Prop. 185: Too Ambitious, Too Costly : Measure calling for 4% gas tax hike is riddled with flaws; vote no

Proposition 185, one of the measures on the Nov. 8 ballot, attempts to do too much at too great a cost.

If approved, it would impose a 4% sales tax on gasoline, with revenues dedicated to a variety of mandated transportation projects. This additional tax would add around 5 cents to the price of each gallon. As gasoline prices rose, so would revenues from the tax. It’s projected that Proposition 185 would produce about $700 million a year in its initial phases. There is no expiration date for the tax. It would go on indefinitely, until repealed by a vote of the people.

Proposition 185 is a highly complicated, 78-page initiative that is heavily weighted toward rail systems. It’s no coincidence that its major backer is Southern Pacific. The measure mandates at least $850 million toward the purchase of SP rights of way and improvements to SP facilities, including the Coast Route.

A second major backer is Morrison-Knudsen, which builds rail cars. Proposition 185--again by no coincidence--specifically bans magnetic levitation trains of the kinds now being built abroad. In so doing it commits to what is regarded as an obsolescent technology.

Proposition 185 contains other serious flaws. Only one-fourth of its funds would be allocated to seismic safety refitting, and that only until the year 2000. Much of the state’s most important safety needs would thus be left unmet.

Who would decide how the steadily rising revenues produced by Proposition 185 would be spent? The measure would set up a three-member body with exclusive authority to operate outside the existing transportation process. Decisions of that body would be made by majority vote. Thus two people could effectively control how billions of dollars in transportation revenues would be spent.

Proposition 185, given its great cost, would in fact do little to solve the air pollution, energy conservation, seismic safety and public transportation problems it purports to address. Nor could its requirements be easily changed. Under its terms it would take a four-fifths vote by the Legislature to change any of its key provisions.

Californians can do better than lock themselves into this measure. We urge a “no” vote on Proposition 185.