California Proposition 1B (2006)

From Ballotpedia

California Proposition 1B, also known as the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality,and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 was on the November 7, 2006 ballot in California. It aimed at improving safety conditions of roads and bridges, as well as improving Air quality and Port security. It passed with 61.4% of the vote. The committee that raised the most money was the "Rebuild California" committee that raised $9,235,090 to help propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E ^[1]

Objective of the initiative

This initiative had several objectives (Taken from California Secretary of State page)

1. Make safety improvements and repairs to state highways; upgrades freeways to reduce congestion; repairs local streets and roads; upgrades highways along major transportation corridors.

2. Improve seismic safety of local bridges. Expands public transit.

3. Help complete the state’s network of car pool lanes. Reduces air pollution.

4. Improve anti-terrorism security at shipping ports. Provides for a bond issue not to exceed nineteen billion nine hundred twenty-five million dollars ($19,925,000,000).

5. Appropriate money from the General Fund to pay off bonds ^[2]

Costs of proposition

The proposition will cost California about $38.9 billion over 30 years to pay off the bond and the interest.

Text of the proposition

The text of the proposed law can be found in pdf form here ^[3]

Arguments for the initiative

• Will improve roads and stop traffic congestion
• Will make Bridges seismically safe
• Improve air quality by replacing old school buses and expanding mass transit as well as carpool lanes
• Part of the "Rebuild California" project that will improve California for future generations and provide the resources needed for the tremendous growth that the state continues to see

Main Proponent: MARIAN BERGESON, Chair California Transportation Commission ^[4]

A taxpayer’s perspective

Propositions 1B through 1E would issue a total of nearly $37.3 billion in new debt authority to the state for various purposes, including highways, schools, homeless shelters, and flood-control projects. Opponents of these measures argue that the state can’t afford such a large borrowing spree.

External links

• Legislative analysis for the proposal
• Analysis of League of Women Voters
• Article supporting Proposal 1B

References

	v • d • e State of California Sacramento (capital)
Ballot Measures	History of I&R | City and county ballot initiatives | School district bond issues | Laws governing initiatives | Recall process |
Ballot measures by year	1912 • 1914 • 1916 • 1920 • 1922 • 1978 • 1990 • 1992 • 1993 • 1994 • 1996 • 1998 • 2000 • 2002 • 2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • 2006 (local) • 2007 • 2008 • 2008 (local) • 2009 • 2009 (local) • 2010
Government	California State Constitution | Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | State assembly | State senate |
Elections	Recalls | Vote fraud | 2010 elections |
Judiciary	California Supreme Court | Courts of Appeal | Superior Courts | District Courts | Judicial selection in California | Judicial News |
Transparency Topics	Public Records Act | Transparency Checklist | Government corruption reports | Transparency Legislation | Open Records procedures | Transparency Advocates | State budget | Taxpayer-funded lobbying associations |
Divisions	State | List of counties | List of Cities | List of School Districts, A - L | List of School Districts, M - Y | Evaluation of county websites | Evaluation of city websites | Evaluation of township websites | Evaluation of school district websites |