-----Original Message-----
From: B Brand [mailto:bbrand@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:21 AM
To: Heart Park
Subject: Heart Park Update - October 2006YES on Prop 84 - NO on Prop 90
It's election season, and two propositions on your ballot could have a major impact on our push to get Heart Park in the next couple of years. Proposition 84 replenishes the state funds that have been instrumental in funding similar projects to Heart Park, and Proposition 90 will hamper the states ability regulate pollution and land use. Below is an Op-Ed piece authored by yours truly that appeared in yesterdays Daily Breeze. Next is an editorial by the LA Times endorsing a NO vote on Prop 90. Web pages for both are also below. Don't forget to vote.
Today is Monday, October 16, 2006
Originally published Sunday, October 15, 2006
Updated Sunday, October 15, 2006
It's hard for the average citizen struggling to make their own ends meet to comprehend $43 billion, much less whether they should authorize the state to borrow and spend such a large amount. On Nov. 7, that's exactly what every California voter will be doing -- deciding how much our state should spend on roads, bridges, affordable housing, flood control, clean water and parks. Meanwhile, we hear stories about California being overloaded with debt. What's a voter to do?
Being president of a newly formed nonprofit group, the South Bay Parkland Conservancy, I took particular interest in Proposition 84, described as "Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements. Bonds. Initiative Statute." A mouthful of wonderful-sounding causes that one would intuitively support. But can we afford it, and will it be used for what they say it will?
I read the entire text of Proposition 84 and then studied the history of bonds like this to answer the above questions. I found my answer to the second question by researching the uses of Propositions 40 and 50 -- the most recent bonds of this type whose funds are almost gone. There is a Web site called "Proposition 40 and 50 Awards" (www.4050bonds.resources.ca.gov), which allows one to view projects that have benefited from this type of state funding -- and sorting by city, what projects in the South Bay have won awards.
I was pleased to find several local projects that have won awards, as well as the per-capita awards given to each city for parkland. One of the best projects, in my opinion, was the Portuguese Bend Preserve purchase of 463 acres to protect open space and wildlife habitat. According to this state-run Web site, more than $10 million was allocated directly from Proposition 50 for the $17 million purchase. There were other state funds directed for this purchase as well, and they were used to leverage millions more from federal and private sources.
There have been smaller projects funded in the South Bay too, like $650,000 from Proposition 40 that was awarded to Redondo Beach to divert contaminated urban runoff to the sewer system, so it doesn't flow onto our beaches and into our ocean. Manhattan Beach was awarded $900,000 from Proposition 50 to install pervious pavement at 13 parking lots -- also to reduce runoff to the ocean. San Pedro received $1.5 million to construct the Bandini Canyon Trail. Hermosa Beach was given more than $300,000 for pier improvements from Proposition 40.
The list goes on for the South Bay, but larger projects such as Ballona Wetlands and Hearst Ranch land have topped $100 million each to preserve and restore important open space for all Californians. Without these bonds, these areas would not be coastal treasures for our children and their grandchildren to enjoy.
Those are all great achievements, but can we afford not only the $5.4 billion Proposition 84 calls for, but the other $38 billion in bond spending being asked of us as well? The answer seems to be "Yes."
A check of the bond ratings of California shows us well into investment grade status with four years of steady improvements. All three of the major companies that track the health of state debt have recently raised our ratings.
They are certain to be downgraded if all these expenditures are approved, but something called the debt service ratio will never exceed 6 percent of the state's annual revenue.
And Proposition 84 is not a wasteful bureaucratic program. Chapter 10, Section 75070.5, states: "Not more than 5 percent of the funds allocated to any program in this division may be used to pay the costs incurred in the administration of that program." Section 75078 states: "The Secretary shall provide for an independent audit of expenditures. ..." Section 75079 goes further: "The Secretary shall appoint a citizen advisory committee to review the annual audit."
Safe drinking water, clean oceans, lakes and streams, flood control and park acreage that grows with our population -- all of these are critical infrastructure needs that have made California great. Please join the South Bay Parkland Conservancy, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Sierra Club, the AFL-CIO and cities and water boards all over California and vote "Yes" on Proposition 84. Future generations will be glad you did.
Bill Brand is president of the South Bay Parkland Conservancy. The group's Web site is www.southbayparks.org.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-domain12oct12,0,6073355.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials
TIMES ENDORSEMENTS
No on Proposition 90
Instead of merely protecting property from eminent domain, initiative would hobble regulation such as zoning.
October 12, 2006
WHEN THE SUPREME COURT ruled last year that local governments can use the power of eminent domain to seize your perfectly functional home or business and give it to a private developer, it set off a popular revolt that has spread nationwide. Now it has come to California - and voters should reject it.
That's because the revolt is in the form of Proposition 90, which ventures far beyond protecting your possessions from state seizure and instead seeks to make routine government regulation prohibitively expensive. For this and other reasons, we strongly urge a "no" vote.
Proposition 90 would limit the use of eminent domain in California to "projects of public use," such as roads, parks and other public facilities. It would increase the compensation for property owners, prohibit seizures for "economic development or tax revenue enhancement" and force the dozens of government bodies that have eminent domain powers to use each project for its stated purpose. If, say, a furniture store was seized to make way for an animal shelter, but the animal shelter was never built, the original store owner would have the right to buy it back. So far, so reasonable.
But the proposition drifts into the fringes of California's land-use debate with its provisions on "government actions that result in substantial economic loss to private property." If a city changes zoning to allow for more apartment buildings (theoretically driving down the value of single-family homes), or if the Legislature imposes a new emissions law on factories, or if a government agency tweaks the use of airspace, thousands of property owners could have new grounds to sue. The measure carves out exceptions for rules that "protect public health and safety," but the word "environment" is notably absent.
Supporters counter that Proposition 90 would not apply to future amendments of existing laws and rules, and that bodies such as the California Coastal Commission would still be able to create new regulations. Maybe so. But there is an enormous difference between seizing a house and rezoning a neighborhood. Californians are increasingly skeptical about the former, but they have consistently voted and polled in favor of environmental regulations.
Even as they campaign for its defeat, the politicians and bureaucrats who are understandably terrified by Proposition 90 should nevertheless take heed. Voters are becoming fed up with the casual use of eminent domain to seize property that's not blighted for uses that aren't public. This measure just isn't the proper remedy.