{"id":14918,"date":"2013-03-21T05:00:00","date_gmt":"2013-03-21T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2013-03-21T04:22:08","modified_gmt":"2013-03-21T04:22:08","slug":"californians-want-stuff-but-want-it-cheaper","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/2013\/03\/21\/californians-want-stuff-but-want-it-cheaper\/","title":{"rendered":"Californians Want Stuff, But Want it Cheaper"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.ppic.org\/main\/home.asp\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/s20.postimage.org\/uvs60u5pp\/Fig1_Mar13.gif\" align=right><\/a><i>New PPIC Poll shows voters want HSR and water projects on the cheap<\/i><\/p>\n<p>by Brian Leubitz<\/p>\n<p>Everybody likes getting stuff. Whether it is a free smoothie or a shiny new high speed train. However, most of those everybodies are not so into paying for it. At least, that&#8217;s what we hear from the latest <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ppic.org\/main\/home.asp\">PPIC numbers<\/a>):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Voters passed a $10 billion bond in 2008 for the planning and construction of high-speed rail. Today, when read a description of the project and its $68 billion cost estimate, 43 percent of likely voters favor it and 54 percent are opposed. Last March, when the estimated cost was $100 billion, responses were similar (43% favor, 53% oppose). When those who are opposed are asked how they would feel if the cost were lower, overall support rises to 55 percent. Most (59%) say high-speed rail is important to the state&#8217;s quality of life and economic vitality (32% very important, 27% somewhat important).<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Majorities of likely voters would favor the water bond and high-speed rail if the price tags on these big-ticket items were reduced,&#8221; says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO. &#8220;Californians&#8217; continuing concerns about the economy and the state and federal budgets make planning for the future a difficult process.&#8221; (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.ppic.org\/main\/home.asp\">PPIC<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The water bond numbers are pretty similar, with a 42\/51 split. These numbers aren&#8217;t really surprising. It&#8217;s like asking a kid if they&#8217;d like some gum for a dollar, and then asking how about a quarter. Sure, they&#8217;d prefer it at a quarter, even more than the pricey gum. But, stuff costs money, and ultimately, we can&#8217;t go over and over these decisions. The HSR bond passed, and now we have to look at how we can build an efficient system.<\/p>\n<p>There were a bunch of other numbers thrown in with this extensive poll. Brown is at 49%, the Legislature at 34% (a big jump since we got rid of the 2\/3 budget), and only the alcohol surtax has a majority among revenue ideas. But, dropping down the poll a bit, I found the numbers on reforming the initiative system very intriguing.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>A majority of likely voters (62%) are satisfied with the way the initiative process is working, but most of them (55%) are only somewhat satisfied. Three-fourths (74%) say the process needs changes (36% major changes, 38% minor changes). Only 19 percent say it is fine the way it is. Asked about three changes that have been suggested, overwhelming majorities support each: 84 percent favor increasing public disclosure of funding sources for signature gathering and initiative campaigns, 78 percent favor having a period of time in which the initiative sponsor could meet with the legislature to see if there is a compromise solution before putting a measure on the ballot. And 77 percent favor having a system for reviewing and revising proposed initiatives to try to avoid legal issues and drafting errors. Each of these three ideas has strong support across party lines.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I was actually a bit surprised at the high number on satisfaction, but that seems to run counter to the desire for change. The changes tested are all relatively minor, but perhaps with a couple of them, the process could become a little less of a free for all for the big money interests.<\/p>\n<p>Check the full poll for more information at the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ppic.org\/main\/home.asp\">PPIC&#8217;s website<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.ppic.org\/main\/home.asp\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/s20.postimage.org\/uvs60u5pp\/Fig1_Mar13.gif\" align=right><\/a><i>New PPIC Poll shows voters want HSR and water projects on the cheap<\/i><\/p>\n<p>by Brian Leubitz<\/p>\n<p>Everybody likes getting stuff. Whether it is a free smoothie or a shiny new high speed train. However, most of those everybodies are not so into paying for it. At least, that&#8217;s what we hear from the latest <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ppic.org\/main\/home.asp\">PPIC numbers<\/a>):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Voters passed a $10 billion bond in 2008 for the planning and construction of high-speed rail. Today, when read a description of the project and its $68 billion cost estimate, 43 percent of likely voters favor it and 54 percent are opposed. Last March, when the estimated cost was $100 billion, responses were similar (43% favor, 53% oppose). When those who are opposed are asked how they would feel if the cost were lower, overall support rises to 55 percent. Most (59%) say high-speed rail is important to the state&#8217;s quality of life and economic vitality (32% very important, 27% somewhat important).<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Majorities of likely voters would favor the water bond and high-speed rail if the price tags on these big-ticket items were reduced,&#8221; says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO. &#8220;Californians&#8217; continuing concerns about the economy and the state and federal budgets make planning for the future a difficult process.&#8221; (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.ppic.org\/main\/home.asp\">PPIC<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The water bond numbers are pretty similar, with a 42\/51 split. These numbers aren&#8217;t really surprising. It&#8217;s like asking a kid if they&#8217;d like some gum for a dollar, and then asking how about a quarter. Sure, they&#8217;d prefer it at a quarter, even more than the pricey gum. But, stuff costs money, and ultimately, we can&#8217;t go over and over these decisions. The HSR bond passed, and now we have to look at how we can build an efficient system.<\/p>\n<p>There were a bunch of other numbers thrown in with this extensive poll. Brown is at 49%, the Legislature at 34% (a big jump since we got rid of the 2\/3 budget), and only the alcohol surtax has a majority among revenue ideas. But, dropping down the poll a bit, I found the numbers on reforming the initiative system very intriguing.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>A majority of likely voters (62%) are satisfied with the way the initiative process is working, but most of them (55%) are only somewhat satisfied. Three-fourths (74%) say the process needs changes (36% major changes, 38% minor changes). Only 19 percent say it is fine the way it is. Asked about three changes that have been suggested, overwhelming majorities support each: 84 percent favor increasing public disclosure of funding sources for signature gathering and initiative campaigns, 78 percent favor having a period of time in which the initiative sponsor could meet with the legislature to see if there is a compromise solution before putting a measure on the ballot. And 77 percent favor having a system for reviewing and revising proposed initiatives to try to avoid legal issues and drafting errors. Each of these three ideas has strong support across party lines.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I was actually a bit surprised at the high number on satisfaction, but that seems to run counter to the desire for change. The changes tested are all relatively minor, but perhaps with a couple of them, the process could become a little less of a free for all for the big money interests.<\/p>\n<p>Check the full poll for more information at the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ppic.org\/main\/home.asp\">PPIC&#8217;s website<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[87],"tags":[4736,897],"class_list":["post-14918","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-87","tag-4736","tag-897"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6Pvhz-3SC","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14918","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14918"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14918\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14918"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14918"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14918"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}