California Voting: Proposition 21
The Governor's Race
The Lt. Governor's Race
The Attorney General's race
The Senate Race
Proposition 19: Yes
Proposition 20: Yes
Proposition 21 Outline:
* There would be a new $18 tax/registration fee for
most vehicle registrations.
* Mobile homes, permanent trailers, and vehicles registered
under the Commercial Vehicle Registration Act would be excluded
from the surcharge.
* Most California vehicles would get free admission and
parking at state parks and beaches.
* 85% of the money raised from the new fee would be spent
directly on maintaining and operating state parks.
* The $130 million that the State of California currently
spends on state parks would go into the state's general fund.
Official summary:
* Requires deposit of surcharge revenue in a new trust fund
and requires that trust funds be used solely to operate, maintain
and repair state parks and to protect wildlife and natural resources.
* Exempts commercial vehicles, trailers and trailer coaches
from the surcharge.
* Requires annual audit by the State Auditor and review by a citizens
oversight committee.
Summary of estimated fiscal impact:
Annual increase to state revenues of $500 million from surcharge
of vehicle registrations. After offsetting some existing funding
sources, these revenues would provide at least $250 million more
annually for state parks and wildlife conservation.
Basically this boils down to
"Do you want the legislature to be in charge of deciding funding levels for State Parks -- said funding apparently inadequate and varying fairly radically as the state's fortunes improve or get worse -- or would you prefer that funding be set at a minimum of something like $380 million per year? And if the latter are you willing to pay $18 (if you own a car) for that increase and that certainty, less any fees you would have paid had you decided to visit a State park?"
Let's note immediately that at some point in the future, assuming inflation, the $18 fee would presumably have to be increased. Or else the legislature will have to start allocating monies anyway. It's almost always bad to write laws with fixed dollar amounts that have to time limits specified.
Let's also note that this is a regressive tax. Perhaps the poorest people don't have cars, but I'd guess the vast majority of California's residents, rich and poor, do. Instead of taxing on the basis of automobile initial price, or current value, it imposes a flat fee. On the other hand it's $18, and to write the proposal is a more progressive way would, I suspect, have been confusing to a lot of people.
One thing that's not completely clear is what happens currently to existing parking, admissions and camping fees. Do they go into the general revenue fund of California? Or do they stay within the park system. I'm assuming the former, because I haven't seen any mention anywhere of a loss of revenue to the State Parks due to Proposition 21's provision that provides free admission and parking for day visitors. If it is the former, then the State of California actually saves money because, while it no longer gets that revenue, it doesn't have
to allocate funds for State Parks out of the general fund. I suppose the revenue that remains -- from overnight camping permits, for example -- would continue to go to the general fund.
It's the age old (for California) conundrum: the legislature and the budget process are completely broken. Clearly it should be the legislature's responsibility to provide adequate funding for state parks (assuming people want them to exist and be maintained, and I believe that such is the overwhelming sentiment). But if they refuse to do so (or the governor exercises his line-item veto in this regard, or cannot do so because they cannot raise revenue except by 2/3rd vote or agree on other cuts) should the people take away the State's authority in this matter and set up a dedicated revenue stream?
There's no good answer. Certainly I'm willing to pay $18 more in taxes to put California's state parks et al back into good condition and keep them that way. But I'd also be willing to pay $18 more for many other government projects, and nothing for others. And I might not be willing to pay $1800 more for 100 worthwhile projects. Still, no one's asking me the general question -- all I get to weigh in on is the $18 State Parks question.
This does seem to be a carefully crafted initiative. It seems as thought it will be extremely difficult for the legislature to hijack the new revenue stream set up by Prop 21, although they always seem to be inventing new ways of trying. To the extent that they cannot the money raised in not fungible; it is not simply replacing monies that currently exist.
I'm going to vote yes. Partly selfishly (I suspect we'll recover the $18). Partly out of a belief that the legislature is in permanent SNAFU and so protesting that this is the legislature's responsibility is a waste of ascii characters. (Should Proposition 25 -- majority approval for the budget -- pass, perhaps I will reconsider similar future votes. And partly because it seems like a worthwhile place to allocate money, and it's the only say I have.