Valley has big stake in $37b

Massive bond package on ballot affects levees, roads, schools, housing.

Published online on Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2006

SACRAMENTO — One of the most important decisions voters will make in November is whether to spend a record $37billion on the state's roads, schools, levees and housing.

If passed, a five-bond package would ignite a wave of construction that could benefit the San Joaquin Valley in a big way. Billions of dollars could flow for Highway 99 modernization, local street fixes, clean-air upgrades to school buses, classroom construction, farmworker housing, flood protection and more.

"The Valley has a huge opportunity in these bonds," said Carol Whiteside, president of the Great Valley Center, a Modesto-based nonprofit that advocates for Valley causes. "We're a growing area, and there's such a need for infrastructure."

Though there's broad consensus on the need to improve the state's infrastructure, some Republicans who oppose the bonds say the upgrades should be funded on a pay-as-you-go basis, instead of borrowing all the money.

Another bond, placed on the ballot by environmentalists, dedicates $5.4 billion for safe drinking water, flood control, parks and San Joaquin River restoration.

Even if the bonds pass — polling shows each hanging on by the slimmest of margins — many of the key decisions about how the money would be spent won't be made until after Election Day.

In order to get enough votes to get the five Legislature-approved bonds on the ballot, Gov. Schwarzenegger and lawmakers kept the language somewhat vague. For the most part, they avoided the kind of specific earmarks that often can set off turf battles and doom legislation.

That means voters won't be considering a list of projects. Rather, the bonds contain total spending amounts and guidelines, with many of the specific spending decisions left in the hands of lawmakers and state departments, boards and commissions. In many cases, money will be distributed using competitive grants, meaning local governments and planning agencies will have to apply for funding.

Assembly Member Mike Villines, R-Clovis, said that could spell trouble for the region, which has fewer votes and less clout than other areas.

"Whenever there's vague language, the Central Valley loses," he said. "At the end of the day, I think all this money will get divvied up, and it will go to all the large urban areas."

Whiteside disagrees, saying that local groups have begun to speak with one voice, giving the Valley more power than it has ever had.

"It's not a slam dunk, but I think it will be less easy to [ignore] the Valley than it used to be," she said.

With financing costs added in, the bonds — designated as Propositions 1A through 1E — are projected to cost the state $73.3billion over 30 years. The price tag jumps to $83.8 billion when the environmental bond, known as Prop. 84, is included. Many Republicans say the state can't afford the borrowing.

Villines, who wrote the ballot statement against the $19.9 billion transportation bond, wants more of a pay-as-you-go approach.

The bonds put "a lot of pressure on the existing budget to pay for all the borrowed money," he said.

Assembly Member Juan Arambula, a moderate Democrat from Fresno, said that like a lot of Californians, he was still uncertain how he would vote. "Next year's budget is going to look pretty tight," he said. "On the other hand, I know that it's a good thing to invest for the future."

Here's a look at the bonds and what each could mean for the Valley:

Transportation

Proposition 1B, the largest bond, would pump $19.9 billion into highways, roads, ports and public transit. Another measure, Prop. 1A, makes it harder for the state to divert gas tax money to projects not related to transportation.