Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000. (The Villaraigosa-Keeley Act) Provides for a bond issue of two billion one hundred million dollars ($2,100,000,000) to provide funds to protect land around lakes, rivers, and streams and the coast to improve water quality and ensure clean drinking water; to protect forests and plant trees to improve air quality; to preserve open space and farmland threatened by unplanned development; to protect wildlife habitats; and to repair and improve the safety of state and neighborhood parks. Appropriates money from state General Fund to pay off bonds. Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: State cost of about $3.6 billion over 25 years to pay off both the principal ($2.1 billion) and interest ($1.5 billion) costs on the bonds. Payments of about $144 million per year. Costs potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments to operate property bought or improved with these bond funds. Final Votes Cast by the Legislature on AB 18 (Proposition 12) Assembly: Ayes 61 Senate: Ayes 31 Noes 15 Noes 3 Analysis by the Legislative Analyst Background In past years the state has purchased, protected, and improved recreational areas (such as parks and beaches), cultural areas (such as historic buildings and museums), and natural areas (such as wilderness, trails, wildlife habitat, and the coast). The state also has given money to local governments for similar purposes. In the past 25 years voters have approved about $1.9 billion of general obligation bonds for these purposes. As of June 1999, all but about $18 million of the bonds authorized by these previous bond acts had been spent or committed to specific projects. Proposal This proposition allows the state to sell $2.1 billion of general obligation bonds to spend on acquisition, development, and protection of recreational, cultural, and natural areas. General obligation bonds are backed by the state, meaning that the state is required to pay the principal and interest costs on these bonds. General Fund revenues would be used to pay these costs. These revenues come primarily from the state personal and corporate income taxes and the sales tax. Bond Costs. For these bonds, the state would make principal and interest payments from the state's General Fund over a period of about 25 years. If the bonds are sold at an interest rate of 5.5 percent (the current rate for this type of bond), the cost would be about $3.6 billion to pay off both the principal ($2.1 billion) and interest ($1.5 billion). The average payment would be about $144 million per year. Operational Costs. The state and local governments that buy or improve property with these bond funds will incur additional costs to operate or manage these properties. These costs may be offset partly by revenues from those properties, such as entrance fees. The net additional costs (statewide) could potentially be in the tens of millions of dollars annually. Argument in Favor of Proposition 12 Arguments on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Yes on 12 for Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection! We have a responsibility to preserve our communities' air and water quality, and to make our parks safe for our children and future generations. YES ON 12 WILL: Protect Our Air, Water, Rivers & Beaches from Toxic Pollution Provide Kids Safe Places to Play Help Keep Kids Off Streets & Out of Gangs Protect our Environment & Enhance our Economy YES ON 12 IS SUPPORTED BY: National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation California Organization of Police and Sheriffs National Parks and Conservation Association Congress of California Seniors League of Women Voters, Sierra Club California Chamber of Commerce STRICT SAFEGUARDS WILL ENSURE ALL FUNDS ARE SPENT AS PROMISED: Annual Audits Public Hearings Citizen Review YES ON 12 WILL NOT RAISE TAXES because it requires existing tax revenues to be spent efficiently and effectively. · ALL CALIFORNIANS BENEFIT: "Yes on 12 helps California communities make their parks safer for children, families and senior citizens. California's seniors need safe neighborhood parks." Congress of California Seniors · SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS: "Yes on 12 will help reduce crime by creating safer recreational areas to keep kids out of gangs, off drugs, and away from violence. Vote Yes on 12 to provide our children safer places to play. Join us in voting Yes on 12." California Organization of Police and Sheriffs · CLEAN WATER: "We can help keep our water free of pollution and protect our coast, bays, beaches and rivers from toxic waste by supporting Proposition 12. This measure is vital because it protects the lands that give us clean water." Clean Water Action · CLEAN AIR: "Yes on 12 will reduce air pollution and improve air quality by planting trees in our communities and by protecting forests, including redwood forests, that purify our air. We will all breathe easier by voting Yes on 12." Coalition for Clean Air · GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY & JOBS: "California's environment is crucial to our economy. Tourists visit our parks and natural areas bringing millions of dollars to state and local businesses. Our farm economy relies on healthy rivers and streams. By conserving these resources, Yes on 12 helps keep our economy strong and protects businesses and jobs." California Chamber of Commerce · A POSITIVE LEGACY FOR OUR KIDS: "We need to leave future generations parks, natural lands, clean beaches and a better quality of life! We strongly urge a Yes on Proposition 12!" League of Women Voters of California · WE ALL AGREE--YES ON 12: Yes on 12 is supported by business, children's groups, environmentalists, labor, religious groups, law enforcement, and senior citizens. Republicans, Democrats, independents, reformers and taxpayer advocates recommend Yes on 12 (See our website at www.parks2000.org). · YES ON 12--Protect our air and water from pollution, preserve our coast, rivers and beaches, and provide our children with safe places to play while providing annual public audits and strict fiscal safeguards. Robert Stephens Chair, National Audubon Society-California Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa Chair, Californians for Safe Parks Allan Zaremberg President, California Chamber of Commerce Argument Against Proposition 12 Arguments on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. THE NAME OF THIS BOND IS A HUGE DECEPTION-- ONLY A SMALL PORTION OF THE $2,100,000,000 WILL BE SPENT ON NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS! The sponsors of this proposition would like you to believe that the bond proceeds will be used to fund neighborhood parks and playgrounds, to enhance your community and your family's quality of life. But in fact, only a small fraction of the money has been specifically allocated for local city and county parks and playgrounds, and less than one-percent will be spent on soccer and baseball fields! So where will the rest of the money go? The government will use the vast majority of the money to buy more land for insects, rats and weeds. In short, this bond will not benefit your family. Your children will never get to set foot on the land that this bond will purchase, even though they will have to work throughout their adult lives to pay off the bond's debt. What's wrong with the government using this money to buy more land? First, there is no shortage of "park" space in California, since more than half of all the land in this state is already owned by the state and federal governments. Most of that land is in remote areas, where you and your family can't enjoy it. Second, once government buys new land with bond funds, it will have to spend additional taxpayer dollars to manage its new property. Expect to see your taxes go up if this bond passes. Third, do you remember the raging forest fires that blanketed California with smoke last Fall? Most of the smoke came from fires on government-owned land, where dead and diseased trees were left to rot. If this bond passes, even more land will be owned and neglected by the government, and left to provide kindling for the next round of forest fire infernos. Fourth, bond measures are among the most expensive and wasteful financing schemes ever devised. According to the Secretary of State, taxpayers must pay back $1.78 for every $1 of bond proceeds, because of fees paid to lawyers and bankers and the effect of compounded interest. THIS MEANS THAT CALIFORNIA'S TAXPAYERS WILL ULTIMATELY HAVE TO SPEND $3,738,000,000 TO REPAY THIS $2,100,000,000 BOND! Fifth, Californians are already on the hook for $36,900,000,000 for bonds previously approved for other projects. California is now so far in debt that Standard & Poor's has assigned our state the third worst credit rating of any state in the country! Sixth, the State Legislature determined that these projects were NOT sufficiently important to fund, NOT EVEN WITH THE $12,000,000,000 IN SURPLUS FUNDS THE STATE HAS REALIZED OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS. No schools, no roads, nothing for you and me--just more dirt for insects, rats and weeds. This money is literally being flushed down a rat hole. Vote NO on Proposition 12! RAY HAYNES California Senator BRETT GRANLUND California Assemblyman LEWIS K. UHLER President, The National Tax-Limitation Committee Text of Proposition 12 This law proposed by Assembly Bill 18 of the 1999-2000 Regular Session (Chapter 461, Statutes of 1999) is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article XVI of the California Constitution. This proposed law adds sections to the Public Resources Code; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. PROPOSED LAW SECTION 1. Chapter 1.692 (commencing with Section 5096.300) is added to Division 5 of the Public Resources Code, to read: Chapter 1.692. Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 (The Villaraigosa-Keeley Act) Article 1. General Provisions 5096.300. This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 (the Villaraigosa-Keeley Act). 5096.301. Responding to the recreational and open-space needs of a growing population and expanding urban communities, this act will revive state stewardship of natural resources by investing in neighborhood parks and state parks, clean water protection, and coastal beaches and scenic areas. 5096.302. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) Historically, California's local and neighborhood parks often serve as the recreational, social, and cultural centers for cities and communities, providing venues for youth enrichment, senior activities, and family recreation. (b) Neighborhood and state parks provide safe places to play in the urban neighborhoods, splendid scenic landscapes, exceptional experiences, and world-recognized recreational opportunities, and in so doing, are vital to California's quality of life and economy. (c) For over a decade, the state's commitment to parks and natural resources has dwindled. California has not kept pace with the needed funding to adequately manage and maintain its multibillion dollar investment in neighborhood, urban, and state parks and natural areas resulting in disrepair and overcrowding of many park facilities and the degradation of wild lands. (d) The magnificent Pacific Coast, outstanding mountain ranges, and unique scenic regions are the source of tremendous economic opportunity and contribute enormously to the quality of life of Californians. (e) Continued economic success and enjoyment derived from California's natural resources depends on maintaining clean water, healthy ecosystems, and expanding public access for a growing state. (f) The backlog of needs for repair and maintenance of local and urban parks exceeds two billion five hundred million dollars and the need for maintenance of state parks exceeds one billion dollars. The state's conservancies and wildlife agencies report a need for habitat acquisition and restoration exceeding $1.8 billion. (g) This act will begin to address these critical neighborhood park and natural resources needs. [etc. ...]