Welcome to the Virtual UU Meeting House
Proposition 65
Local Government Funds, Revenues.
Should reduction of local fee/tax revenues require voter approval? Permits suspension of state mandate if no state reimbursement to local government within 180 days after obligation determined.
- Official Summary, Pros & Cons
- Other Resources : Organizations , Articles, Reports, Links
- UU Commentaries
- Other California Ballot Propositions
Virtual UU Meeting House discussion: come on in, and read what people had to say.
Official Summary and Arguments
Requires voter approval for reduction of local fee/tax revenues. Permits suspension of state mandate if no state reimbursement to local government within 180 days after obligation determined. Fiscal Impact: Higher local government revenues than otherwise would have been the case, possibly in the billions of dollars annually over time. Any such local revenue impacts would result in decreased resources to the state of similar amounts.
Official
Voter Information Guide (pdf)
Source: California Secretary of State / Elections and Voter Information
Campaign
Finance Information
Source: California Secretary of State / Cal-Access
Related Proposition
A YES vote on this measure means:
State authority over local government finances would be significantly restricted. In many cases, the state could not change local governmental finances without approval by the voters at a statewide election.
A NO vote on this measure means:
The state could continue to make changes in local government finances without voter approval at a statewide election.
Arguments FOR Proposition 65
None provided, per Official Voter Information Guide.
Arguments AGAINST Proposition 65
Our coalition submitted Prop. 65 to the voters, but we are now supporting
Prop. 1A - a better, more flexible alternative to protect funding for
local taxpayers and local public safety services. Join Governor
Schwarzenegger, police, fire, health care, and local government leaders.
Yes on Prop. 1A. NO on Prop. 65.
For Proposition 65
None located.
Against Proposition 65
Californians to Protect Local Taxpayers and Public Safety
Nonpartisan Background and Analysis
Institute
of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley
League
of Women Voters
Selected Articles, Editorials, Opinions, Reports
Schwarzenegger
vows support for local governments, ballot measure
San Francisco Chronicle, September 15, 2004
Cities
seek guarantee on funding
San Bernardino County Sun, September 14, 2004
County
money problems date back 3 to 4 decades
Modesto Bee, August 29, 2004, as posted by NewsBank
Last updated on September 30, 2004
UU Commentaries
No commentary was received prior to our deadline. Please add your opinion and voice to the discussion below.
"As long as the differences and diversities of mankind
exist, democracy must allow for compromise, for accommodation, and for
the recognition of differences."
—Eugene McCarthy
"The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and
uncertain until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our
common life."
—Jane Adams
SUPPORTERS SAY Proposition 65 would stop the state from balancing its budget at the expense of local governments and would not raise taxes.
OPPONENTS SAY the measure would take away the state's budgeting flexibility and does not effect top-to-bottom reform of state finances. (The measure has been supplanted by Proposition 1A—which was developed with the cooperation of the Governor, Legislature and earlier proponents of Proposition 65.)
Could not connect to MySQL because: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (2)