A report issued by the California Center for Jobs & the Economy, sponsored by the California Business Roundtable, using numbers from the census and the American Community Survey, indicates that despite efforts to change attitudes about transportation the old stereotype holds true – Californians love their cars.

“The substantial investments in public transit, bike lanes and other alternative modes have not produced major gains in commuter use,” the report stated.

“Combined, public transit, carpooling and ‘other’ modes dropped from 30.3 percent of total commuters in 1980 to 21.5 percent in 2013 and to 21.1 percent in 2014. In total numbers, use of these three modes increased only 430,000 workers by 2014, while use of single occupant vehicles increased by 5.5 million workers.”

More cars on the road means those roads take a beating, which has led Gov. Jerry Brown to call a special session to deal with funding to fix the roads. While Brown wants tax increases to fix the roads, Republicans in the Legislature are seeking to make sure that money collected for transportation purposes is spent on the roads and not siphoned off for other purposes.

Yesterday, Assemblyman Mathew Harper, R-Huntington Beach, introduced a bill that would give the voters a say in whether gas taxes are increased for the roads. Harking back to the governor’s pledge, made when he began his third term, to seek a vote of the people before taxes are raised, Harper said in a release, “I am proposing we do exactly the same thing here. Letting the people decide what they think about new taxes before we force new taxes upon them is not a revolutionary idea.”

It’s an interesting gambit, moving the tax decision away from the legislators but perhaps breathing life into the gas tax choice given that Republicans seem determined not to give a gas tax measure the necessary votes it needs to pass. When Gov. Brown wanted to put a tax on the ballot for voters to decide soon after he took office in 2011, Republicans would not go along. Are Republicans willing to let voters decide this time? However, a gas tax increase never scores well in polling.

While the issue of funding roads dominates the transportation discussion, the Center’s report argued that the increase in auto travel is tied to another major policy issue in California — the cost of housing.

“The continued growth of single occupant vehicles is fully consistent with the all-too familiar need in California to broaden the geographic search region in order to find housing commensurate with workers’ incomes,” the study stated. “In California, the growing body of land use, energy, CEQA and other regulations affecting housing cost and supply has put both the cost of housing ownership and rents within traditional employment centers out of the reach of many households.”

The solution offered in the report: “Regulatory reform to make housing in the urban centers more affordable for a broader swath of California’s workers.”

While officials try to figure a way to deal with increased volume on the roads, new technology may add to the burden.

Driverless cars might increase the ride-alone phenomenon. If some of the public transit users enjoy the ability to relax or read as they commute, driverless cars would give the same opportunity with the convenience of door-to-door service.

The rivalry is sure to heat up over a report that the California High-Speed Rail Authority is reconsidering running the bullet train route north to San Jose before heading south to Burbank as was originally planned, while efforts intensify to stop the tunnels and prevent more water flowing south.

In the Los Angeles Times account of the possible switch of the rail plan, reporter Ralph Vartbedian noted, “With the project already behind schedule and facing estimates of higher costs, the Bay Area option could offer a faster, less risky and cheaper option. Getting even a portion of the project built early would help its political survival.”

The key phrase here is “political survival.” The train is facing mounting pressure from citizen lawsuits, financial uncertainties and flagging support from the general public. Suggested routes for the train from the Central Valley to the San Fernando Valley have run into hot resistance. There is urgency for the authority to get something done, to get the project up and running so that it would seem imprudent and unreasonable to stop it.

Yet, the threat to undo the project is there. A ballot measure redirecting bullet train money to water projects is in the offing and the idea enjoys some support in a recent poll — certainly more support than the train itself has seen in polls.

While plenty of Californians — north and south — object to the bullet train being built at all, Southern California transportation advocates are incensed at the possible change in plans favoring the north.

Meanwhile, the other big Jerry Brown legacy project, the delta tunnels, to bring water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta to the central and southern parts of the state is also facing opposition.

An initiative already qualified for the ballot would require voter approval of revenue bonds over $2 billion. There is no secret the proponents of this measure are taking aim at a major revenue source to build the tunnels. Revenue bonds, unlike General Obligation bonds that are backed by taxpayers, do not require a vote and are paid by the users of a development. Revenue bonds are considered to be part of the financing structure for the delta tunnels.

Some northern California legislators propose having voters decide if they want the tunnels. Many supporters of the idea think a statewide vote would scuttle the project.

Nearly 35 years ago an effort to construct a peripheral canal to bring water from the delta south was defeated at an election. Southern voters supported the canal but it was overwhelming rejected by voters in the north.

Which brings up important differences in the north-south rivalry.

Despite Southern California being the home of a larger proportion of the electorate, northern Californians vote in greater percentages. That gives the north a political advantage. One reflection of that advantage can be seen in those who hold statewide offices. Of the eight statewide elected constitutional offices, all are filled by northerners except for Treasurer John Chiang.

Like professional sports teams — think Giants and Dodgers — public policy too can produce bitter rivalry and loyal supporters by dint of geography.

In front a background of a steady stream of work vehicles ascending the Santa Susana Mountains to the Porter Ranch Aliso Canyon methane gas storage facility, several state senators laid out plans for dealing with the leak’s aftermath once the leak is stopped. The trick is to make sure residents are safe while assuring that energy is available for millions of California’s businesses and residents.

With a rush to place measures on the ballot because of low signature requirements to qualify a measure, cheaper costs to file an initiative (a minor factor), and, especially, the lure of higher turnouts during a presidential election with all initiatives now legally bound for the November election rather than the June primary, the initiative process has become catnip for policy entrepreneurs and special interests.

Consider what the voters could be facing in November via the initiative process:

• Increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
• Legalizing marijuana.
• Deciding whether to eliminate the death penalty altogether or speed up the process so that those receiving a death penalty would not linger so long before the sentence is carried out. There are two competing measures filed.
• Banning one-time use plastic bags (a referendum that has already qualified) and perhaps requiring paper bag fees to end up in an environmental fund (a bit of revenge against the grocers that supported the plastic bag ban and reap the payments on paper sacks).
• Bar state agencies from paying more for prescription drugs than the lowest price paid by the federal Department of Veteran Affairs, which typically negotiates the best bulk rates from drug companies.
• New gun control measures, especially background checks for ammo purchase.
• $9 billion in state bonds for school construction.
• A requirement that all revenue bonds of $2 billion or more receive a vote of the people, designed we are told by observers, to undercut Gov. Brown’s Delta Tunnels plan.

As appears in many advertisements, this is only a partial list.

Then there are the many tax measures:

• A 230 percent increase in cigarette taxes adding $2 a pack.
• A continuation of the Proposition 30 taxes of 2012 on upper-income earners that was originally passed as temporary. There are two different measures dedicated to that purpose.
• A tax increase on property valued at $3 million and more to fund poverty programs.

While the legislators’ role in big policy decisions this year might be diminished in light of a ballot full of propositions, let’s not forget that elected officials can and will play prominent roles in various initiative campaigns.

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom has embraced marijuana legalization, the minimum wage and background checks on ammunition purchases. You would expect Newsom to husband his money for his coming gubernatorial campaign so his role would be that as a spokesman and advocate and, perhaps, fundraiser.

Not so with Gov. Jerry Brown. He’s already hinted that the $20-plus million sitting in his political account could be used in ballot battles. A prime consideration would be the defeat of the revenue bond vote requirement that could scuttle some of Brown’s big plans.

When all is said and done by the end of this year, it appears likely voters will serve as the legislators making big policy decisions.

Editors Note: The American Progressive Bag Alliance sponsored a media dinner hosted by Calwatchdog to discuss and debate the plastic bag ban with journalists in Southern California.

It’s not even 2016 yet, but the first debate over a probable initiative on the November 2016 ballot took place in Dana Point Monday when former Board of Equalization member Conway Collis squared off with Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association president Jon Coupal over the Lifting Children and Families Out of Poverty Act. The debate was hosted by the California Alliance of Taxpayer Advocates.

The measure, backed by charity organizations dedicated to reducing poverty, would raise property taxes on residential and commercial property valued at $3 million and more. The money would be deposited in anti-poverty programs outside the General Fund.

Collis argued that the initiative was a way for government to help relieve 2.4 million California children living below the poverty line. He said there was a moral and financial reason to do so. Leaving one-quarter of California’s children in poverty was an immoral position for the state. Lifting 50 percent of those suffering from poverty in 20 years — the goal of the initiative proponents — would reduce the dollars required for welfare programs and prisons while adding taxpayers to the rolls.

Coupal saw the measure as a direct attack on Proposition 13’s property tax protections. He asked: “Aren’t taxes high enough?” listing the state’s high tax rates in different tax categories. Coupal said voters were willing to support the Proposition 30 tax increases when the state budget was in crisis. There is no crisis now, he asserted, with the state sitting on a surplus of anywhere from $1 billion to $10 billion.

To Collis, a tax that touched only 1 percent of the taxpayers was worth the investment in attempting to save money in welfare programs while aiding those in poverty. He said business had a legitimate concern in annual reassessments on property (as proposed in a legislative bill to split the property tax roll) but that this plan “protects and builds” on the Proposition 13 framework and would preserve property tax predictability.

But Coupal said the economy and businesses would suffer, with more businesses packing to leave the state, especially because the great portion of the properties affected by the proposed tax increase would be commercial properties.

While Collis said the initiative has fail-safes to control programming that did not work to reduce poverty, Coupal countered that 30 programs are already in place to deal with poverty and that many suffer from fraud and abuse with recipients spending taxpayer-sponsored income in Hawaiian resorts and Las Vegas casinos.

Collis said his initiative would not simply help the poor but would boost all Californians. He said that the growing number of poor would “swallow the state budget” unless corrective measures are taken.

Collis insisted that polling and focus groups prove that voters understand that the tax was only on expensive property and would affect few taxpayers. He said signature gatherers were asking voters if they owned property over $3 million and if they answered “no” then they were told the measure would interest them. Collis said voters readily signed.

However, Coupal had a message for those voters should the initiative qualify for the ballot. The initiative breaks Proposition 13 by going after residential property. Once that door is opened other tax increase activists will want to charge through and all residential property owners would be at risk. That message will not be lost on voters, Coupal said. It is a concern that would be expressed in a political campaign.

The campaign messages are already being shaped and a long political campaign season has unofficially begun.

(Disclosure: I am associated with the committee that opposes the Lifting Children and Families Out of Poverty Act.)

Denise Cross / flickr

According to the recent Public Policy Institute of California poll, state residents like the initiative process but think too many initiatives appear on the ballot. To borrow a line from Al Jolson: “You ain’t seen nothing yet!”

Of the 100 or so initiative proposals that have been filed with the Attorney General, maybe 20 percent will make the ballot. As Los Angeles Times Sacramento bureau chief John Myers reported last month, 15 to 19 look like possibilities, the largest number of propositions since 20 appeared on the March 2000 ballot.

In the nine November general elections since 2000, the ballot has averaged about 10 propositions per election. Remember, the law was changed in 2012 to force all initiatives – measures put on the ballot by petitions – to the November elections. No longer could they appear on the June primary ballot. So the longer November ballot in 2016 could be a harbinger of future elections.

However, it is possible another rule change that is about to come into play might also limit the number of initiatives on the ballot. Now, initiative proponents are allowed to pull their initiative before a measure is certified even if enough signatures have been gathered to qualify the measure.

The idea behind this change is for initiative advocates to try and work out a legislative fix to the problem they are addressing with their initiative thus avoiding a costly ballot fight. However, the power to pull an initiative also gives proponents the ability to negotiate with others who may have a conflicting initiative and come to a mutual agreement thus avoiding a ballot duel.

As of now, gathering signatures on the street are initiative measures for death penalty repeal, parental notification on abortions, minimum wage and property tax increase on million dollar properties. These measures will soon be joined by a host of others, including an effort to hasten the use of the death penalty, which could give a clear policy choice to voters in November.

Already qualified for the ballot are measures dealing with hospital fees, voting on revenue bonds, use of condoms in adult films, school bonds and a referendum to overturn legislation on one-time use plastic bags.

The thing that voters like about the initiative process as captured in the PPIC poll is the ability to have their voices heard on policy issues. Looks like the voters will have plenty of opportunities to participate in decision-making next year.

Which in turn will probably have them grumbling again about the number of initiatives they have to consider.

The Legislature is interested in the fact that Prop. 30 will end, Yee said, and she preferred that a tax reform discussion take place within the halls of the Legislature. However, Yee admitted she did not know how to slow down the initiative process to conduct a long-term conversation. Because voters are familiar with Prop. 30, she said, and if the final initiative presented to the voters has a “temporary” tag on it, she predicted the measure would pass.

The Economic Summit is an ongoing program dedicated to creating a roadmap to build economic prosperity in California. This particular session was dedicated to finding keys to develop more skilled workers, more water and more housing in California.

How to fund California’s future was the subject of the panel Yee participated on along with Ana Motosantos, former California Director of Finance. She is now associated with Tom Steyer’s Fair Shake Commission. The moderator was California Forward’s Lenny Mendonca. Motosantos concurred with Yee’s predictions on the tax measures.

The Controller has put together an advisory group working on tax reform. She argued that while California’s economy is doing well, now is the time to move on reform. However, she acknowledged that a big education program is needed. It is a matter of how to talk about tax reform to legislators and to the public, she said. Yee suggested discussing comprehensive tax reform not in ways of who might be winners or losers in a changed tax system, but in the terms of economic opportunity for all.

Yee’s tax reform group will deliver its report in March.

Motosantos said the Fair Shake Commission would consider taxes in February. The Commission, set up to consider answers to income inequality, is the brain-child of billionaire Tom Steyer. Critics claim the Commission is an effort by Steyer to broaden his credentials on a number of issues in consideration of a gubernatorial run. In that respect, the Commission’s take on tax reform could prove informative.

Photo credit: 401kcalculator.org

There has been some movement on the tax initiative front.

In August, I offered the following list of the top five measures most likely to make the ballot: 1) Prop. 30 Extension, 2) Cigarette Tax, 3) Split Roll Property Tax, 4) Service Tax, 5) Oil Severance Tax.

Circumstances have changed.

One move that few saw coming is that not one – but two – Proposition 30 extension measures have been filed. The teachers union has offered up an extension of Prop. 30 that was originally passed in 2012 based on the argument that money was needed for schools. The unions want to argue that this income tax on the wealthy, originally labeled temporary, would remain so for 12 additional years. The provision on the sales tax increase in Prop. 30 would be dropped.

Then came a second Proposition 30 extension proposal offered by, among others, the California Hospitals Association and related health care unions. I’m not sure if use of the term “extension” applies to this proposal since the idea it not to extend the temporary status but to make the tax on upper-income taxpayers permanent. Again the sales tax piece is dropped but additional income tax rates have been added.

Another major development occurred when the coalition of left-leaning advocacy groups that had been pumping for the split-roll property tax to hit commercial property announced in an email to supporters that they would not pursue a ballot measure for 2016. While it is still possible that others could file a split-roll initiative, the wind is out of the sails on this proposal.

However, a different kind of property tax increase proposal has been filed and could advance. This one would tax all property, commercial and residential, valued at over $3-million, and dedicate money for the purpose of relieving those in poverty. This measure is moving forward.

Finally, there was the announcement by NextGen founder and billionaire, Tom Steyer, that he would spend to support a cigarette tax. Steyer was the leading advocate for an oil severance tax. Certainly, he has the wherewithal to fund a tax on oil while contributing to a cigarette tax effort, but his announcement seems to pump up the cigarette tax while lessen the likelihood that we’ll see an oil severance tax measure in 2016 — especially if something comes out of the Special Session dealing with transportation that adds a new revenue source to fix roads and highways.

So, looking into the cracked and sometimes foggy crystal ball, here’s what I see in late October, about one year prior to the election, as the 5 most likely tax measures to appear on the 2016 ballot.

CIGARETTE TAX: Proponents have the means and the determination and now have a billionaire’s money.

PROP. 30 EXTENSION: You could really make this idea a co-number one with the Cigarette Tax. However, because of the two proposals, the exact tax measure probably has not been decided yet. Undoubtedly, the proponents of the two measures are trying to find common ground to back a single proposal. Whatever happens, however, most assuredly there will be some form of a Prop. 30 extension on the ballot.

PROPERTY TAX: Not the split-roll, but the poverty proposal. It is unclear how much support there is for this measure but proponents have established a committee and are starting to gather signatures.

MARIJUANA TAX: Does this even deserve to be on the list? I had not considered it before since the chief goal of a successful marijuana initiative is to legalize marijuana rather than create a new revenue stream. However, there will be a tax component to a marijuana proposal and the tax will be part of the debate over the measure.

ROAD FIX TAX: Unlikely that a road fix tax proposal would come via the initiative process although a powerful coalition of business and labor supports such a thing. Out of frustration they could move a proposal forward. There is also a chance a compromise transportation/infrastructure bill could come out of the Special Session which includes taxes. Neither the governor nor supporters of a road fix tax want to see it on the ballot, but that could be part of a final deal.

Finally, since I mentioned it last time but do not include it in the top five, Senator Bob Hertzberg has a plan to tie the tax system more closely to the current state economy by taxing services. Hertzberg also has a strategy that if many different taxes are headed for the ballot, that could present an opening for him. He could argue that his answer to California’s tax system flaws is a better overall fix than the myriad of other proposals. Remember, he also has potential financial support from another billionaire, Nicolas Berggreun’s Think Long Committee.

Filing multiple initiatives on the same subject offers proponents the opportunity to refine their proposals by getting feedback from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and Department of Finance, which must review, summarize and affix a cost estimate to any initiative. The Attorney General then attaches a title and summary to the different proposals. Proponents can see what reaction is offered to varying proposals from these government agencies, test the different versions through polling, and see which edition attracts the best donor support before deciding the version to pursue.

About 100 initiatives have been filed this year to begin the process. Each came with the $200 price tag — money that will be refunded if a measure qualifies for the ballot. A number of the measures are multiple versions on the same theme.

Most strikingly, in the last week eight versions of “The Water Supply Reliability and Drought Protection Act of 2016” were filed and five versions of  “The Marijuana Control, Legalization and Revenue Act of 2016” also came in.

Former Natural Resources Agency official Jerry Meral is behind the water measures, an effort to seek more bond revenue to deal with the drought. Meanwhile the push for legalization of marijuana in California continues to heat up with different groups considering the best way to proceed.

The eight water bond proposals cost Meral $1,600 to file. Next year the price would be $16,000. When you consider ballot measure qualifying efforts cost in the millions, not to mention the expense of a campaign if an initiative makes the ballot, the increased cost of filing may seem like the proverbial gold dust that falls between the cracks of the barroom floor.

Those individuals and groups with large bank accounts will not blink at the change. Under new initiative process rules, a measure gets a legislative hearing after 25 percent of the signatures are gathered. It is possible that proponents with the wherewithal to do so could move a couple of initiatives forward so as to review the results of the feedback in the formal legislative hearings before deciding which measure to pursue.

Still, the filing fee increase is bound to change some individual and group strategies dealing with multiple filings. Those who don’t have vast resources will feel the greatest effect.