Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
California Proposition 51, Vehicle Tax Revenue for Transportation Projects Initiative (2002)
| California Proposition 51 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 5, 2002 | |
| Topic Taxes and Transportation | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 51 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 5, 2002. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported authorizing the state to reallocate 30% of tax revenue from the sale of motor vehicles from the general fund to the Traffic congestion Relief and Safe School Bus Trust Fund. |
A "no" vote opposed authorizing the state to reallocate tax revenue from the sale of motor vehicles from the general fund to the Traffic congestion Relief and Safe School Bus Trust Fund. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 51 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 2,883,234 | 42.21% | ||
|
|
3,947,217 | 57.79% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 51 was as follows:
| “ | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
• Creates 'Traffic Congestion Relief and Safe School Bus Trust Fund.' • Redistributes portion of existing state revenues from motor vehicle sales/leases from General Fund to Trust Fund for transportation, environmental, and safety programs. • Allocates portion of these funds for: school bus safety; clean air programs; highway improvements; mass transit improvements including bus purchase, commuter and light rail expansion. • Provides funds for environmental enhancement programs and traffic mitigation programs. • Allocates money to 45 specific projects. For remainder of Trust Fund, specifies distribution percentages, restricts fund uses, requires accountability mechanisms. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
| “ | About $460 million in 2002-03 and $950 million in 2003-04, increasing annually thereafter, for state and local transportation-related purposes.[2] | ” |
Support
Official arguments
The official arguments in support of Proposition 51 were signed by Lieutenant Ed Gray, president of the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs (COPS); Kirk Hunter, co-chair of the School Transportation Coalition; and Paul Burris, president of the Partners for Highway Safety:[1]
| “ |
Yes on 51 for Safe Roads, Safe School Buses and Congestion Relief! YES ON 51 dedicates EXISTING automobile sales taxes to fixing serious highway safety problems and severe traffic congestion. For too long, critical transportation and school bus safety matters have been pushed aside by special interests in the State Capitol. YES ON 51 requires the use of EXISTING state funds to:
YES ON 51 IS SUPPORTED BY:
YES ON 51 INCLUDES STRICT TAXPAYER SAFEGUARDS that:
These Strict Taxpayer Safeguards ensure Prop. 51 funds will be spent ONLY as promised and without waste. YES ON 51 MEANS SAFER ROADS. 'YES ON 51 specifically funds improvements to California’s most dangerous roads, bridges and intersections.'—Partners for Highway Safety YES ON 51 MAKES SCHOOL BUSES SAFER. 'YES ON 51 will replace thousands of school buses which do not meet federal safety and pollution standards, so kids can ride to school in safety.'—California Association of School Transportation Officials YES ON 51 RELIEVES CONGESTION. 'Prop. 51 will relieve California’s worst traffic congestion areas, improving traffic flow and making highways safer. Traffic is getting worse every day. We must do something now to reduce congestion.'— Planning and Conservation League YES ON 51 CLEANS OUR WATER. 'Road oil and grease pollute our water. Prop. 51 reduces water pollution, protecting people and wildlife.'—National Wildlife Federation YES ON 51 GETS KIDS TO SCHOOL SAFELY. 'Prop. 51 will improve walk path and bike path safety on routes to school, and provides clean air school buses to protect children’s health.'—California School Nurses Organization YES ON 51 IMPROVES AIR QUALITY. 'Prop. 51 reduces air pollution by improving public transit. Cleaner air means healthier lungs for everyone and fewer childhood asthma attacks and other diseases.'—American Lung Association of California YES ON 51 HELPS SENIORS AND THE DISABLED. 'Prop. 51 expands safe and affordable transit services for seniors and the disabled, allowing those who cannot drive to continue to live independently.'—Resources for Independent Living YES ON 51 IMPROVES EMERGENCY RESPONSE. 'Prop. 51 will make specific road improvements that assist police, firefighters, paramedics and emergency response personnel in reacting quickly in a crisis to save lives.'—California Organization for Police and Sheriffs Learn more: www.voteyesonprop51.org YES ON PROPOSITION 51![2] |
” |
Opposition
Official arguments
The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 51 were signed by Barbara Inatsugu, president of the League of Women Voters of California; Lenny Goldberg, executive director of the California Tax Reform Association; and Lewis K. Uhler, president of the National Tax Limitation Committee:[1]
| “ |
Why do taxpayer and government reform groups in California oppose Proposition 51? Because it violates the principles of sound tax and spending policy, and key principles of good government. In the midst of a multi-billion dollar state budget problem, Proposition 51 ties up the state budget forever with 17 new categories of required spending. This initiative does not provide any new funds, but earmarks nearly $1 billion of your tax dollars each year for a long list of programs and projects. Without consideration of other budgetary priorities, Proposition 51 locks in spending even on nonessential projects which in tough times may have to take a back seat to other needs. Accountability? The public and its elected representatives will have no voice if priorities need to be changed in future years. Health and social services, local government, higher education, or public safety might have to be cut or taxes raised to deal with budgetary pressures such as inflation, growth, or changes in federal funding. But Proposition 51 programs would be exempt from scrutiny. The proponents claim that the measure won’t take effect during bad budget times. But according to the California Budget Project, if Proposition 51 were the law now, it would be in effect for 2002–03, when the budget was nearly $24 billion in debt. It would have made this year’s budget crisis much worse. So much for budget protections. There are 45 specific projects written into this initiative with little accountability, many of which benefit contributors to Proposition 51. Example: A powerful Texas developer gets $30 million in grade crossings constructed to serve their development. The developer contributed $120,000 to get Proposition 51 on the ballot. This project was not a priority for a local transportation program. (Source: Riverside Press Enterprise). In all, these special projects add up to a whopping $1.2 billion while a dozen others receive millions in funding every year, forever. Still worse, the state is obligated to spend this money even if it means raising taxes or cutting vital services, such as children’s health care and fire protection, during tough budget times. For example, this initiative requires spending for projects, such as $40 million for improvements to a music concourse area and funding for a vintage rail line, that would likely go unfunded by the Legislature during a budget crisis. Those of us who oppose Proposition 51 have very diverse views about state spending and taxes. But all of us agree that Proposition 51 is bad tax and budget policy. We all agree that as times change, or in a budget crisis, spending priorities have to be changed. But instead, Proposition 51 ties up your tax dollars so that the ability to make the right choices is impossible. Don’t allow $1 billion of your tax dollars to be isolated from the democratic budget process every year. We urge you to reject Proposition 51.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 2002, at least 419,260 valid signatures were required.
See also
External links
- Official Voter Guide
- Full text of Proposition 51
- Smart Voter information about Prop 51
- Official declaration of the November 5, 2002 vote
- Top Ten Donors to Proposition 51
Footnotes
