election question (California):Proposition 1A

[ritaxis]

I don't get this. It's a constitutional amendment to say that funding bonds and appropriations for transportation can't be diverted?

It sounds wrong and scary and also probably sneaky, since I bet that the interpretation of "transportation" is going to be "subsidies for the US car and petroleum industries."

Am I right? I'm voting against it unless I hear compelling reasons to vote for it. And probably even then. An amendment to the state constitution to lock in funds for a specific issue? How dumb is that?

Comments

[julesjones]

I suspect it's also to do with things like protecting funding for BART at all costs, even if it means stripping all other forms of public transport of funding. See this rant for more details on the local version:
http://kevin-standlee.livejournal.com/133570.html

[hrj.livejournal.com]

I wasn't sure what it was meant to protect, but I've gotten really wary of initiatives that lock in particular budget items. I'm still dithering over some of the school facilities bond issues, but I'm leaning awfully close to an across-the-board "no" this time. I've gotten so sick and tired of government by initiative. And I've started to get sick and tired of tax-and-fund initiatives where the two items are not logically connected -- even if I approve of both elements in principle independently.

[n6tqs.livejournal.com]

In itself, it's not really a bad idea.
But it's the sort of "governance by initiative" that I don't feel good about.
Note the Green Party flyer endorses a "yes" vote, and my transportation buddies are split.
I'm with you.

[zeborah]

At first I misread that as "funding books and appropriations for transportation" and I thought, "Books -- that's good, right?" But yeah; no, that doesn't sound to me like the most necessary amendment a constitution might require.