amendment will set aside what eventually will be a maximum of 3% of
the state's general fund for pay-as-you-go capital expenditures for
state and local infrastructure.
Proposition 53 would not generate any new revenue or raise taxes.
Instead, this initiative would earmark a portion of existing money
aside for acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, modernization,
or renovation of infrastructure, and the expenditures must be divided
equally between state and local projects.
California has prospered because of major investments in highways,
water systems and universities during the 1950s and '60s, when the
state spent 15% to 20% of its budget on infrastructure.
In recent decades, however, infrastructure investment has not kept
up with the state's needs. Though our population has grown to more
than 35 million people, much of our infrastructure -- including vital
water supply systems -- has remained static for decades. Nowadays,
on-a pay-as-you-go fashion, the state spends 0.2% of the general fund
on infrastructure investment, and the legislature clearly does not
have the financial discipline to invest in infrastructure.
According to the state's legislative analyst, more than $54
billion in infrastructure spending is needed over the next five
years. Without a dedicated source of funding, those infrastructure
needs will not be met and local communities likely will pay the price
in traffic congestion, water shortages and pollution and other
inadequate and aging public works facilities.
Written by two common-sense legislators, Assemblymen Keith
Richman, who represents part of La Crescenta, and Joe Canciamilla
from Pittsburg, Proposition 53 provides that stability and it will
assure that existing tax dollars go where they are most needed and
keep paying for the infrastructure investments that state and local
governments routinely made when California was building its
reputation as "The Golden State."
Crescenta Valley Water District