group Baykeeper, strongly supported Proposition 50.

Gallenstein said several businesses throughout San Diego depend on clean water. The tourism industry suffers if San Diego’s beaches are polluted, while industrial giants such as Kelco depend on the health of the kelp beds off Point Loma, she said.

Gallenstein noted that out of the $1.5 billion in set-asides, none of it is earmarked for San Diego. However, the city will still be eligible for the remaining $2 billion, and since the region has serious pollution problems, it has a good chance of getting funding, she said.

Mitch Mitchell, vice president of public policy for the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, disagreed. He opposed Proposition 50 because no money had been set aside locally.

“A lot of time you’ll find in ballot (measures), there’ll be earmarks for L.A. and San Francisco right off the bat, that are clearly defined, that are large chunks of the money,” Mitchell said. “We’re 9 percent of the (state) population; we’re the seventh-largest city in the country. We shouldn’t receive less money than San Francisco.”

‘Ballot Box Budgeting’

Mitchell objected to the fact that San Diego had no input into the initiative when it was drafted. Another concern was that some Proposition 50 money will go toward land acquisition, not water quality, he said.

Patnoe also objects to Proposition 51 as a form of “ballot box budgeting.” Although almost $500 million has been earmarked for San Diego County, Patnoe believes the initiative is a “pork proposition” benefiting the developers behind it.

Also, since Proposition 51 would use revenue from vehicle sales and leases, that money would be taken out of the state’s general fund. That means the state would have less money available for other projects, he said.

“(Proposition) 51 will limit the elected officials’ ability to set priorities because you’re setting aside monies for a particular purpose through the ballot. You’d rather not tie the hands of the governor or the Legislature in these economic times,” Patnoe added.

Dennis Trujillo, a spokesman for the California Department of Transportation, said the initiative would raise about $900 million annually throughout the state. San Diego County is earmarked to receive almost $500 million, he said.

This includes $25 million to extend Route 56 and $10 million to realign Interstate 5 at the Mexican border, and $60 million for the state Route 94-125 interchange. Public transit will also benefit, with $61 million for the Coaster rail improvements, and $80 million to build a new light-rail line between Oceanside and Escondido, Trujillo said.

The city of San Diego, meanwhile, opposes Proposition 51, despite the money it would make available locally. The problem is the funding mechanism, Poat said.

The ballot initiative calls for redirecting 30 percent of the sales tax revenue from the lease and sale of new and used motor vehicles into a special account.

However, that money would be taken out of the state’s general fund. The city relies on the state’s general fund for more than $90 million annually, Poat said.

Poat added state funding to the city fell drastically during the 1990s recession. This year, the city’s allocation fell by nearly $3 million; and the city’s allocation could be reduced again next year to address the state’s possible $10 billion deficit. Proposition 51 could make things worse, he said.

The initiative also interferes with the local decision-making process by allowing the state to set the priorities for local transportation spending, Poat said.

Mitchell agreed Proposition 51 may be “ballot box budgeting,” adding some money will be diverted to 45 “pork-barrel projects,” including a public park in Irvine, or an arts school in Oakland.

-Advertisement-

Featured Articles

-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-

Related Articles

-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-