Public Affairs Special; Election 90: Debate on Measure M, Half Cent Sales Tax for Transportation

Do you see e public affairs specials are made possible by Disneyland Park bringing you 35 years of magic by the Peter and Mary move Foundation and by viewer support. Welcome to election 90 a series of important election programs designed to present issues to voters before the November 6th election. And today's program will present leaders on both sides of the measure in the local ballot issue which proposes a half cent sales tax for Orange County residents over 20 years to raise 3.1 billion dollars for transportation. It will appear on your ballot as a measure in the revised traffic improvement and growth management. Backers say it is critically needed to address this monumental traffic problem. But opponents point to defeats of two other transportation sales tax proposals one for one cent in

1984 and the previous measure and proposal for just a year ago. And they say voters will defeat this one too. According to the Chapman College Center for Economic Studies the half cent sales tax increase will cost about $57 per person per year or two hundred twenty eight dollars a year for a family of four. The measure and proposal is based on a very lengthy 20 year master plan for transportation for the county. The same plan on which measure RAM was based when it appeared last November on the ballot it lays out how the 3.1 billion dollars from the sale tag would combine with existing financing over 20 years of 11 and a half billion dollars in transportation improvements. The revised portion of the new measure M doesn't change any of the specific improvements revisions concern only how it will be given oversight and guarantees against changes. Let's take a fast look at exactly what the plan now proposes to understand the plan and the sales tax proposal. You need to apply simple arithmetic. Existing funds available from all regular public

and private sources over the next 20 years total eight point four billion dollars. Of tax would add 3.1 billion with that sum. So what's the plan. What can be done in 20 years with the resulting total of 11 and a half billion. Half cent sales tax is approved. Here's how that 11 and a half billion dollar money package would be divided over 20 years. Freeway improvement will get 43 percent of all the money street and road improvements will get 31 percent and the Transit Program will get 25 percent. The first part of the plan is what it will do for freeways. The Santa Ana Freeway widening from six lanes to 12 lanes from its 405 Freeway John. To the 6 0 5 freeway on the north is the number one priority. Since 50 percent of all jobs in the County are closed to this freeway. It's a centerpiece of the plan with 550 million dollars allocated to this one job. Officials say it will get the job done in 10 years by using sales tax money instead of

20 years without it widening would take place along the one hundred thirty seven miles of Orange County freeways existing sources of freeway funding will produce three point four billion dollars in 20 years while sales tax money would add 1.3 billion for a total of four point seven billion dollars for freeways. The second part of the plan is the streets and roads program to a League of Cities transportation supercommittee the traffic needs of all cities were put down and prioritized prioritizes projects among the county's fifty three hundred miles of local streets as well as two hundred twenty miles of roads development of 21 streets in the county and coordination of traffic signals between existing funds available for streets and roads for public and private sources over 20 years. Point six billion dollars allocations of 1 billion more the total. Will be three point twenty years. The third part of the transportation plan is the broad area of public

transit. It includes improvements for the district which operates 400 buses in one hundred forty four dialer ride buses every day carried 40 million passengers. Lower fares for seniors and the disabled and provide money to build transit ways on freeways. It would also allow for right of way acquisition of Pacific Electric. Including a rail line the total existing source of money from public. Dollars in the next 20 years the sales tax will add seven hundred seventy five million dollars total funding for all public transit projects would go to three point one billion dollars. Well those are the three major parts of the plan known as measure. A simple majority is needed to pass the measure. The revised provisions call for tightening safeguards that the money will be spent only a designated and also addresses growth controlled. These are that no change of funding between categories of improvements can happen without a public vote.

That explicit language said developers must pay their fair share that each city and the county must adopt a seven year plan for expenditures of the fund and allows for tougher growth control than required by the state. That the elected Orange County Auditor comptroller be chairman of the nine member citizens oversight committee to assure that the money is spent as designated for transportation. Our guests will give pros and cons on the issue. Dana read a quote the maid's attorney is the chairman of the Orange County Transportation Commission. The public's representative on the seven member commission he's an advocate of carpool lanes and commuter rail. He was previously a member of the president's commission on transportation quality. Jean Watt the Newport Beach councilwoman signed the ballot argument against the measure. She's an activist in environmental issues and was the founder of stop polluting our Newport. She served eight years on the citizens transportation Advisory Committee and helped create the city's traffic phasing ordinance. Reed royalty is chairman of the vote yes on him campaign for Orange County. He's a vice president for

Pacific Bell company. He's also chairman of the Orange County Transportation coalition and president of the Orange County tax affairs Association. Tom Rogers a rancher is chairman of the citizens against unfair taxation and a former chairman of the Republican Central Committee for Orange County in 1984 he opposed the 1 cent sales tax for transportation in 1990 with a backer of the measure him but not joined with the opposition. He signed the ballot argument against the measure. Will each guest will now give a one minute they command on his or her point of view and will have questions afterwards and let's start now with you Mr. Reed. Thank you Jim. I'd like to remind the people that measure him is a series of transportation projects. It provides money for freeways for local streets and roads and it helps us get into the 21st century by providing starter funds for mass transportation if you like the projects. You should vote yes on measure him. If you don't like the projects you should vote no and measure him. Everything else is basically extraneous. Whether

whether it's whether you agree or disagree with whether or not these projects should be built really is the only question because without measure him we cannot improve Interstate 5 we cannot fix the Otara why we cannot widen the 91 freeway we cannot handle the Super Street program. We can't do the commuter rail into Los Angeles as we want to do we can't buy the Pacific Electric right of way through the north county. And just remember what we're talking about here are projects. If you want the projects vote yes. If you don't want the projects vote no. All right. Thanks Jim. I believe that measure RAM is obsolete. It's not a solution and we need a new game plan. I think it's obsolete because it's the same old plan that lets transportation agencies call the shots. Now there's a recognized need for air quality open space and the explosion of social problems to share the driver's seat. I think it's not a

solution. Why should we beat our heads against the wall to get people into van pools and tax ourselves at the same time to create more of the same problem. We need a new game plan counties that voted a sales tax for roads or experience in quality of life problems like congestion problems in air quality just as we are. Even if I conceded that sales tax might be used for roads let's make it responsive to current thinking. How about a half cent for matching funds for the half a half cent for matching half cent for environmental mitigation. We could provide buffers between cities reduce the traffic improve the air quality and do the right thing for a change. All right thank you Mr. Royal. Nobody likes taxes I don't like taxes either in particular we don't like paying taxes into a general fund where elected officials can disburse the money into programs some of which will support some of which we do not support. However we have polling information that indicates that people are very willing to tax themselves when they see specific benefits coming back in exchange for their taxes. The beauty of measure

is that it provides specific benefits and we know exactly what we're going to get for our money. The thrust of the campaign will not be slogans we don't have any hype. Our effort is to educate the public because we know that 59 percent of the people will vote for a measure em. Once they understand what's in it and what measure em will do for us. All right Roger. Thank you Jim. The measure in was was defeated less than a year ago by the voters rather handily measure him at that time was heavily supported and backed by the developers. In the meantime in June however California voters passed Proposition 1 11 1 0 8 1 16. Which provided over 20 billion dollars to solve traffic problems in California in Orange County is entitled to a huge amount of that money. There is no change in the measure m spending plan. Between last year and this year. And

remember that because measure M was created before 111 and 1 awake were passed. So it's really superb for us. It doesn't meet the needs. That we have and it doesn't match up with the funds that are available. This is the wrong tax at the wrong time. Giving money back to the wrong people. I certainly hope people will vote no on measure him. I think one thing that everyone can agree on is that we've got a big traffic problem in this county. So the question I'd like each of you to address is if we don't start addressing our traffic problems right now and if we defeat measure and then when do we start addressing our traffic problems. How would you answer that. Well I think we have no choice but to pass measure him or something similar to it if we're going to have the projects that were listed at the beginning of it at the beginning of this program. If we want to widen the state five from six lanes to 12 lanes if we want to fix the why we have to pass a measure and that's the

way we can do it. How would you answer that one if we don't address the traffic problem. Not when do we start addressing I believe we've been addressing our practic problems and we're not addressing some of the other problems and this makes others worse. But we are addressing our traffic problems with all of the air quality regulations that businesses and even cities are having to accommodate to and spend money on trying to get people in the van pools cut the amount of compute commuter traffic. We have proper of new ways of financing roads by towing. And now I see that through the railways may have a center divider toll kind of a situation. I think it's time to turn our attention and some of our tax money particularly something like the sales tax to environmental problems. After all how would you answer that question. Jim there are environmental protections built in the measure and moreover if I measure am doesn't pass this time sooner or later something like measure M is going to pass because traffic and transportation alternatives are going to

continue to degenerate to the point where people out of frustration will vote something anything in measure M as a good rational solution. Moreover the money that has been promised to Orange County through propositions 1 0 8 and 116 will not all come back to Orange County. A lot of that is conditioned on matching funds from Orange County. We stand to lose about 100 million dollars a year in tax money that people in Orange County are going to pay that. Instead it will be. Transportation. Then Bernadino San Diego Los Angeles and everywhere but Orange County unless we have measure m to match those funds and bring them back to Orange County I might come back to that that question of matching funds and benefits but we'll let that one back of that about but let's start with the question. If we don't have regressing our problem now and transportation when do we start addressing it. Well we I agree with Jeanne we have been addressing them Jim and there's When we talk about lighting the i 5 in Proposition 111 there's 150 million dollars specifically for widening

I-5. But we can start the problem is the lack of faith that people have in Orange County in their officials in the bureaucracy. One way to start and I'll guarantee you they'll be back is Reed says we're going to be back every time they get beat as long as the developers will put up money they're going to be back with some kind of tax scheme. The way we start let's get the thing on the right track is to have an elected CTC people who are responsible to the voters. This is a tax measure. They're not response or they're not even elected officials. We need an elected TC. Let's start that and have some public input into the process so that the people who pay the taxes can feel that they have had a voice in these decisions they have no voice in the decisions now. You know I'd like to respond to that. The point here just demonstrates the incoherence of the opposition to measure and I don't mean individuals such as Tom or info head I mean that the various people in there aren't really very many of them who oppose measure and are incoherent in their opposition. Some people object to

it because it does not provide a lot of new elected officials other people object to attacks because they say they don't want to give money to elected officials. A few people oppose measure and because it provides some money for transit services and a few other people say no we don't want transit services we want a lot of highways so the opposition is incoherent. Measure and gives a balanced menu of Transportation Alternatives which poll after poll indicate that people want and need. I agree Jim and if we can talk about the projects let's talk about whether or not the Torah why ought to be fixed or not let's talk about whether or not Interstate 5 should be widened or not let's talk about whether we should have rapid transit into Los Angeles. All of these extraneous issues that the opponents keep bringing up. All it does is obfuscate the issue. The issue is whether or not these projects should be built or not be built. If you want them built you need to vote yes if you don't want them felt you should vote no. But the opposition doesn't want to talk about that because the overwhelming majority of the people

want these projects built and this is the way to do it if we can stick to the issue of the projects. Then I think the voter will be much more enlightened and I want to respond. You said let's talk about I'd like to talk about what really is underlying people's concern about the county. We read all the time about people wanting to bail out of the county not everybody but the main people leaving more and they're nervous there's something underlying all this that makes them nervous and I think what's underlying is that that the county government and the transportation planning has been leading the way. And what's happened is that you provided for regional transportation then the county goes ahead and builds a whole new city or another part of a city in the unincorporated territory fills it all up. And we're left with this sprawling congested mass. I think we have and we need to really look to the whole thing. We could have half of the sales tax go toward mitigation. We could provide the money for buffers between

cities just as Laguna has tried to do. I think that would help to solve the problem and help the air quality at the same time to give us and we can talk about these projects all they want good luck they're talking about it. Let's talk about what about fixing your problem. OK let's talk about fixing. Let me let me do what I'm going to do here with you. You'll have your turn. I'd like to hear what you have to say good are going to say it. Million dollars here for the electric right away. Now last Saturday it turns out apparently like that Mr. Reed clarify this that they only need 17 billion for the right away. And both he and the representative from both CTC now say that the difference the thirty three million million dollars will be used for overhead. The promise was made to the voters that all of this money would go to capital expenditures whether you like them or not. Now they have changed the game plan that apparently right now on set. Let me finish Jim two representatives for

most CTC quoted in both newspapers have said that they are going to use or want to use some of these funds for operational purposes but what if newspapers are right here and that is not true. Tom I don't the register and the end of it I hear here. I have the thing right on nothing about overhead it says stations tracks and cars. It was operating spun to become available data. We have operating funds become available. What does it say that say anything about stations or Cardiff Watts says operating from right here the woman says you're by Adriana Brooks Yes and she's got her hands out for that 33 million dollar not I'm not eating her expenses we not only have not for men I don't know what is not her what is your response to that I'm going to add to both papers are right here and you point out the register in the times without being I don't care I'm quoting him I've got it right in front of me here is why I brought it because I knew you wouldn't respond to the 50 million dollars in measure M is for capital improvements it is for the right of way it is for the tracks it is for the stations it is for the parking lots and it is for the rolling stock it is not for overhead. What

says right away because I was right away when I have to right away or that for operational expense you what is it it is for it is for it is for the land and. The stations the rolling stock and the parking in your spokes person is incorrect No you don't have to read Tom that I said well I doubt he will that's come over to the question about matching funds that we talk about the yeah the loss that this county according to the transportation. We stand to lose them. We I mean Orange County stand for lose 80 million. Population want to. To lose something up to a hundred sixty million dollars in state matching money which will go to other counties if we fail to have our part of the match. Now we're the only county that doesn't have a half cent sales tax. What about that what about this estimated hundred million dollars a year over the 20 years that we will lose by not having the matching money money that would have come to Orange County that will not what other counties is that a significant issue in this discussion today. It certainly is 80 million dollars of that money will be lost the day after the election if

we don't have a man away from proper annoyed money. In addition there are I think 15 or 16 urbanized counties in the state that cover 89 percent of the population in California. All of those counties except Orange County have passed. Sales tax for transportation improvements or more. We are the only county that's not doing it. If I were sitting in Sacramento or in Washington I would look at Orange County and say they haven't demonstrated the need for transportation improvements. I think I would been quiet about it as I do want to buy that as a loss of matching. That's a question a lot of my eyes on them. Most of yesterday trying to figure out what we were losing and what it added up to and I could only find eight hundred million. But if Reed is right and it's 100 million a year for 20 years that's two billion. Let's split the difference and call it a million and that or a billion and a half that we would lose in transportation funds 500 million of that is called More than 500 million is could get it. If we had match doesn't say we

have to have. And that's for a flexible transportation relief which I'm not sure I know what is I think that's an open door to something we may or may not want. But at any rate I think that we do not need 3 billion for matching funds. We only need part of it and we should use the rest of it for the things the plan calls for and doesn't fund. Such is environmental medication above an Orange County status and you do have to have this expected loss of 100 million a year in matching funds. Let's come to you in just a minute. I would propose a half cent sales tax that provided matching funds up to a billion or a billion and a half and then the other for the things this plan calls for that it doesn't provide funding for which are. There's a quote I don't want take time each city and county has to pursue additional revenue to upgrade open spaces that are on where you want with a lot of your other sort. What they're not telling you is over the years anybody that's bought a new home in Orange County paid what they

call developer fees fees developer fees are not developer fees or taxes paid by the person who buys the house. There's been no attempt to get that credit for those huge amounts of money as has matching funds. If you use those as matching funds you wouldn't need the sales tax increase. You need a little creative thinking here. They can't overlook that we have legislators who are willing to go ahead go to Sacramento and get us credit for those so-called developer fees. Orange County people are paying enough taxes right now to get the whole thing without this additional half cent sales tax thing that's been defeated time and time giving it back to the same people that travel you know to lose as estimated a hundred million a year and the bare it all we've got to do is go get credit for money that's already been taxed on us and will be taxed on it in the future. All right you have to respond to the issue is the project's Cham they came. Changing the subject they want to talk about open space or buffer zones or developer phase or things like that. Let's talk about the projects we need to fix the El Toro y. We need to widen the interstate 5 we need to start a commuter rail to Los Angeles we need to buy the

right of way. And let's debate the projects if you want the projects you have to vote yes and if you don't want the projects as these people and apparently a few others don't want then vote no. It's as simple as that. I'd like to add to Dana's comment that we have an economic dynamo here in Orange County this is a great place to do business it's a great place to live. The economy in Orange County is probably half again stronger than it is in San Diego County and yet the geography and the number of people living in San Diego are about equal to Orange County and I can't think of a better way to strangle the goose that's laying the golden eggs than to have our our transportation system become strangled him and I may ask about that. Jim that's the old story they gave us back when we had what we call Proposition 8 they've been feeding us this old line for a number of years now. Dana did not respond to my my comments were that there is existing credits. Taxes have been paid. That has nothing to do with the projects themselves. We don't need the sales tax if you like the projects. Just go to the old CTC and force them to go to Sacramento and

get credit for monies that we've already been taxed. The Transportation Commission in this revised measure had put in a a mandate that any changes in the plan to assure voters that the money will be spent Number one it will be spent in Orange County and number two it will all be spent on that on the project for which it was designated. Yes. Does that reassurance by having a vote of the people do you feel make the difference for some in the last time. Well I certainly hope so. Mr. Rogers pointed out earlier today that there is a general distrust among the electorate and basically he's exploiting that and trying to play on it. And as a as a means of trying to defeat measure him but with the citizen's Oversight Committee and the requirement that we go back to the voters if there is to be any change I think that's addressed. You want to talk about that you have reassurance and then build in that that the revisions to measure and yes indeed the money will go into a special trust fund there are specific timelines that are building to measure him for the accomplishment of the objectives of measure in there and there is

a penalty for jurisdictions that misuse the money that would be collected under a measure m the the measure and the transportation plan can't be changed without a two thirds vote of the citizens oversight committee and a vote of the people. Why does that matter that they give us some kind of reassurance the fact that you turned out to go back to the piano for a reading in the plan. The reason this thing is on the ballot now is because the developers have put up a huge amount of money the filing date was yesterday. I'd like to have data read before this is over Tell us how much money is has been put into the campaign to date. What we're faced with with this voting thing is one of the most ridiculous proposal I've I've ever heard of. This will open the electoral process to the special interest each and every time you have an amendment to this. You'll have a multimillion dollar campaign blitz against the average citizen who doesn't have those funds so you're just you know that if they had it at the plant right that this in itself should eliminate at that one point alone should make anyone that wants anything in this to vote no on it this is the most ridiculous proposal I've ever seen it was

never put before any of your committees read by any citizen participation. It was brought up at the at the League of Cities in backroom politics. Jim what about we talk about the projects why do we have to keep getting off the subject talking about these blue smoke and mirrors that the opposition keeps bringing up. We were talking about the guaranteed build in with the requirement of a vote and whether that will satisfy what they knew what the skepticism of some voters let's hear from Mr. Watt. Well he talks about that there are Dana talks about the raw I want to of course is the worst problem we have. But that's not what this pays for lots of other things some of which can happen anyway. Some of what's going to happen buying new something new sources of financing some of which may not be needed at the Oversight Committee is essentially a rubber stamp for a poor plan and I want to say one other thing. Good luck or good call. All right we got about a minute. Let's have a closing parting shot here on this one from each person to summarize your feelings but we only have about a minute.

Trouble economic times GM wrong tax for the wrong reasons and you're going to give the money back to the people who caused the problem. Vote no on him. What's your parting shot here wait while he may have troubled economic times and maybe the price of gas is going to go up to $2 a gallon for all I know but if it does that's even more reason we need measure him because it now takes me about three gallons of gas to get to work. If we can get the freeways straightened out if we can present to me transportation alternatives maybe I can get to work on no gas at all or just one gallon I got your last comment. Even if traffic gets better in the short term. If the overall quality of life worsens we've lost the battle. All right your last. If you don't want the projects vote yes on measure and if you don't want the projects vote no on measure and forget all the other blue smoke and mirrors that we've been hearing. But you're saying vote yes. Oh absolutely. Our times almost up now and I thank our guest for talking with us on measure am the half cent sales tax issue for transportation. Please join us tomorrow night at 6:30 p.m. when we present candidates for the 58. It assembly races. I'm Jim Cooper.

Thanks for being with us. S.E. public affairs specials are made possible by Disneyland Park bringing you

35 years of magic by the Peter and Mary Muth foundation. And by viewer support.