In Case You Missed It: Santa Ynez Valley News, Antelope Valley Press, Victorville Daily Press and San Bernardino Sun / Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Urge Yes on Proposition 22
For Immediate Release: October 21, 2010
Contact: Kathy Fairbanks (916) 443-0872
Sacramento, CA – The Santa Ynez Valley News, Antelope Valley Press, San Bernardino Sun / Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and Victorville Daily Press urged their readers to vote Yes on Proposition 22 in recent editorials. These newspapers join the growing list of newspaper editorials, police and fire representatives, local government, transit, transportation, business, labor, taxpayer and community groups supporting Proposition 22.
The complete editorials are below. Following are excerpts from the editorials.
Santa Ynez Valley News, Editorial, October 14, 2010, “Ballot propositions, and their value”
• State government is in serious need of restructuring, and passage of Prop. 22 is one way to begin the process.
• We recommend a “yes” vote on Proposition 22.
Antelope Valley Press, Editorial, October 12, 2010, “Valley Press: Yes on 20, 22; No on 21, 27.”
• We support Prop. 22 because it prevents the state from doing what it's not supposed to do - borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, as the saying goes.
• When times get tough and money gets tight, the state tends to pilfer sales tax revenue from the local governments, such as Palmdale and Lancaster, and in the process tie their hands. Or lawmakers will dip into transportation funds to balance the budget, delaying upkeep of roads and bridges.
• Local governments for the most part seem to do much better at giving the people their money's worth for their tax dollars. The farther the money goes from the taxpayer, the less efficiently it seems to be spent.
• Again, the state must get its house in order so we don't see an annual scramble to move money around and somehow make the numbers line up on the budget ledger.
Victorville Daily Press, October 11, 2010, Editorial, “Keeping the cash closer to home.”
• Last year, California’s state government, faced with its usual huge budget deficit (and that deficit is back again this year, with a vengeance), “raided” local government funding to the tune of $5 billion, grabbing not only redevelopment funds but public safety and transportation funds as well. Proposition 22 on the Nov. 2 ballot would prevent a recurrence.
• …If Proposition 22 doesn’t pass, some worthy local programs may be cut.
• … Allowing state government to continue to confiscate funds that could more properly be distributed at the local level makes Proposition 22 worthy of a yes vote.
San Bernardino Sun / Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Editorial, October 10, 2010, “Don't let state grab local money.”
• When their overspending continues to make their bottom line bleed red, stealing is just what lawmakers do to taxes and fees that were designed to fund our local government rather than the entire state.
• Last year, it was a whopping $5 billion that the state raided from city, county, transit, redevelopment and special district funds. Since 1992, the total take has been $11.2 billion.
• Meanwhile, in order to keep the taxes we pay for locally working for us locally, vote "yes" on Prop. 22 Nov. 2.
Complete editorials follow
Santa Ynez Valley News, October 14, 2010
http://www.syvnews.com/articles/2010/10/14/opinion/op%2001.txt
Ballot propositions, and their value
Today, we offer a brief description of propositions on the Nov. 2 ballot and our opinion of their worth.
Proposition 22 would amend the California Constitution to prohibit the state from borrowing or limiting the use of specified, local tax revenues.
If Prop. 22 passes, state programs could suffer. But local programs would flourish. The question then becomes, which is more important, state or local programs? State government is in serious need of restructuring, and passage of Prop. 22 is one way to begin the process.
We recommend a “yes” vote on Proposition 22.
Antelope Valley Press, October 12, 2010
http ://www. avpress.com!artic1e-detail.php?articIes_id=2225 1001
Valley Press: Yes on 20, 22; No on 21, 27
Yes on 22
In the same vein, we support Prop. 22 because it prevents the state from doing what it's not supposed to do - borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, as the saying goes.
When times get tough and money gets tight, the state tends to pilfer sales tax revenue from the local governments, such as Palmdale and Lancaster, and in the process tie their hands. Or lawmakers will dip into transportation funds to balance the budget, delaying upkeep of roads and bridges.
Prop. 22 would prohibit the state from taking funds used for transportation or local government projects and services. Local governments for the most part seem to do much better at giving the people their money's worth for their tax dollars. The farther the money goes from the taxpayer, the less efficiently it seems to be spent. Again, the state must get its house in order so we don't see an annual
scramble to move money around and somehow make the numbers line up on the budget ledger.
Victorville Daily Press, October 11, 2010
http://www.vvdailypress.com/opinion/home-22291-keeping-one.html
Keeping the cash closer to home
Steve Williams
One of the worst policies in California is “redevelopment.” Under it, local governments use state tax money to seize properties, even perfectly good ones, they designate as blighted in order to “redevelop” them. The properties usually are given to other private companies that benefit, such as big-box stores. The original owners are compensated but often at below-market rates. That’s a violation of property rights, and if anything in the United States Constitution ought to be considered inviolate, it’s such rights — which is why the Kelo vs. New London decision by the United States Supreme Court was, and is, so outrageous.
Last year, California’s state government, faced with its usual huge budget deficit (and that deficit is back again this year, with a vengeance), “raided” local government funding to the tune of $5 billion, grabbing not only redevelopment funds but public safety and transportation funds as well. Proposition 22 on the Nov. 2 ballot would prevent a recurrence. It is supported by the California Redevelopment Association, the California Fire Chiefs Association and the California Police Chiefs Association, among others.
Opposing Prop. 22 are the California Teachers Association, Health Access California and others. They say it would force cuts in school funding and other state programs or could lead to tax increases to make up the billions the state took from local governments.
While it's good to see the rapacious redevelopment agencies lose some funding, the state should go further and simply abolish them. And of course we oppose “ballot-box budgeting,” in which voters lock in portions of government spending, making it more difficult to cut budgets and increasing pressure for tax increases. Yet if Proposition 22 doesn’t pass, some worthy local programs may be cut.
Which all makes this a tough call. We think, in the final analysis, that allowing state government to continue to confiscate funds that could more properly be distributed at the local level makes Proposition 22 worthy of a yes vote. It coincides with our belief that the closer to the people its governing agencies are, the more careful those agencies will be in spending taxpayer money.
As we said, it’s a tough call, but we think a Yes is in order here.
San Bernardino Sun and Inland Valley Daily Tribune, Editorial, October 10, 2010 *Mayor Villaraigosa strongly supports Prop. 22
http://www.sbsun.com/editorial/ci_16305578
Don't let state grab local money
We all love our state, and we all hate our state government's dysfunctional failure to ever come up with a spending plan in a timely manner.
But sensible Californians draw the line in several places at revenue-side solutions to the yearly budget debacle - not only at unwarranted higher taxes and fees, but at Sacramento stealing from local governments to balance its own books.
When their overspending continues to make their bottom line bleed red, stealing is just what lawmakers do to taxes and fees that were designed to fund our local government rather than the entire state.
Only they don't call it stealing - they call it shifting, borrowing, restricting the use of or even taking local property, hotel, parcel, utility and sales taxes.
It's plainly among the most nefarious of ways to balance a budget. It's the tactic of a bully. But Sacramento continues to do it.
That's why the League of California Cities has crafted the constitutional amendment appearing as Proposition 22 on the Nov. 2 ballot to prohibit the state from taking funds designated for local government.
Every one of our local mayors and city councils we've talked with is in full support of this well-written measure that establishes a lock box around our cities' monies.
In fact, the only California mayor we've heard of not supporting it - he's taking a "no position" stance - is Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. That's because he's a former legislator, and buys into the bogus line that the proposition is another example of "ballot-box budgeting," along the lines of Proposition 98, which mandates the percentage of the budget spent on education. But how is simply preventing highway robbery by Sacramento an onerous restriction on our state government?
Last year, it was a whopping $5 billion that the state raided from city, county, transit, redevelopment and special district funds. Since 1992, the total take has been $11.2 billion.
It's not as if we approve wholeheartedly of all the spending done on the local level - not that it's somehow purer than spending generated from our state Capitol. In fact, the taxing-and-spending scandals journalists are uncovering in California city halls show that a few local pols and municipal administrators are top-notch scam artists indeed. But citizens are rising up against that institutional corruption, and will clean house.
Meanwhile, in order to keep the taxes we pay for locally working for us locally, vote "yes" on Prop. 22 Nov. 2.