California Elections : THE STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS ON THE JUNE 3 BALLOT

PROPOSITION: Proposition 42 Veterans Bonds WHAT IT WOULD DO

Authorize the state to issue $850 million in bonds to continue the Cal-Vet farm and home loan program.

ARGUMENTS FOR

The bond funds would finance about 12,140 low-interest loans for California veterans to purchase or improve homes, farms and mobile homes. The program is self-supporting and never has been a cost to taxpayers.

Supporters: All major veterans’ groups.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

No organized opposition.

PROPOSITION: Proposition 43 Park Districts WHAT IT WOULD DO

Authorize the state to issue $100-million worth of bonds to finance grants for local park districts, acquisition and development of sites, repair of existing facilities, access to beaches and preservation of historical sites and buildings.

ARGUMENTS FOR

Local funds for local parks and recreation projects fall seriously short of amounts needed for upgrading parks and for handling increasing numbers of visitors.

Supporters: California Chamber of Commerce, California Taxpayers Assn., Defenders of Wildlife, County Supervisors Assn., League of California Cities.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

User fees for recreation purposes are preferable to general obligation bonds, and enactment of this measure would increase the existing bond debt of the state.

Opponents: California Farm Bureau.

PROPOSITION: Proposition 44 Water Conservation WHAT IT WOULD DO

Authorize the sale of $150 million in bonds to provide low-interest loans to help finance local government water conservation, quality and ground water recharge projects, along with agricultural drainage water treatment.

ARGUMENTS FOR

Public health, business and agriculture in California are dependent upon a continued supply of clean water, which must be conserved and be of high quality. Recharging (refilling) underground water supplies is more practical than constructing dams, and safely treating agricultural drainage water is as important to Californians as is the treatment of municipal sewage. Supporters: Central Valley agricultural interests, Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp, state Water Resources Director David Kennedy, Californians for Clean Water.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

The bond issue would subsidize large agricultural interests that are capable of financing treatment of drainage water themselves, and when investors buy tax-free bonds, money is removed from private enterprise and the state loses revenue from income taxes. Opponents: San Jose attorney Gary B. Wesley

PROPOSITION: Proposition 45 Treasury Investment Changes WHAT IT WOULD DO

Allow public money managers, such as city treasurers, to deposit public funds in any credit union in the state in addition to banks and savings and loan associations.

ARGUMENTS FOR

This measure would provide a wider investment choice for state, county and municipal money managers. Public funds, under law, would be secured by securities equal to 110% of any public money on deposit. Supporters: The state’s 1,100 credit unions.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

Smaller government entities, such as special districts, could encounter delays in getting their money back should a credit union voluntarily go out of business. (Involuntary credit union closures are federally insured up to $100,000.) Opponents: California Municipal Treasurers Assn.

PROPOSITION: Proposition 46 Tax Exception WHAT IT WOULD DO

Allow an exception to the 1% property tax rate ceiling established by passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. The exception, on a two-thirds vote by local taxpayers, would enable local governments to issue and service general obligation bonds to finance land acquisition and building construction.

ARGUMENTS FOR

Bond sales would provide local governments with a money-saving alternative to borrowing funds to pay for new schools, hospitals, police and fire stations. Supporters: California Chamber of Commerce, California Taxpayers Assn., League of California Cities.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

Bad policy because it would lead to more public indebtedness; the needs of those for whom benefits are intended do not justify taking this step. Opponents: Anti-tax crusader Howard Jarvis.

PROPOSITION: Proposition 47 Vehicle Taxes WHAT IT WOULD DO

Amend the Constitution to guarantee that the current practice of returning all California vehicle license fees to cities and counties is not changed. In the post-Proposition 13 state budget crunch, the state has made use of the fees for itself in recent years. The amendment would not stop the state from cutting revenue shares for local governments from other programs.

ARGUMENTS FOR

The measure is needed to prevent the state from siphoning off what is historically a source of local funds.

Supporters: State Sen. Ruben S. Ayala (D-Chino), California Taxpayers Assn., League of California Cities and California Sheriffs Assn.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

No organized opposition.

PROPOSITION: Proposition 48 State Retirement Benefit Limits WHAT IT WOULD DO

Set limits on retirement benefits for judges, legislators and statewide officeholders such as the governor. Limits would apply to individuals who retire after Dec. 31, 1986. Retirement pay would be limited to the current salary being paid for the same job, or to the highest salary that the retired person had received while he or she held office, whichever is higher.

ARGUMENTS FOR

Under current law the pensions of most public officeholders, such as legislators and the governor, can increase--without a cap--based on formulas linked to the annual inflation rate. The result is that retired public officials can be paid allowances greater than the full salaries of the current officeholder. Supporters: Sens. Wadie P. Deddeh (D-Chula Vista) and Jim Ellis (R-San Diego).

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

The new formula could still allow some pensions to more than double when pegged to the current salary being paid for the same job. Opponents: California Taxpayers Assn.

PROPOSITION: Proposition 49 Endorsements in Nonpartisan races WHAT IT WOULD DO

Prohibit a political party or party central committee from endorsing, supporting or opposing a candidate for nonpartisan office.

ARGUMENTS FOR

This constitutional amendment would properly keep partisan politics out of nonpartisan races. The measure is needed to keep local officials, such as judges, from being unduly influenced by political interests. Supporters: League of California Cities, Assemblyman Richard L. Mountjoy (R-Monrovia), Sen. Joseph B. Montoya (D-Whittier), Los Angeles City Council President Pat Russell.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

The amendment violates the free speech guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. California doesn’t have the type of party bosses that could influence nonpartisan officeholders. Political parties should have the same freedom to endorse nonpartisan candidates as any other organization or special interest group. Opponents: State Democratic Party, Common Cause.

PROPOSITION: Proposition 50 Assessment Changes WHAT IT WOULD DO

Provide an exception to current law calling for cash-value reassessment when property changes hands, which usually means a higher tax bill for the new owner. The exception would exempt individuals who move from property damaged in a disaster, such as an earthquake, from facing a property tax increase at the new location.

ARGUMENTS FOR

Sometimes property owners can’t rebuild on the same site following disasters such as earthquakes or landslides. This measure would give owners an option to rebuild or purchase a replacement home at another location and still retain their same tax base. The aim of the amendment is to prevent property owners from suffering property tax penalties because of a disaster.

Supporters: Sens. Jim Ellis (R-San Diego), Becky Morgan (R-Los Altos Hills), Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles).

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

1. The measure doesn’t go far enough and thus should be defeated as a message to the Legislature to repeal Proposition 13’s automatic property reassessment clause. Proposition 13’s basic flaw is this reassessment feature, which invariably triggers higher taxes every time property is sold. 2. There is sufficient local government relief available for disaster victims, making this measure unnecessary.

Opponents: 1. San Jose attorney Gary B. Wesley. 2. Howard Jarvis.

PROPOSITION: Proposition 51 ‘Deep-Pockets’ Liability WHAT IT WOULD DO

Limit the payment of non-economic damages, such as lasting “pain and suffering,” in a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit to a co-defendant’s degree of blame. Payment of economic damages, such as lost earnings or medical expenses, would continue to be paid by the co-defendants with the means to pay--regardless of their levels of fault.

ARGUMENTS FOR

The current law unfairly forces co-defendants with the most wealth or most insurance--those with “deep pockets”--to pay in some cases 100% of damages in personal injury lawsuits, although they may be only minimally at fault. Victims would receive their full compensation for economic damages, the number of frivolous lawsuits would be reduced and the measure would ease the insurance cost and availability crisis faced by cities and counties. Supporters: Local governments, businesses, insurance industry, medical profession.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

The measure’s passage would encourage more environmental pollution, the manufacturing of dangerous products and discourage the proper maintenance of streets and highways. Injury victims would not receive their full jury awards, and the courts would be clogged with more lawsuits. Proponents are mistaken in saying that the insurance crisis would abate; evidence in other states shows otherwise. Opponents: Consumer groups, plaintiffs’ lawyers and victim organizations.

PROPOSITION: Proposition 52 Jails WHAT IT WOULD DO

Authorize the issuance of $495-million worth of bonds for the construction and renovation of county jails and juvenile detention facilities.

ARGUMENTS FOR

Severely overcrowded county jails pose a serious health and safety hazard. As tougher criminal laws are enacted, more serious and violent offenders that once were sent to state prisons are being crowded into local jails meant to house minor offenders. Thirteen jails are under court-ordered population limits, and this has forced the release of some inmates. Supporters: County of Los Angeles, L.A. County Sheriff Sherman Block, Gov. George Deukmejian.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

There are better ways to reduce jail overcrowding--expand work furlough and community service sentencing programs; more people arrested could be released on bail; people such as public drunks and the mentally disordered who occupy cells should be placed instead in detoxification and community care facilities. Opponents: Friends Committee on Legislation, American Civil Liberties Union.