Prop 53 fails, yet most students don’t care

Proposition would have earmarked funds for construction, maintenance and modernization of California infrastructure

By Maurice Ndole

A little known proposition failed to pass in the historic and complicated Oct. 7 California recall election after more than 64 percent of voters rejected it.

Proposition 53 seeks a legislative constitutional amendment to provide a specific general fund for the construction, maintenance and modernization of California infrastructure.

Proposition 53 coalition coordinator Petrea Moyle signaled doom to the success of the proposition Tuesday, blaming its failure on lack of vigorous campaign to enlighten voters on the benefits of the proposal.

“ The campaign was unable to get word out about its benefits,” Moyle said.

Sam Pack, chair of the Fresno County Democratic Central Committee, attributed the little awareness of the proposition to the sporadic media coverage.

“ They were a little shy on 53. They didn’t have the coverage on 53 like 54,” Pack said.

He predicted that the lack of awareness of the proposition was likely to favor proposition.

Unlike proposition 54, voters knew little about the Proposition 53.

“ Is it in today’s ballot,” asked Jill Damskey, a Fresno State student.

Fresno State political science professor Michael Becker attributed the lack of awareness and the little media coverage of the proposition to the focus of the media on the recall campaigns, involving actor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“ It was lost in the whole recall campaigns,” Becker said.

Fresno State senior Shauna Morales was not sure on the main candidates stand on the issue.

Becker opposed the measure saying that it will encourage pollution and take up open space.

“ I don’t like the proposition for one main reason. It will lead to the construction of more freeways,” Becker said. “More freeways mean more air pollution and suburban sprawl. It will lead to loss of farmlands and loss of open space.”

Becker also said the proposition would further complicate the California budget and lock in money, which may be needed on crucial projects in the government. Voters opposed to the proposition expressed similar views.

“ Proposition 53 will take dollars we could spend on more important things and put it towards government buildings,” Fresno State freshman Tony Delotto said. “I’ll rather have it put towards good use than a government building that we probably don’t need like a new courthouse.”

“ I voted no, I saw [Lt. gov Cruz] Bustamante campaigns, Bustamante supported it, I voted no on infrastructure,” Morales said. “People think it’s going to cost them dollars. It’s not going to pass.”

Bustamante, however, sent out posters urging voters to oppose the proposition.

Fresno State theatre major Molly Flores showed little interest in the elections.

“ I have no idea. I just hear the commercials on TV,” Flores said. “I just turned 18 and I wasn’t that concerned about voting.”

Views of the proponents of the proposition presented in the voters official guide argued that Proposition 53 would upgrade California’s infrastructure in a “common sense” “pay as you go” approach that would require the legislature and the governor to meet their obligations and provide for projects, which include State University and college classrooms, water pipelines, Roads, bridges, police stations, fire stations and public hospitals among others.

They said the state faces a significant challenge in addressing aging infrastructure and new infrastructure that can sustain a growing economy and population. They argued that the current state financial situation left no stable source of funding for state infrastructure.

Opponents of the proposition blamed the California deficit on measures like Proposition 53, which encouraged new spending.

They said that proposition 53 created a multi-billion dollar check at the time when California is raising college tuition fees, cutting funds from school and healthcare.

“ If you knew the state had a big deficit and the budget was out of balance, why would you vote for a bill to increase the state funding by billions of dollars?”

Opponents of the proposition said that Proposition 53 would lock its spending increases into our constitution. This would take away billions of dollars from existing revenues and putting them in a new spending plan.

They urged voters to reject the proposition because it was going to give politicians another blank check.

They said Proposition 53 required the Department of Finance to prepare an annual spending plan without requiring the legislature to obey the plan.

Supporters of the proposition included, Jon Coupal, President Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Alan Zaremberg, President California Chamber of Commerce, and Glen Craig, Retired California Highway Patrol Commisioner.

William Powers, Legislative Director Congress of California Seniors and Lenny Goldberg, Executive Director California Tax Reform Association signed the opposition of proposition on the voter’s guide booklet.

If the proposition succeeded it would have committed a percentage of the fund in a “pay as you go” infrastructure projects, starting with 1 percent and increasing gradually to a maximum of 3 percent.

This would have had a potential transfer of approximately $ 850 million between 2006 and 2007. The transfer would have increased to billions in the future years. The proposition would have taken effect in 2006.

The recall has passed bringing in Schwarzenegger as the new governor elect of California.

— MCJ 102W students contributed to this report.