As word circulated yesterday of the new Field Poll showing the massive infrastructure bonds package on California’s November ballot losing steam, political insiders buzzed about the numbers and what they mean. It’s clear that if Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative Democrats want the infrastructure bonds package to pass, they are going to have to campaign hard for it. This is the post-Proposition 82 Reiner initiative environment, in which voters are more skeptical about seemingly good ideas that cost money.
While some took comfort in the knowledge that opposition to the bonds is not well organized and is unlikely to have major funding, the fact is that all the infrastructure bond initiatives lost ground from two months earlier. And some insiders note that not only did controversial movie director Rob Reiner’s tax-the-rich-for-universal-preschool initiative go down in a June primary election dominated by a Democratic gubernatorial primary contest, so too did a non-controversial bond measure for public libraries, which had no organized opposition.
The Field Poll has the following results on the infrastructure bonds initiatives: Proposition 1B transportation bonds leads, 54% to 27%. Proposition 1C affordable housing bonds trails, 33% to 42%. Proposition 1D education construction bonds leads, 48% to 37%. Proposition 1D, levee repair and disaster preparedness bonds leads, 47% to 33%. All of those initiatives were placed on the ballot by the Legislature and Schwarzenegger. Proposition 84, water and parks bonds, placed on the ballot by environmental groups and endorsed by Schwarzenegger, leads 49% to 31%.
Notably, only the transportation bonds measure has over 50% support. All the others are under 50%, normally a major warning sign with regard to their prospects.
The affordable housing bonds, the one initiative which Schwarzenegger keeps forgetting to mention as he stumps around the state, is in terrible shape with only 33% support. The others could pass, but will all require major campaigns. Even in the absence of a well-funded opposition campaign, as defeat of the library bonds measure in June makes plain.
There is a campaign committee to pass the infrastructure package. However, to date, although a passel of political consultants has been tapped to play roles in running the campaign, no one has actually been formally hired.
Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders, including the Democrats, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, will reportedly meet next week on the matter.
Fundraising is also lagging. With Schwarzenegger focused on his re-election campaign — he continues to far outstrip his Democratic challenger, Treasurer Phil Angelides — Perata and Nunez are for now in charge of the funding.
While support for the bonds has really sagged among Republicans, their support levels among independent voters also leaves much to be desired for this point in the election cycle.
What the overwhelming landslide defeat of the Reiner initiative, 61% to 39%, and the shocker though much closer defeat of the library bonds initiative in June demonstrated is that voters have become very wary of expensive ballot measures that don’t provide a core benefit to their lives.
Most Californians do not use public libraries. Most Californians do not have children of preschool age. In addition, as several consultants noted, the state is spending much of its tax revenue windfall on schools, which have also benefited from various bond measures around the state in recent years.
So it is unsurprising that the infrastructure bond measure enjoying the strongest support is the transportation initiative, as most Californians are acutely aware of the need for serious upgrades and expansions to roads and highways and improvements for transit systems. The levee repair and flood management bonds run second best among the measures placed on the ballot by Schwarzenegger and the Legislature as they deal with a clear and present danger. Though that danger will need to be spelled out again for voters in Southern California who are far from the endangered levees in the Northern and Central parts of the state.
In contrast, the bonds for affordable housing look like “social engineering,” as two political advisors put it, nice ideas that will not benefit a majority. The education construction bonds lead, but fare only third best among those placed by the leadership because Californians already feel they are doing a lot for the schools.
The water and parks bonds, separately placed on the ballot by environmental groups after legislative Republicans made it clear their votes were not available, fare fairly well because voters are favorably disposed to promoting environmental protection.
But with support levels even for core concerns such as transportation and levee repair perilously close to the 50% level, even those measures will require active, bipartisan campaigning from Schwarzenegger and his Democratic allies to avoid an embarrassing defeat for the bipartisanship so hailed in the Capitol just a few months ago. They may need to make some hard choices, such as on the affordable housing bonds, in order to ensure victory for the heart of the package.
Read 
| Comments (0) |
Last year was labeled a “lost year” and the Governor was blamed for not working with the Legislature and campaigning too much.
The year could be labeled a lost year after the Governor works with the Legislature but doesn’t campaigning enough (for the bonds at least).
In the words of the legendary Ron Burgundy, “Oh, sweet irony!”
And vice versa, of course.
I ran the last housing measure Prop. 46 in 02 and continue to help this housing coalition with their current Prop.1C.
I’ve seen 3 seperate polls conducted in July on this measure as well as the other Bond measures. Field’s number are way off base. Why?
Take a look at Field’s methodology. He only read voters the dolllar amount and the ballot title. When I spoke to Mark DiCamillo yesterday, he acknowledged that he would have prefered to have read the full ballot title and summary but they were “not available”. He agreed that the results would be more accurate if their poll could replicate what voters would actually see when casting a ballot. Simple conclusion: Flawed question, flawed answer.
I don’t disagree that the voter climate makes passing these measures challenging. However, Field’s numbers do a disservice to the debate. It’s not surprising that I would take issue with the suggestion that the housing measure is the weak link. This is not supported in any of the research that I have commissioned or seen by others.
In September, when Field polls again, the stories will be how these Bonds have found new popularity. Someone will make a silly explanation that it’s because some Pols are talking it up (as if the public is paying attention or cares).
Here are the numbers from the June 5th Field Poll. (The first number in the row is the Yes vote, the second number is the No vote, the third number is the Undecided vote.):
Prop. 1c, Housing and Emergency Shelter
($2.8 billion)
Total voters 39% 38 23
Democrats 50% 24 26
Republicans 25% 58 17
Non-partisan/other 37% 36 27
“In contrast, the bonds for affordable housing look like “social engineering,” as two political advisors put it, nice ideas that will not benefit a majority.”
Is this just a matter of appearance or is an accurate description of reality? These housing initiatives are like the those in charge of the lifeboats on the Titanic mandating that some people ought to be able to stretch out in some of the short supply. The overwhelming majority of people get their housing in the marketplace and promoters of the housing bond are often the same people that created the market conditions that have damaged the economic lives of those who don’t own or who are paying the full market toll.
Even Steve Glazer’s substantial experience and skill cannot save the housing bonds with only 33% support. With the Field Poll publically confirming private polling that voters are rightfully concerned about state finances, campaign leaders will need to perform some triage. Will they leave Prop 1c behind like a fatally injured Everest climber, or will they risk the fate of the entire package by using precious resources to nurse it to the top? Glazer is smart enough to have an air tight contract and demand most of his fees up front…
People do not understand what the Housing Bond is all about yet … once women voters understand that it is about building emergency shelters for women and children running from abuse…and once the faith based organizations utilize their congregational networks to tout and educate their members and the greater community on the great need for this to pass …you will see a difference in the polls.
Nothing breaks down community more than lack of affordable housing, and having people forced to live in substandard housing….
It appears from what you wrote that Democrats should not count too much on help from Arnold to pass this…but if a properly funded campaign effort is directed at this measure, then the Democratic leadership in the legislature to whom we owe our thanks for this measure, willbe able to count on Californians to support it…look at the polling results on immigration (from yesterday) it’s a minority of Californians that do not have their heads screwed on right.. or their hearts in the right place.
When voters see all these new spending measures, they’re just going to vote NO on all of them regardless of their merits which are dubious at best. This state government is completely out control. Why has the budget doubled in a ten year period when inflation & population have only increased by about 30%? I will be one of those that will NO on all these spending measures.
Powder Blue Report
I hope this is a wakeup call that the powers that be better get their act together and get the bond package campaign up and running ASAP. Many of us in the world of transportation policy have been patiently waiting for when selling of the package began in earnest. It has been discussed here before how we in the grassroots will be key to arguing these are important measures whose passager ensures the future viability of our state to overcome what Mr. Bradley so accurately notes is the tendency of voters being “very wary of expensive ballot measures that don’t provide a core benefit to their lives.” It has been clear for some time these measures would not be a slam dunk. But I think with a strong campaign and a broad-based coalition passage of all 5 measures can be achieved.
And there are grumbles among some quarters. The latest issue of the newsletter of the local chapter of the Sierra Club has a front page artitcle from port activists decrying the plans to improve access for trucks. I know these folks and others (exponents of environmental justice) have qualms about the bonds not promoting their values. But so far they just seem to be talking among themselves.
Faith-based groups and those affiliated are more concerned getting w/ prop 86 passed.
The November ballot is loaded w/ props that are focused on raising big bucks through various means.
It’s going to be a tough sell to the run-of-the-mill voter to get them not to just vote “no” on all of them.
Well, as a liberal, Im getting sick of all these bond measures that just keep making me as a homeowner pay more and more. If I saw any discipline for the State Govt Id be more inclined to support these measures. I know that Dems spend like drunken sailors, but I thought this Governor would try to do more ( or be more successful) in holding the line.
If you live in LA there will also be a big housing bond on the ballot.
This is a tough one for me Bill, because we desperately need affordable housing in LA, so I’ll vote for it.
Anyway, if a liberal like me is sick of these bond measures, what about mods and conservatives.
Phil :”Faith-based groups and those affiliated are more concerned getting w/ prop 86 passed.”
It is a given that prop 86 is very important but to our constituency but so is affordable housing and comprehensive approach immigration policy…we are about building community…WE DO NOT SEE THESE ISSUES AS ISOLATED oR UNRELATED…Further, anyone who is truly active in faith-based networks and/or coalitions would know WE ARE NOT SINGLE ISSUE by any means…
But Dana is right about the need to get going on a campaign for all the measures. Moreover, the housing measure is identified in everyone’s mind more than the others as the “Democrat’s bond measure”…Their consultants, money people and troops should quit puttzing around with Phil’s campaign and get to work work on ensuing the housing measure passes…it is not such a terrible thing to loose to an incumbent ..but to let down your base on a vital issue is irresponsible when all you need to do is put some energy,money,creativity and time into a proper campaign.
They will do well to pass transportation and levees.
L.A. Housing Bond, where the more you had to pay for your house, the more you will have to pay to subsidize the housing of others. Ad valorem taxes without reforming Prop 13’s assessment provisions are unfair.
More importantly, those who pursue an agenda of that will greatly increase the population while supporting policies that limit housing and add costs to its production are responsible for making housing unaffordable. Price is how markets allocate supply shortages. So I oppose set-aside and subsidized housing that will only serve a tiny fraction of the equally deserving population. I want policies that create market affordability not those that make a little housing affordable to a few by taking it from or having others pay for it.
Ann I agree with you. To me the rest is superfluity this go around.
Arnold has an opportunity here to lead rather than straddle. As one of the many confused civilians wondering WHICH version of Arnold will likely govern for the next four years, I’m quite curious to see whether he’s prepared to divert some real political capital and effort pushing these lnitiatives at the expense of his reelection effort …. or whether his support for them was, and will be, just lip service for purposes of repositioning himself.
I voted for the guy and really want to believe in him, but it’s become so hard to guess what’s real and what’s Memorex….
If only the legislature and the Governor would have insisted that parks and open space preservation moneys would have stayed in the infrastructure bond, it would have had a much better chance at passing.
Maybe those trying to promote BOTH bonds might consider promoting them together? That might be a winning strategy.
Legislative Republicans balked at the other bond measure. There would have been no deal had Schwarzenegger, Perata, and Nunez insisted otherwise.
Bill Bradley: “Legislative Republicans balked at the other bond measure”
That’s really too bad – and short-sighted.
It’s usually developers (many of them Republican) who profit from the public purchasing their lands for parks.
These are all “willing seller” bond moneys, so I don’t understand why they didn’t see the benefit.
I reported all this at the time The Reps balked at the enviro stuff. The Dems balked at the dams.
Stand-off, both taken out of the package.
Government has not proven it uses the resources it has effectively, the overhang from the crazy spending of Davis and the liberal Democrats in the legislature before the Recall.
It’s nice to return after a long break and find Bill still doing the best reporting out there on CA politics.
As for the bonds, I might add that one reason the public seems to be less than enthusiastic is a general and growing disdain for the ballot initiative process in the first place. I think that we saw that in part with the rejection of every prop in the special election and it carried over to the two props in June. There are many out there, myself included, who are just fed up with government by proposition. While I understand that certain things like Bonds have to be done in this way, I think there is a growing inclination among voters to just vote no on everything unless they’re given a damn good reason otherwise.
Do we have any idea for how many total statewide ballot props we’re going to see in November?
If my memory serves me correctly, Arnold proposed ” housing” in HIS Big Bond Package…so IF he does not actively support the housing bond now because he is trying to keep his REEP base happy…well, here we go another flip -flop ….and we can do nothing but support him because the Dems gave us Phil and not Westly…at least we are back to gorgeous weather here in Sacto …and I mean gorgeous …Toodles..
Taxpayers who think the these transportation bonds are going to ease the gridlock on their local freeways are going to be in for a rude shock if they pass.
The bonds will be a giant subsidy for the growth of the “goods movement incustry”. The project list I have seen is highly concentrated on such “goods movement corridors” as the I-710 in Socal. There is also a provision for a subsidy of over $1 billion to the BNSF railroad to construct an additonal track out of the LA basin.
There is also a subsidy of $1 billion to the port industry to begin to address its toxic, carcinogenic, diesel emissions. Why the taxpayers should pass bonds to pay for these huge international corporations to clean up their messes is beyond me.
This is corporate welfare at its worst. Taxpayers need to be absolutely sure what the money is going for before signing onto this huge debt burden.
After seeing what Noel Park has written, perhaps it’s best that the parks money is NOT included in the infrastructure bonds. Maybe the parks bond is the only one I will be voting for.
Scott, I believe the number is 13.
Goods movement produces jobs. And international law makes it hard to have leverage with “huge international corporations”. The only specific earmark is $1 billion for the 99 freeway (which is in sad shape). Some politicians may have wish lists but given regional pressures it is unlikely the proceeds will be concentrated disproportantely to any single area of need. Decisions will be made by local officials and the CA Transportation Commission through established procedures.
Scott,
Julia is correct, the number is 13. Here’s a link to the information:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2006General
Meant to write this earlier, but Chloe took my laptop away… something about opening a socket.
Speaking in generalities here, but the people most likely to vote “yes” on the bonds are likely Angelides voters, the folks who vote “no” are likely Schwarzenegger voters.
To ramp up the “yes” vote would bring proportionately more Angelides voters to the polls. Your hard-core, rock-ribbed, dyed-in-the-wool conservatives are going to turn out and vote “no” but will they “try to send a message” to Arnold by voting for Mountjoy for US Senate, but leaving the top of the ticket blank?
This can be a similar situation to what happened to GHWB in N.H. The beneficiary being Pat Buchannan. Or, more locally, Wilson and Unz.
Consider what Steve Greenhut, of the OC Register, wrote today: “He has swung so sharply from right to left, changing from a Republican administration to a virtual Democratic one, that it is impossible to know what he really believes about anything.” And “Personally, I won’t vote for him although the rest of the statewide GOP ticket is strong and I will vote for McClintock, Poochigian, etc.”
http://blogs.ocregister.com/orangepunch/
That is such a nice attempt at spin that I almost think it’s best to say … have a nice weekend!
There is a much more likely scenario.
But I’ll let you figure it out.
While I cetainly understand the need to be frugal, I just don’t understand this attitude of some that they can continully vote “No” on anything with a dollar sign and still expect high-quality schools, roads, parks, etc. Its seems the real problem here is that California voters want high quality services and infrasturcture but they don’t want to pay for them. Something her has to give. Its like putting off mainteance on your car because you don’t want to pay for it now. You’ll pay alot more for that decision later.
It’s the best I could come up with after my computer spontaneously combusted.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/HenrikGustavsson/Dude_Your_Dell_Is_On_FIRE/CIMG3042-1200.jpg
I shouldn’t have let Jack near my Dell.
Jate when that happens.
It’s MIAMI VICE TIME!
If there are fast cool boats like the tv series …I am in. What ultra cool car did Sonny drive in the tv series?
There are multiple fast, loud boats in perfect shots.
The car? Ferrarri.
Why, oh why, can’t the car be a Maserati…for that reason alone I would go to the movie. A Ferrari is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 1980′s.
Oh wait, its Miami Vice…my bad.
As a sad reminder of the 80′s…I do recall one day in particular where my older brother ended up going on a date looking a lot like a BAD version of Don Johnson…white jacket, a bright sea green shirt and white pants. Everytime I think of that scene, I am both amused and disturbed by the whole era.
Cadts,
Next time you are in Vegas make sure you go to the Wynn/Penske dealership. You can walk through the showroom and check out the M’s and the F’s. It is a better fantasy land than Disney. I have decided that the MC12 will be perfect for school carpools.
Dana’s right. The goods movement industry produces jobs. Each year it produces the better part of 2400 jobs for funeral directors, embalmers and grave diggers, among others. It also produces countless work for hospital managers, doctors, pharmacists, ambulance drivers, and drug companies, and the investment firms that sell their stock. It’s in the billions of dollars a year, in SoCal alone and the cost of these life and health impacts may exceed the positive economic benefits goods movement brings.
It is insulting that an industry which has such callous disregard for life is now coming to us with infrastructure proposals which would be financed out of public moneys. It might be one thing if the public was building clean, quiet maglev transport. But asking it to build freeways for filthy and dilapidated trucks is absurd. Moreover, given the working conditions of truckers, they are also asking us to build sweatshops for modern day sharecroppers on the public dime. Dana’s wrong. The EJ movement has also been talking to trucking labor among others.
Its reassuring to know that 71% of Californians and 77% of Los Angelinos favor cleaning up the goods movement mess, even if it raises the price of goods. It’s too bad that a bond measure that as some good features includes such a poison pill.
Carole…I was just in Vegas not three weeks ago. I wish I had known that. But I am supposed to go back in November so I will definitely check it out.
CADTS et al, let’s move this to the new thread.