Lawmakers Must Deliver on Promise to Rebuild State

Capitol politicians have set a high bar for themselves this year and seem psyched up to hurdle it. But if they don’t, it won’t matter what else the pols achieve. They’ll again be losers.

They can corral sexual predators, repay money promised to schools and even pass an on-time budget. They’ll still fail.

That’s because Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature -- Democrats and Republicans -- have all but promised to rebuild California’s decaying, strained public works. They’ve shouted that this is their top priority in an election year.

Voters are waiting and willing to approve a massive construction program financed by borrowing, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found.

The one word on everyone’s lips in the Capitol is a four-syllable noun that previously would have induced naps: infrastructure. It’s the hot issue.

The politicians are circling each other, marking territory and pushing their own plans.

Schwarzenegger has been trudging all over California, speaking to real people, rather than his familiar party props.

Last week, he was virtually barnstorming, peddling his $35-billion proposal to repair leaky levees and capture more water before it runs to sea.

“The lesson is very clear: We can spend money on flood prevention or we can spend money on cleanup,” the governor told 300 Northern California water agency officials in Yuba City, the site of past killer floods. “We are literally now only one big storm or one big earthquake away from a major Katrina-style disaster.”

Overall, Schwarzenegger is proposing a colossal $222-billion, 10-year package of highway, school, water facility, jail and courts construction. Of this, $68 billion would be financed by state bonds approved by voters over five elections. The other $154 billion, much of it iffy, would be gleaned from local, federal and private sources.

It’s way too much, say legislators -- Democrats and Republicans alike.

For one thing, they note, future governors and lawmakers will want to attach their own imprint to California’s rebuilding. Moreover, financing that much borrowing could further strain the budget and, besides, gobble up bond resources that might be needed for other purposes.

“You’ve got to make choices,” Senate leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) said in an interview. “When you’ve neglected everything for 30 or 40 years, the tendency is to get overwhelmed. Next thing, you try to do something for everything and everybody. You cannot do that.”

Perata tried to pitch infrastructure investment last year, but was drowned out by all the special election clatter. He’s currently proposing a $13.1-billion bond for transportation, including better truck access to ports, plus flood protection, urban affordable housing and incentives for “infill” development.

In a highly unusual move for a politician not running for anything, the Senate leader is airing TV ads in the flood-prone Sacramento Valley promoting “the Perata Plan.” He also intends to target the traffic-congested Inland Empire and Orange County.

Democratic strategists believe Schwarzenegger has sunk so low in public esteem that voters will be suspicious of any plan tied solely to him. So they’re trying, with the TV spots, to promote an alternative and hopefully wind up with a bipartisan consensus. They want to brand-name “the Perata Plan” for negotiating with the governor.

Meanwhile, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) is sponsoring a $9-billion school construction bond as part of the Democratic package. Not much controversy there.

But Nunez also is pushing for public transit funding and that’s opposed by Republicans, who want to focus on highways. The GOP has leverage because any bond package will require a two-thirds vote of each house.

L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a former Assembly speaker, will join Nunez at the Capitol this week in lobbying for transit money.

Things are happening. Policy committees have finished debating proposals. Gubernatorial and legislative staffs have been conferring. A two-house conference committee has begun meeting with the goal of writing bond bills.

Many different balls are in the air, but there’s probably at least one for everybody.

Assembly Republicans don’t like bonds and want pay-as-you-go financing. The governor and Democrats assert that’s unrealistic and roll their eyes. But why not some nod to the Republicans?

Nunez is suggesting a total $30-billion bond package, and that seems reasonable.

Neither Schwarzenegger nor GOP legislators favor including affordable housing and “in-fill” incentives. But if Democrats offered them some long-sought building “reforms” -- especially the loosening of urban environmental restrictions -- Republicans could hardly resist.

Democrats aren’t keen on new water storage, but seek urban parks. Vice versa for the GOP. Room for a trade?

Forget the governor’s courts and jail. Not enough money, say Democrats.

The odds on a grand deal? “I’d say 5-2,” Perata replies.

“The governor wants something big and dramatic. And we can give him something big and dramatic.”

The lawmakers’ deadline for placing a plan on the June ballot is March 10. No one expects that to happen. But negotiating a bond package for November seems probable because most Capitol politicians know they’d better.

If they don’t clear this bar, it’s reason for voters to kick them off the team in November -- the governor and legislators, Republicans and Democrats.

George Skelton writes Monday and Thursday. Reach him at george.skelton@latimes.com.