Proposition 22 letter

We received the following letter regarding teh Proposition 22 story. It will be published in the Oct. 7 edition of the Town Crier. Since it is about the November election, I'm positing it here now.

Vote No on Proposition 22
Editor:
The following is in response to Marshall Smith’s article on Prop. 22.
According to the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, Prop. 22 is a constitutional amendment that allocates $1 billion more for transportation projects from the general fund and locks in funding for redevelopment agencies
Prop. 22 does not protect local funding. It protects redevelopment agencies that are, in fact, state agencies.
As the L.A. Times describes Prop. 22, it is a bait and switch. It focuses on transportation, but its real purpose is to preserve redevelopment agencies’ ability to capture property taxes from the counties throughout California, in order to subsidize real estate development and reduce the revenue available for funding such things as police and fire departments and water districts.
As stated in the L A. Times editorial, “It’s hard to see why redevelopment agencies’ ever-growing share of local property taxes — 12% statewide by one estimate — is more worthy of protection than school budgets, worker training programs or any of the other public services coming under the knife.”
In terms of transportation, it makes no sense to force the Legislature to use the general fund instead of fuel tax revenue to pay off existing transportation bonds, as Proposition 22 would do.
Diverting the money out of the general fund cuts the guaranteed funding for schools by an estimated $400 million a year. It also creates a $1 billion loss in revenue each year, and perhaps up to several billion dollars, that would go to health, welfare, the environment, schools, universities and other crucial programs.

Bob Ferguson
Idyllwild and Claremont