Focus on State’s ‘Basics’

During the booming 1950s and 1960s, California devoted 20% of its annual state budget to building the infrastructure that helped make this a great state--the public schools, college and university buildings, parks and other state facilities. But such spending took a nose dive in the late 1960s and has averaged less than 3% of the budget annually since 1980. The result is more and more visible, from urban potholes to crumbling park buildings. Highway funds come out of a different account, but the story there is almost as bad. As population increased by 50% over the past 20 years, the miles of new highway lanes grew by only 7%. No wonder the freeways are jammed and in disrepair.

The future is even gloomier. Unless California acts soon, the state will not be able to catch up with the construction backlog, much less deal with an expected growth of 12 million residents during the next 10 years. The situation is so dire that state Treasurer Phil Angelides calls it “the most dramatic challenge for California’s leaders since California became a state.”

The shabby condition of California’s infrastructure, and a study projecting costs of nearly $100 billion over the next decade to bring it up to snuff, made it a hot issue as Democrat Gray Davis took office in January. Waiting on his desk were infrastructure reports--all of them sounding alarms--from the California Business Roundtable, the state Chamber of Commerce, the legislative analyst and Angelides. One of Davis’ first acts was to appoint a Commission on Building for the 21st Century.

Everyone started talking about 1999 as the Year of the Infrastructure, but it has not turned out that way. Davis and the Legislature did take a modest step, approving for the March ballot four construction bond issues totaling $5.6 billion--for water projects, parks, crime labs and libraries. However, Republicans in the Assembly killed $8 billion in transportation bond issues and a sorely needed amendment to let counties renew their half-cent transportation sales tax for 20 years.

The successful bond issues, if approved by voters, will be mostly catch-up projects. But the Legislature took one significant step forward with AB 1473, by Assemblyman Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks), requiring the governor to submit a five-year capital spending plan with his annual state budget. For the first time, state officials would be forced to review construction needs and develop priorities and a framework for financing the projects. While AB 1473 fails to include the sort of detailed finance plan proposed by the Business Roundtable and Legislative Analyst Elizabeth G. Hill, it’s a start and deserves Davis’ approval.

The Roundtable said the state should set aside a quarter-cent of the state sales tax annually, about $1 billion, for pay-as-you-go construction. Hill proposed 6% of the general fund budget for projects and bond payments. And Angelides called for stronger state planning so that new construction decisions encourage sound economic growth.

Still to be heard from is the governor’s commission. If Davis wants to project a bold vision for California, this is his opportunity. A strong infrastructure plan with a specific means of financing and effective planning will help ensure California a strong economy and a better quality of life for decades to come. But action is needed now.