Page One

City Council Dreads Prop. 53

By J. DOUGLAS ALLEN-TAYLOR
Tuesday September 30, 2003

Of the two constitutional amendments on the Oct. 7 ballot, the one getting the least publicity this summer and fall—Proposition 53—could end up having the more dramatic long-term effect on the state of California. 

If passed, the Funds Dedicated for State and Local Infrastructure Constitutional Amendment would lock in up to a maximum of three percent of the state budget each year for repair and development of the state’s aging parks, highways and bridges, water resources, and state-owned public buildings. 

Currently there are no restrictions on how much—or how little—the state legislature spends on such items. 

The Berkeley City Council has come out in opposition to the amendment, saying that it “could have dreadful effects on the state budget” and charging that it is “not a practical or intelligent way to...maintain and improve our infrastructure.” 

There is no disagreement that California’s state-owned infrastructure needs both maintenance and improvement. 

The American Society of Civil Engineers recently listed roads and water as being of particular concern in the state, citing the fact that “72 percent of California’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition (and) 28 percent of California’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.” 

The society estimated the cost of repairs to the state’s drinking water infrastructure, wastewater infrastructure, and the “most critical” dams over the next two decades at nearly $30 billion. 

According to the Yes On Proposition 53 organization, this situation came about because the state legislature “failed to set aside adequate revenue for infrastructure during the last 30 years.” 

If passed, Proposition 53 would amend the California Constitution to mandate that one percent of the state budget in fiscal year 2006-07 be placed in an Infrastructure Fund. That amount would rise each year until it reached a maximum of three percent of the budget in fiscal year 2012-13. 

The state’s Legislative Analyst has estimated that the amounts set aside would run from “roughly $850 million in 2006-07 and grow to several billions of dollars in future years.” The proposition also has provisions to lower the set-asides in years of slow economic growth, and is specifically written not to conflict with the minimum education set-asides of Proposition 98, passed by California voters in 1988. 

Support for Proposition 53 ranges from civil engineering and construction trade organizations to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, and the East Bay Regional Park District. 

Opposition to the proposition has been led primarily by the California League of Women voters, which has traditionally supported bond measures to support infrastructure projects. 

However, the League opposes constitutional amendments containing “provisions which inhibit flexibility of governmental action to meet changing conditions.” In addition, the League feels that Proposition 53 will both conflict with other budgetary priorities and will not provide year-to-year funding stability for infrastructure projects. 

The ballot argument against Proposition 53 was signed by State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell.