tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17691365.post-1160980861837774452006-10-15T23:35:00.000-07:002006-10-15T23:41:01.856-07:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">PROPOSITION 84<br /></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">WATER QUALITY, SAFETY AND SUPPLY.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">FLOOD CONTROL. NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION. PARK IMPROVEMENTS. BONDS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.</span><br /><blockquote><ul><li>Funds projects relating to safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, waterway and natural resource protection, water pollution and contamination control, state and local park improvements, public access to natural resources, and water conservation efforts. </li><li>Provides funding for emergency drinking water, and exempts such expenditures from public contract and procurement requirements to ensure immediate action for public safety. </li><li>Authorizes $5,388,000,000 in general obligation bonds to fund projects and expenditures, to be repaid from the state’s General Fund.</li></ul>Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:<br /><ul><li>State cost of about $10.5 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($5.4 billion) and interest ($5.1 billion) costs on the bonds. Payments of about $350 million per year.</li><li>Reduction in local property tax revenues of several million dollars annually. </li><li>Unknown costs, potentially tens of millions of dollars per year, to state and local governments to operate or maintain properties or projects acquired or developed with these bond funds.</li></ul></blockquote>This one was interesting to me. The Times reported that the Pro’s include the Democrats, the governor (shhh he’s a Republican) 100’s of conservation groups and a lots of water districts. Its intent is to invest in infrastructure, clean up waterways, and create better access to nature. <br />The con’s are essentially from the Republican’s and that it will cost too much. I guess they don’t want to pay for the arguments against this one say that it’s costly and only pet projects for conservationists.<br /><br />I find it interesting how Arnold crossed the divide on this one, but if it means better water habitats and cleaner water then it sounds like a win, and the expense seems like a pittance at the end of the day.<br /><br />My vote is <span style="font-weight: bold;">Yes on 84 </span><br /><br /><a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Los Angeles" rel="tag">Los Angeles</a> | <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/California" rel="tag">California</a> |<a href="http://technorati.com/tag/2006 Election" rel="tag">2006 Election </a> | <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/proposition 84" rel="tag"> proposition 84</a><div class="blogger-post-footer">does anyone really read this?</div>Masonic Travelerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17688459525360750872noreply@blogger.com