Opposition to Gasoline Tax Hike Surfaces

Once the darling of an unprecedented coalition of business, labor and government leaders, a proposed gasoline tax increase has come under attack from a variety of interests whose opposition threatens the success of the plan.

Northern California lawmakers and Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum are the latest to voice displeasure with the proposal to increase gasoline taxes 9 cents a gallon. Their opposition is part of a growing chorus of dissent that could undermine the fragile political compromise that produced the tax increase proposal in the first place.

In a new outbreak of the old North-South battle over state funding for highways, the lawmakers contend that Southern California will gobble up most of the revenue generated by the tax. Schabarum, on the other hand, is concerned that the proposal will foster “runaway government spending.”

But a Democratic architect of the proposal and Republican Gov. George Deukmejian’s Administration insist that they will stand behind it.

“The deal is done. It’s on the ballot. It’s finished,” said Michael Frost, Deukmejian’s chief of staff. “We’re not going to open this thing back up and try and renegotiate it. That’s not possible.”

He said interest groups are obviously trying to get as much mileage as they can out of the fact that any “opposition can have a real impact” on a campaign to win voter approval of a tax increase.

Assembly Transportation Chairman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) said that by threatening to campaign against the proposal, some opponents are hoping to pressure lawmakers to “give them a little bit more.”

“Everybody’s taking advantage of the fact that it’s a fragile coalition and, frankly, putting their own personal agendas ahead of the state’s benefit as a whole. It’s sad but it’s not unexpected,” he said.

Considered a triumph of legislative diplomacy when lawmakers approved it last summer, the proposal to raise the state’s gasoline tax is the key element of a complex plan to relieve traffic congestion and ease restrictions on government spending. It was carefully crafted to meet the demands of Republicans and Democrats, rural and urban lawmakers, environmentalists and road builders.

The tax increase, coupled with hikes in fees paid by truckers, is designed to help finance a 10-year, $18.5-billion transportation improvement plan that includes programs to upgrade highways, expand mass transit and manage congestion.

Because the tax hike will raise more money than the state can spend under current restrictions, the increase by necessity is tied to a proposed constitutional amendment that would modify the state’s spending limit. The tax cannot go into effect unless voters approve the ballot measure next June. The entire package was approved by the Legislature in an atmosphere of jubilation as lawmakers congratulated themselves for finally addressing one of the state’s most nettlesome problems--traffic congestion.

In the months since its approval, however, opposition has started to materialize. Interestingly, none of it is aimed at the gas tax increase itself, but at other components of the plan that are married to it.

The California Teachers Assn. is concerned that changes in the spending limit will diminish the gains education has achieved since the passage of Proposition 98, the school finance initiative. The California Building Industry Assn. complains that the congestion management program will place “unworkable” responsibilities on developers to help ease traffic gridlock.

And several Northern California legislators, led by Sen. Dan Boatwright (D-Concord), say that transportation funds generated by the gas tax will be unfairly distributed. Promised that 40% of the new revenue would flow to Northern California transportation projects, they say their area will actually get only 27.8% of the money for new highway construction and 16% of proposed rail funds.

“The bottom line is Sen. Boatwright represents Contra Costa County and not Orange County or Los Angeles County,” said Barry Brokaw, the senator’s chief assistant. “From his perspective his folks will be paying 100% of the tax but they will only be getting 27% of the bang from the tax.”

Katz argued, however, that Boatwright may have been given the wrong figures. While Northern California would get less than 40% of the new highway funds, he said it would get more than 40% of the money earmarked for highway rehabilitation and maintenance.

Schabarum, who announced his opposition last week, accused lawmakers of using the gasoline tax increase as a ploy to get voters to lift the limit on state spending. He said he plans to help author ballot arguments against the proposed modifications in the spending limit.

“I support a gas tax increase by itself--although I think 7 cents a gallon is sufficient--but there are just too many other features in (the proposal) that are onerous,” he said.

Both Frost and Katz said the authors of the proposal would be willing to consider minor technical changes in the plan, but only if all sides agree to it. Each said they would fight any attempt to totally reopen negotiations on the issue.

“We think (the proposal) was the right thing. It’s the correct policy and we’re going to try to get it passed,” Frost said. “We hope nobody opposes it . . . but if they do, they do. We still have to move forward with it.”

Frost said it is difficult for him to believe, for instance, that developers would finance a campaign to defeat a proposal “that puts $18 billion into highway development and infrastructure.”

“It’s hard to believe it’s in their interest to do that,” he said, “but it may be in their interest to try to leverage (the Legislature) on the short term.”