OPPOSE

Proposition 1C:

Housing Funding

Proposition 1C would provide $2.85 billion to help low-income renters, first-time homebuyers, the homeless and those on the tipping point. Some money would go to traditional programs, such as efforts to provide shelter for battered women, or to low-interest loans for qualified homebuyers. About $1.35 billion would go to provide needed water, sewage and environmental cleanup so housing can be built in downtown areas.

SUPPORT

Proposition 1D

Education Facility Funding

Proposition 1D will authorize a statewide general obligation (G.O.) education in the amount of $10.416 billion. The education bond proposal authorizes the placement of a 10.4 billion general obligation bond to fund K-12 and Higher Education. Of this, $1.9 billion is allocated for K-12 new construction and $3.3 billion is allocated for K-12 modernization projects. The bond also provides $3.087 billion to public colleges and universities. Education is extremely important to tomorrow’s workforce. Prop 1D provides exceptional monies that will strengthen our state center community college district, including, 19,247,000 for the Willow/International development and secure funds for the north and east wings of the old administration building at Fresno City College, and the new southeast site child development centers at Fresno City College and Reedley College.
 

SUPPORT

Proposition 1E

Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond

Enacts Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006, which would authorize, subject to voter approval at the November 7, 2006 election, $4.090 billion worth of general obligation (G.O.) bonds, from which sale proceeds would be allocated to infrastructure projects for flood protection and levee repair and improvement.
 

SUPPORT

Proposition 84

Clean Water, Parks, and Costal Protection Act

Natural resources and reliable water sources are key to businesses growth and prosperity. The $5.4 billion bond measure would provide critically needed funds to ensure the availability of safe drinking water, improve local water supply reliability, strengthen flood protection, and preserve California's natural landscapes, including parks, lakes, rivers, beaches, bays, ocean and coastline. This proposition is extremely important to the vitality of California businesses. Prop 84 will affect everything from tourism and restaurants to the maritime industry and agriculture, depend on safe, because we all depend on reliable water and other key natural resources to grow and prosper. More importantly, these investments help maintain a quality of life that California businesses depend on to draw and retain high quality employees.
 

OPPOSE
Proposition 86:
Tax on Cigarettes

The $2 Billion Tax Hike: What is the money really paying for?
The Fresno Chamber opposed Proposition 86! This measure increases the state’s excise tax by 300 percent, adding an additional $2.60 per pack tax to the price of cigarettes sold in California to provide funding for hospitals for emergency services as well as programs to increase access to health insurance for children, expand nursing education, support various new and existing health and education activities, curb tobacco use and regulate tobacco sales.

The stated purpose of the tax is to reduce the economic costs of tobacco use in California and to provide supplemental funding to: promote medical research into chronic diseases, reduce the impact of chronic diseases through prevention, early detection, treatment and comprehensive health insurance, and to improve access to and delivery of health care, particularly emergency health services. Ultimately, the goal of the initiative is to provide children with health care coverage.

- 5% will be allocated to sub-accounts of the Health and Disease Research Account.

- 42.25% will be allocated to sub-accounts of the Health Maintenance and Disease Prevention Account.

- 52.75% will be allocated to sub-accounts of the Health Treatment and Services Account.

OPPOSE
Proposition 87:
Severance Tax on Oil Production in California.

Beginning in January 2007, the measure would impose a severance tax on oil production in California to generate revenues to fund $4 billion in alternative energy programs over time. (The term “severance tax” is commonly used to describe a tax on the production of any mineral or product taken from the ground, including oil.) The measure defines “producers,” who are required to pay the tax, broadly to include any person who extracts oil from the ground or water, owns or manages an oil well, or owns a royalty interest in oil.
 

OPPOSE

Proposition 89

Political Campaign Funding

The Fresno Chamber opposes Proposition 89. This measure makes significant changes to state laws regarding the financing of campaigns for elected state offices and state ballot measures. The measure’s provisions regarding candidates for office generally affect only state elected officials. Specifically, this proposition increases income tax rate on corporations and financial institutions by 0.2 percent to fund program.

The proposition provides that candidates for state elective office meeting certain eligibility requirements, including collection of a specified number of $5.00 contributions from voters, may voluntarily receive public campaign funding from the Fair Political Practices Commission, in amounts varying by elective office and type of election. Increased revenues (primarily from increased taxes on corporations and financial institutions) totaling more than $200 million annually to pay for the public financing of political campaigns for state elected offices.

Proposition 89 would Prop 89 will limit the candidate’s ability to conduct a successful campaign when it comes to propositions that help commerce. Without help from business, how are we supposed elect the right candidates, and have the business voice heard on the government level?

OPPOSE

Proposition 90

Taxpayer Trap

Proposition 90 amends the California Constitution to require government to pay property owners for substantial economic losses resulting from some new laws and rules and will limit government authority to take ownership of private property. It is true, California may need to take policy steps to address eminent domain issues in our state but Proposition 90 is too extreme and poorly thought out. The Chamber opposes Prop 90 because it contains hidden provisions that are unrelated to eminent domain and will cost taxpayers billions of dollars. More importantly, Prop 90 will threaten our economy and job creation here. To make matters worse, provisions in Prop 90 will encourage thousands of frivolous and time-consuming lawsuits, and will tie up needed land-use planning in litigation delays. We agree, we need to find a better way to address eminent domain in our state, but proposition 90 does not do the job.
 

Contact Amy Huerta, the Chamber's Government Affairs Manager for more information at (559) 495-4818 or ahuerta@fresnochamber.com