Home > Resource Center > In the News Home > Greenbelt Alliance in the News

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

November 6, 2002

PROPOSITIONS 50, 51

Subheading

California voters on Tuesday opened their wallets for new spending on water projects but not transportation, rejecting Proposition 51, a ballot measure to guarantee funding for a range of transportation projects, and approving Proposition 50, a $3.4 billion water bond.

"Apparently Proposition 51 didn't convince voters it would solve the problems they care about," said Jerry Meral, executive director of the Planning and Conservation League, a Sacramento environmental group that wrote both measures. "It is encouraging, however, that even in a down economy, they believe in improving the quality of their water supplies."

Proposition 51 asked voters to shift 30 percent of yearly motor vehicle sales taxes -- a portion estimated at $910 million next year -- from the state general fund to pay for a list of transportation programs, including light rail, bike paths and bus safety.

Critics blasted it as a scheme that benefited wealthy donors. They cited such items as its $120 million commitment to build a train to a Southern California casino owned by the Agua Caliente Indian tribe, which donated $500,000 to the measure.

Proposition 51 was endorsed by the American Lung Association, Sierra Club, California Trucking Association and the Teamsters union. It was opposed by the League of Women Voters, Greenbelt Alliance, California Taxpayers Association and the League of California Cities.

Proposition 50 was a $3.4 billion bond act. Among the projects it would fund: upgrading drinking water systems, buying coastal land and paying for environmental restoration projects around San Francisco Bay's delta.

Supporters, including the Santa Clara Valley Water District and dozens of environmental groups, said Proposition 50 was needed to improve drinking water quality and protect the environment. Critics, including taxpayer groups and the California Farm Bureau Federation, noted that much of the money for the Yes on 50 campaign came from developers that hoped to sell the state property they own that has been tied up in development battles with environmental groups for years.

###