Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

California Elections : THE STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS ON THE JUNE 3 BALLOT

June 01, 1986|CHERRY GEE / Los Angeles Times

PROPOSITION: Proposition 42 Veterans Bonds WHAT IT WOULD DO

Authorize the state to issue $850 million in bonds to continue the Cal-Vet farm and home loan program.

ARGUMENTS FOR

The bond funds would finance about 12,140 low-interest loans for California veterans to purchase or improve homes, farms and mobile homes. The program is self-supporting and never has been a cost to taxpayers.

Supporters: All major veterans' groups.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

No organized opposition.

PROPOSITION: Proposition 43 Park Districts WHAT IT WOULD DO

Authorize the state to issue $100-million worth of bonds to finance grants for local park districts, acquisition and development of sites, repair of existing facilities, access to beaches and preservation of historical sites and buildings.

ARGUMENTS FOR

Local funds for local parks and recreation projects fall seriously short of amounts needed for upgrading parks and for handling increasing numbers of visitors.

Supporters: California Chamber of Commerce, California Taxpayers Assn., Defenders of Wildlife, County Supervisors Assn., League of California Cities.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

User fees for recreation purposes are preferable to general obligation bonds, and enactment of this measure would increase the existing bond debt of the state.

Opponents: California Farm Bureau.

PROPOSITION: Proposition 44 Water Conservation WHAT IT WOULD DO

Authorize the sale of $150 million in bonds to provide low-interest loans to help finance local government water conservation, quality and ground water recharge projects, along with agricultural drainage water treatment.

ARGUMENTS FOR

Public health, business and agriculture in California are dependent upon a continued supply of clean water, which must be conserved and be of high quality. Recharging (refilling) underground water supplies is more practical than constructing dams, and safely treating agricultural drainage water is as important to Californians as is the treatment of municipal sewage. Supporters: Central Valley agricultural interests, Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp, state Water Resources Director David Kennedy, Californians for Clean Water.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

The bond issue would subsidize large agricultural interests that are capable of financing treatment of drainage water themselves, and when investors buy tax-free bonds, money is removed from private enterprise and the state loses revenue from income taxes. Opponents: San Jose attorney Gary B. Wesley

PROPOSITION: Proposition 45 Treasury Investment Changes WHAT IT WOULD DO

Allow public money managers, such as city treasurers, to deposit public funds in any credit union in the state in addition to banks and savings and loan associations.

ARGUMENTS FOR

This measure would provide a wider investment choice for state, county and municipal money managers. Public funds, under law, would be secured by securities equal to 110% of any public money on deposit. Supporters: The state's 1,100 credit unions.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

Smaller government entities, such as special districts, could encounter delays in getting their money back should a credit union voluntarily go out of business. (Involuntary credit union closures are federally insured up to $100,000.) Opponents: California Municipal Treasurers Assn.

PROPOSITION: Proposition 46 Tax Exception WHAT IT WOULD DO

Allow an exception to the 1% property tax rate ceiling established by passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. The exception, on a two-thirds vote by local taxpayers, would enable local governments to issue and service general obligation bonds to finance land acquisition and building construction.

ARGUMENTS FOR

Bond sales would provide local governments with a money-saving alternative to borrowing funds to pay for new schools, hospitals, police and fire stations. Supporters: California Chamber of Commerce, California Taxpayers Assn., League of California Cities.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

Bad policy because it would lead to more public indebtedness; the needs of those for whom benefits are intended do not justify taking this step. Opponents: Anti-tax crusader Howard Jarvis.

PROPOSITION: Proposition 47 Vehicle Taxes WHAT IT WOULD DO

Amend the Constitution to guarantee that the current practice of returning all California vehicle license fees to cities and counties is not changed. In the post-Proposition 13 state budget crunch, the state has made use of the fees for itself in recent years. The amendment would not stop the state from cutting revenue shares for local governments from other programs.

ARGUMENTS FOR

The measure is needed to prevent the state from siphoning off what is historically a source of local funds.

Supporters: State Sen. Ruben S. Ayala (D-Chino), California Taxpayers Assn., League of California Cities and California Sheriffs Assn.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

No organized opposition.

PROPOSITION: Proposition 48 State Retirement Benefit Limits WHAT IT WOULD DO

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|