Pondering a Prickly Proposition

The November ballot is loaded with measures and propositions which, depending on how they are voted on, will impact the state’s budget and our pocketbooks. These measures and propositions may possibly raise revenues for the state as well as for the City of Glendale.

One of the most prickly for me is Proposition 6 – Repeal of the Road Repair and Accountability Act. The proposition, according to the Voter Information Guide, “repeals a 2017 transportation law’s taxes and fees designated for road repairs and public transportation. Fiscal Impact: Reduced ongoing revenues of $5.1 billion from state fuel and vehicle taxes that mainly would have paid for highway and road maintenance and repairs, as well as transit programs.”

Additionally, “A yes vote on this measure means: Fuel and vehicle taxes recently passed by the Legislature would be eliminated, which would reduce funding for highway and road maintenance and repairs, as well as transit programs. The Legislature would be required to get a majority of voters to approve new or increased state fuel and vehicle taxes in the future.”

“A no vote on this measure means: Fuel and vehicle taxes recently passed by the Legislature would continue to be in effect and pay for highway and road maintenance and repairs, as well as transit programs. The Legislature would continue not to need voter approval for new or increased state fuel and vehicle taxes in the future.”

My dilemma is that I don’t like that the Legislature can pass fuel and vehicle taxes. It makes me mad that huge financial decisions are made on the state level that directly affect me and I don’t get a say in them.

However, we need our roads taken care of. So I decided to look at the history of California taxes that was collected in the report “A Brief History of Major Tax Changes in California, 1979-2015” produced for state controller Betty Yee.

What I found was that in 2002, more funding was needed for California’s transportation system. This resulted in a sales and use tax measure (Proposition 42) on vehicle fuel, which provided increased revenues for public transit, streets, roads, and highways. It required that state sales and use taxes revenues on [the] sale of motor vehicle fuel were to be used for public transportation, city and county streets and road repairs and improvements, and state highway improvements. The measure was expected to raise $1.4 billion in the first year, with revenues increasing in the following years.

$1.4 billion per year (minimum) multiplied by 16 years means that $22.4 billion should have been going toward our roads. Yet, commercials promoting a no vote state that current projects would be halted because there is no money to complete them. So where did that $22.4 billion go?

I understand that our roads, streets and highways need to be maintained but, in my opinion, we should get to decide on funding those repairs by voting on ballot measures and/or propositions, not continuing to give the Legislature the power to increase state fuel and vehicle taxes as it sees fit. That is the responsibility of the voters, who pay these taxes and fees.

  robin goldsworthy