They are the forgotten initiatives on the Nov. 2 statewide ballot.
Overshadowed by the impassioned debates over the state propositions on school vouchers, school bond elections, and the permanent extension of a sales tax, little attention has been paid to the four remaining state ballot measures that voters will be deciding in the special election.
But if you're a taxpayer, if you're concerned about housing for low- and middle-income residents, if you wonder why the state Legislature can't seem to pass a budget on time each year, if you lost your home or business in a recent mudslide or earthquake--or fear you could be the next victim, or if you don't even own a home because you can't afford the initial investment, then read on.
Despite their relatively low profiles in the pre-election campaigning, ardent backers and opponents of the propositions are arguing their importance.
"Nobody is really passionate about them," said Doy Henley, president of the conservative Lincoln Club of Orange County. "I think it's unfortunate. They are truly significant."
Of the lesser-known ballot measures, one of the most contentious is Proposition 168, which would eliminate a major hurdle to development of low-rent housing.
Under current law, state and local governments must submit a project to a vote of the public before proceeding with a housing development that relies on public money for at least half of its support. This proposition would eliminate the requirement for the election.
The agency proposing the project would still have to give public notice, and citizens could collect signatures on a petition calling for an election.
Supporters claim it will help the economy by making it easier for public and private agencies to build housing for the elderly, disabled veterans and families who cannot afford non-subsidized quarters, and thus create jobs in the stagnant construction industry. Opponents argue it will take away the automatic voting rights of citizens, and lead to the creation of public housing units that will eventually become "graffiti-covered slums."
The current law requiring an election was passed in 1950, "a reaction at that time to what people perceived as really bad public housing projects," said David Levy, a member of the Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force.
But having realized the mistakes of the past, Levy added, affordable housing advocates now support "scattered site" housing, where low- to middle-income residents are mixed into middle-class neighborhoods or projects with mixed income levels.
Task Force Chairwoman Lee Podolak said a change in the law would not lead to a dramatic surge in the low-income housing stock in Orange County, where an estimated 10,000 to 12,000 residents are homeless. But it may make it easier for local politicians to at least consider the developments.
Among its backers are the League of Women Voters of California, the Congress of California Seniors, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Federation of Labor.
Opponents include Richard L. Gann, president of Paul Gann's Citizens Committee, the Libertarian Party, the Lincoln Club, and Assemblyman Gil Ferguson (R-Newport Beach).
Despite efforts by affordable-housing advocates to improve the image of public housing, Ferguson said citizens are even more fearful now about low-income housing because they do not trust the government's ability to manage the housing developments properly.
"I don't think anyone can blame the general public for feeling that way. You have a drive-by shooting in Mission Viejo and then you tell (residents) you want to move in low-income people?" Ferguson said. "It's not a matter of race or income either, because low-income black communities don't want low-income housing built in their communities either, because of past experiences with that."
The assemblyman also said the proposition redefines "low-rent housing" and would exempt many projects from strict public review.
Another ballot measure, Proposition 169, has become a political insiders' battle over tactics employed by politicians to block timely approval of the state budget.
Democrats, who control the Legislature, say the proposition would end "gridlock" because it would prevent special interests from "holding hostage" the budget in order to win concessions on pet issues. But Republicans--fearing they would lose an advantage in last-minute budget negotiations--claim it will make it easier for the state to raise taxes.
Currently, the state Constitution does not allow a bill to cover more than one subject. So, in order to implement a new budget, a series of "trailer bills" must be passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor to modify laws that would be affected by the budget changes.
The last state budget required about 20 such bills, and the previous year's budget was delayed by more than two months because of political maneuvering.
