ORANGE COUNTY VOICES : COMMENTARY ON MEASURE M : Honoring the Voters’ Wishes on the Transportation Sales Tax : The initiative was designed so funds wouldn’t be diverted-- but with the bankruptcy, that money is in danger.

In November, 1990, the voters of Orange County defied conventional political wisdom: They voted by nearly 55% to impose a half-cent sales tax increase for $3.1 billion in transportation improvements over 20 years. Measure M passed because a specific set of projects was promised and strong safeguards were incorporated to ensure those projects were delivered.

Measure M restrictions approved by the voters included an independent citizens oversight committee designed to assure that sales tax funds were spent on the list of transportation projects included in the plan. The measure further restricted changes by requiring that proposals to change funding among major categories--freeways, streets and transit--had to be put back to a vote of the people.

The Measure M ordinance was drafted by a broad coalition of community activists to make sure the commitment to voters was honored. There would not be an opportunity in the future to redirect funds just because another issue replaced transportation as a community priority.

Now we are faced with the very dilemma Measure M was structured to avoid. The county is in bankruptcy and many voices are arguing that Measure M funds should be diverted to bankruptcy relief. Recovering from the county’s financial problems represents a more noble cause than delivering on transportation promises to the voters, they argue.

Every crisis brings forth its advocates to assert reasons for establishing different priorities. But the half-cent sales tax for bankruptcy relief failed. Is it honest public policy to deplete funds from a tax increase that passed (transportation) to divert those funds to finance a purpose (bankruptcy recovery) for which a tax increase was most soundly defeated?

Many of those who today suggest such a diversion rightfully would have seized upon such “flexibility” in 1990 as a reason for voting against Measure M. If flexibility to divert funds for non-transportation purposes had been incorporated into Measure M, it would not have passed. Clearly, the public is rightfully skeptical of politicians promoting funding for popular causes only to see those funds diverted for political expediency. Thus the reason for specificity, and protection against diversion.

The fact is, we see encouraging progress occurring every day in Orange County as transportation projects are underway and headed for completion. That progress is possible because Orange County citizens supported a commitment to specific projects.

Bankruptcy recovery clearly will have an impact on transportation resources without tapping into Measure M. Under the current consensus recovery plan, the Orange County Transportation Authority will send to the county nearly $38 million annually for 15 years to assist in bankruptcy recovery. In exchange, the county provides the OCTA $23 million per year in gas tax funds.

Conservatively, that’s nearly $600 million that won’t be available for transportation improvements between the county and OCTA during the term of the recovery plan. Measure M shouldn’t be tapped for bankruptcy reduction efforts. Even though the current plan does not specifically include a Measure M raid, it is difficult to see how the obligation will be met without some access to those funds.

Meanwhile, a reliable, multi-modal transportation network that is commerce- and commuter-friendly is a significant linchpin to economic well-being. A good transportation system translates into job growth. Jobs are created building the system. Recent findings indicate that increased transportation expenditures have led directly to the creation of more than 8,000 jobs in Orange County. Measure M pumps $1 million per day into the local economy. In this competitive business climate, companies remain and new growth occurs where transportation systems work.

The bankruptcy is a serious matter, but it must not be solved by sacrificing an economic linchpin such as Measure M. The citizens voted for a tax to provide transportation progress. They voted against a tax for bankruptcy purposes.