GPCA position on Proposition 69

Ranked Choice Vote ID 140
Ranked Choice Vote

GPCA position on Proposition 69: ACA 5 (Resolution Chapter 30, statutes of 2017), Frazier.

Motor vehicle fees and taxes: restriction on expenditures: appropriations limit.

Number of Seats 1
Ranked Choice Vote Administrator Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbec
Discussion

02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018

Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018
Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
 
   
Result  

Presens Quorum

 

Candidates

Endorse

Oppose

No Position

Abstain

 

Background

This is the ranked choice vote for the GPCA to take a position on Proposition 69: ACA 5 (Resolution Chapter 30, statutes of 2017), Frazier.  Motor vehicle fees and taxes: restriction on expenditures: appropriations limit.

The choices are to rank 'endorse', 'oppose', 'no position' and/or 'abstain.' Delegates can rank as many or few of these options in their order of preference.

An 'endorse' vote would mean the GPCA would endorse Proposition 69.

An 'oppose' vote means the GPCA would oppose Proposition 69.

A 'no position' vote means the GPCA would not take a position on Proposition 69.

An 'abstain' vote means the voter is not expressing a preference, but is voting to help achieve quorum.

Any of these position that receives 2/3 after all preferences are transferred is the position of the party. If neither 'endorse' nor 'opposes' receive 2/3, the GPCA's position will be 'no position'.

The proposition is listed below, along with the Legislative Counsel’s digest and a link to the full text.

 

Proposition 69

ACA 5 (Resolution Chapter 30, statutes of 2017), Frazier.

Motor vehicle fees and taxes: restriction on expenditures: appropriations limit.

(1) Article XIX of the California Constitution restricts the expenditure of revenues from taxes imposed by the state on fuels used in motor vehicles upon public streets and highways to street and highway and certain mass transit purposes, and restricts the expenditure of revenues from fees and taxes imposed by the state upon vehicles or their use or operation to state administration and enforcement of laws regulating the use, operation, or registration of vehicles used upon the public streets and highways, as well as to street and highway and certain mass transit purposes. These restrictions do not apply to revenues from taxes or fees imposed under the Sales and Use Tax Law or the Vehicle License Fee Law.

This measure would add Article XIX D to the California Constitution to require revenues derived from vehicle fees imposed under a specified chapter of the Vehicle License Fee Law to be used solely for transportation purposes, as defined. The measure would prohibit these revenues from being used for the payment of principal and interest on state transportation general obligation bonds that were authorized by the voters on or before November 8, 2016. The measure would prohibit the revenues from being used for the payment of principal and interest on state transportation general obligation bonds issued after that date unless the bond act submitted to the voters expressly authorizes that use. The measure would also prohibit the Legislature from borrowing these revenues, except as specified, or using them for purposes other than transportation purposes.

(2) Article XIII B of the California Constitution prohibits the total annual appropriations subject to limitation of the state and each local government from exceeding the appropriations limit of the entity of the government for the prior year, as adjusted.

This measure would exclude appropriations of certain revenues associated with the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 from the appropriations subject to constitutional limitation.

(3) Article XIX A of the California Constitution requires the deposit of a specified portion of the sales and use tax on diesel fuel in the Public Transportation Account in the State Transportation Fund, and restricts the expenditure of those revenues to certain transportation planning and mass transportation purposes. Article XIX A prohibits the Legislature from borrowing these revenues and from using these revenues other than as specifically permitted by Article XIX A.

This measure would restrict additional portions of the sales and use tax on diesel fuel to expenditure on certain transportation planning and mass transportation purposes and require those revenues to be deposited in the Public Transportation Account. The measure would prohibit the Legislature from temporarily or permanently diverting or appropriating these additional revenues for other than certain transportation planning and mass transportation purposes, or from borrowing, except as specified, these additional revenues.

 

Recommendation of the Green Party of Alameda County:

Proposition 69 -- YES, with reservations
Transportation revenues for transportation purposes

California has a long history of diverting revenues meant to improve basic essential transportation and transit infrastructure, and spending those funds elsewhere in the state budget. Prop 69 prevents funds raised for transportation and transit projects from being diverted to other uses, and removes automatic state spending caps which currently prevent transportation and transit revenues from being fully utilized.

At a time when the very survival of the planetary ecosystem depends on rapid action to shift to low emission mass transit, it is vital that the state maximize its spending on transit. The US and California are also burdened by decades of dangerous neglect of basic repairs of roads, bridges, railways, and other transportation infrastructure.

Because of these realities we support Prop 69 as an important first step to improving transit and transportation safety.

However we also strongly believe that the state traditionally spends far too much on new and expanded roadways for automobiles (which only serves to increase driving and greenhouse emissions) and spends far too little on expanding mass transit, bikeability, and walkability. This measure would have been far better if it had very specifically earmarked far more funds for transit, bikeways and walkability, and had barred these funds from being used to build new and expanded freeways and roadways.

 

Candidates:

Endorse

Oppose

No Position

Abstain

 

Full details are available at:

Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org