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