Tag Archives: Proposition 1

Prop 1 and 1A: an update from Secretary Bowen

Debra Bowen was in the Big Tent a while ago and I got the chance to talk to her about the Prop 1/1A ballot printing fiasco.  The word from the Secretary is that the voter guides containing Proposition 1 have already been printed, but that Proposition 1 will not be on the ballot.

Proposition 1A will be on the ballot, but since the voter guides have already been printed, there will be a supplemental voter guide containing all the requisite information on Proposition 1A.

The approximate cost of all of this extra printing and mailing will be about $4 million, paid by the taxpayers.

Thanks for stamping your feet and holding your breath, Governor.

Field Poll Tackles Five Props

Field Poll today on 5 of our hottest propositions for November (pdf). Results below, h/t to Cap Alert which also has the crosstabs.

Proposition 1 (High speed rail)

Yes: 56 percent

No: 30

Undecided: 14

Proposition 2 (Treatment of farm animals)

Yes: 63 percent

No: 24

Undecided: 13

Proposition 4 (Abortion notification for minors)

Yes: 48 percent

No: 39

Undecided: 13

Proposition 7 (Renewable energy)

Yes: 63 percent

No: 24

Undecided: 13

Proposition 11 (Redistricting)

Yes: 42 percent

No: 30

Undecided: 28

A few of these are looking very good, parental notification is looking a bit iffy, and redistricting is…well…have fun with that one.

Big Public Support for High Speed Rail – Prop 1

Crossposted from my high speed rail blog

Recent polling data from J. Moore Methods (hat tip to Californians for High Speed Trains) shows a significant amount of public support for Proposition 1.

Q: “Would you support or oppose a statewide $10 billion dollar bond measure to build a high-speed train system linking the major population centers in Southern California with the Central Valley and the Bay Area?”

July 2008: 58% support, 33% oppose, 9% no opinion

May 2008: 53-36-11

Feb. 2008: 54-39-7

Nov. 2007: 52-42-6

That’s big movement in just the last two months. And that’s after the non-issue of the Union Pacific right-of-way letter emerged. And despite the state budget deficit, support has merely grown over the last eight months.

What’s responsible? Gas prices, obviously. As the price of oil rises, and as it dawns on Californians that this is a permanent, long-term shift, they understand instinctively the value of high speed rail. Don’t believe me? Let’s see the numbers:

Voters’ top reasons to support the High Speed Train bond are as follows:

-Providing a safe, affordable transportation alternative (77%),

-Reducing dependence on foreign oil (74%),

-Reducing traffic congestion (69%).

It’s a shame that even though Californians understand the value of high speed rail, Senate Republicans are still trying to kill the project after six years of delay. AB 3034 isn’t necessary to the passage of Proposition 1, which is a sound proposal – but the details of AB 3034 would only make a good plan that much better. Republicans had years to propose changes and improvements, but they suspiciously waited until the 11th hour to raise the objections and try and derail AB 3034. The usual right-wing suspects are ecstatic at this but as the poll numbers above suggest, they are once again swimming against the tide of California public opinion.

Senate Republicans and wingnut editorialists aren’t offering Californians ANY solution to high gas prices. None at all. High speed rail IS a solution. It’s not the only one, not by a longshot. But it would be very helpful to our state. We’ve delayed long enough. We’re going to the voters this November one way or the other, with Prop 1 as-is or with an AB 3034-enhanced plan. Either way, we are going to win.

State Senate Action on High Speed Rail

Crossposted from my high speed rail blog where there is a lot more information on the project

The Senate Transportation Committee today approved AB 3034 by an 8-4 vote. But as Erik Nelson at the Contra Costa Times reports it included some great amendments, including Sen. Leland Yee’s plan to restore the primacy of LA-SF:

The committee, at the urging of Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, restored language that restricted use of the $9.95 billion in bond proceeds to the “spine” of the 800-mile system, which is now slated to run from Anaheim to Los Angeles to San Jose and San Francisco through the Antelope and San Joaquin valleys.

Cathleen Galgiani was not aware of that change before entering the hearing room, which may cause some problems in reconciling the bills between the Senate and the Assembly. But the Senate’s version is superior. LA-SF is necessary to be the spine of the project and the notion of building it in pieces was always a poor approach to the project’s politics and efficiency. The original plan was sound: LA-SF first, then the extensions to SD and Sacto as a guaranteed Phase II. Rome wasn’t built in a day, neither will HSR.

Nelson also reports that a rule change giving project design work to Caltrans is causing controversy:

One change that caused Republicans to bristle along with representatives of private contractors was one that says the High-Speed Rail Authority “shall utilize” the engineering and project design services of Caltrans, the state’s transportation department.

Republicans, of course, are bent on privatizing all aspects of state government, even the good ones, regardless of whether it’s actually cost-effective to do so – see a earlier post of mine on Calitics about the matter. Caltrans’ record is excellent (the issues with the east span of the Bay Bridge were due to external political meddling), but there are apparently Constitutional questions surrounding this aspect of the amended bill, and the committee has not committed itself to that language.

Other aspects of the Senate Transportation Committee’s amended AB 3034:

Among the bill’s 33 provisions are limiting bond money from paying more than half of any track or station construction cost so that federal, private or local funds would have to pay for the remainder, and allowing only 10 percent of that money for planning and engineering costs.

The bill also would establish an eight-member independent review committee appointed by state financial and legislative leaders.

Both changes should help address the concerns with financial risk of the system, although the HSR deniers will surely not be appeased. The committee also directed the CHSRA to come up with a revised business plan by October.

Republicans opposed the proposal, unsurprisingly. Although some Republicans like Curt Pringle strongly support HSR others remain opposed to any action that will help the state address its energy and environmental crisis. Senate Republicans want to shackle the state to oil and cars and eliminate alternative transportation. Thankfully Senate Democrats have come around and understood the value of high speed rail and provided some necessary fixes to AB 3034.

We will now work to ensure the bill passes the Senate and that these changes are accepted by the Assembly, so that we can move forward with the Yes on Prop 1 campaign for November. High speed rail’s time has come, and the California legislature is showing some welcome if overdue leadership on this.