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.

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.)

But the way the questions were asked must be considered when weighing the results.

The idea of extending Proposition 30 is becoming more practical than theoretical with the submission of two separate ballot measures to achieve that goal. One measure, filed chiefly by the California Teachers Association, would extend Prop. 30 for 12 years. The second measure filed by the California Hospitals Association, a health care union and a children’s advocacy group, would make the Prop. 30 taxes permanent.

Voters Divided

The voters appear divided on extending Prop. 30 with 49 percent in favor of extension and 46 percent opposed. However, those favoring the extension drop to 32 percent if the taxes are made permanent.

One odd result from the poll was the great support for the Prop. 30 extension in the San Francisco Bay Area (63 percent) and much less support in the Central Valley (50 percent); odd, because this tax is centered on the wealthy, those with incomes of $250,000 and more. There are many more high-end taxpayers in the Bay Area than the Central Valley.

However, the way the question was asked may have something to do with this disparity. The question described the Proposition 30 tax that exists today. Poll respondents were asked if the taxes on incomes over $250,000 and the quarter cent sales tax should be extended. But, the quarter cent sales tax portion of the Prop. 30 tax measure is not included in either of the extension plans that were filed.

Could Central Valley voters have focused on the sales tax piece and would their answers be different if they knew the extension only affected high-end income taxpayers?

Split-roll property tax

Once again, PPIC asked about splitting the property tax roll under Proposition 13 treating commercial property differently than residential property by taxing commercial property according to current market value. Likely voters approved of the idea by 55 percent, with 39 percent opposed.

But this basic question doesn’t inform potential voters of consequences related to this issue. There was no effort to deal with either the potential positives or negatives of changing the property tax system. Those issues will certainly be aired during an expensive campaign over a split roll and undoubtedly would lead to different results than the poll currently reflects.

Two other taxes that are being discussed received quite different results. An oil extraction tax found 49 percent support with likely voters; a cigarette tax was supported by 66 percent of likely voters.

There could be a lot of money spent in a campaign opposed to these taxes and a fair amount of change in support. However, looking at all the tax measures at this moment in time, if the old rule were applied that an initiative needs to have at least 60 percent support in early polls to have a fighting chance at passing, then only the cigarette tax looks possible at this time.

Of course, if the ballot is full of tax proposals the old rules may not apply.

The oldest serving United States Senator waved off the suggestion.

Feinstein spent time discussing her support for the Iran deal on nuclear power forged by the Obama administration. She argued that there was no better deal to be had, that it was this deal or nothing. If no deal were confirmed, the senator suggested, in as little as three months there would likely be a military conflict.

Feinstein argued that the United States, which led other world powers in the negotiations, would suffer its leadership position if Congress rejects the deal. Other nations involved in the deal would drop sanctions on Iran forcing the U.S. into the difficult position of deciding to sanction allies, Feinstein said.

Feinstein spoke on the day that news broke that enough senators have now agreed to support President Obama in any veto override attempt.

The senator was clearly basing her vote on the hope that Iran will change its official policies and attitude over the course of the agreement. “Fifteen years will tell if Iran is capable of change or not,” she said.

On California’s devastating drought, Sen. Feinstein touted a proposal she put together with California’s junior senator, Barbara Boxer. She praised the Los Angeles area Metropolitan Water District for having good water storage and reservoirs, which she said the rest of the state doesn’t have.

Pointing out that the infrastructure for water supplies was built for a population of 16 million people instead of the current 38 million, Feinstein argued for new infrastructure. She said her plan contains a dozen desalination plants and 105 water-recycling projects among other proposals.

Before offering her philosophy on the best way to run local government, Feinstein relived the day that would lead to her becoming San Francisco’s chief executive — the assassinations of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk by former Supervisor Dan White.

She saw White in the hallway and called to him but he rebuffed her by asking for a moment. Feinstein then heard shots and discovered Milk’s body.

Ascending to the mayor’s office a week later, Feinstein ran the city for 10 years. She said cities best run from the center, stressing practicality, not ideology. She said most people could agree on the need for improvements and infrastructure.

Indeed, in his introduction, Eli Broad remarked that the senator had an ability to find the political center during her entire career.

Looking at the results of the California Business Roundtable/California Manufacturing & Technology Association poll on Senate Bill 350, the new climate change policy being considered in the CA Legislature, you can almost see how campaign arguments would be formulated if the hotly debated bill were on a ballot for voters to decide.

The poll conducted by M4 Mobile Research clearly showed that the public at large supports the goals of reducing greenhouse gases. While 82 percent of those polled consider climate change a serious or moderate threat to the state, when the components of the bill are tested the support remains strong.

Cutting petroleum use by half in cars and trucks by 2030, requiring 50 percent of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy sources and doubling energy efficiency in buildings over the next 15 years enjoyed overwhelming support, all three items tested in the 70^th percentile. Overall, SB350 was favored 66 percent to 27 percent.

However, the overall number turned around when the potential cost was addressed by the pollster.

After testing a wide range of specific arguments from positive to negative on the measure — i.e.: California must lead on climate change issues; implementing this legislation will lead to positive innovation; price of gasoline could increase 13 to 50 cents a gallon; electricity rates could jump 30 to 70 percent; disadvantaged citizens will be particularly hard hit by the change – the respondents were again asked if they supported or opposed SB350.

Support dropped from 66 percent to 44 percent, opposition increased from 27 percent to 48 percent.

Rob Lapsley, head of the California Business Roundtable summed up the poll succinctly when he said, “costs matter … details matter.”

The details of how to achieve the goals expressed in the bill are not contained in the measure.

Dorothy Rothrock said manufacturers in her association are feeling the pinch from electricity costs associated with climate change laws already on the books and can see incredible increases in the future if this bill passes in its current form.

Which leads to speculation, will this fight spill out of the capitol building and on to the ballot?

If the bill is passed and signed by the governor, will a referendum effort be mounted to ask the voters to decide – those voters who embrace the idea of a clean environment and climate change legislation but are leery of what the costs would mean for the economy, jobs and low income citizens?

The poll indicates that the arguments are lined up to produce quite a donnybrook if the voters are consulted.

Remember those days at the beginning of Governor Jerry Brown’s third term. Brown tried to pick off a few Republican votes to secure the two-thirds margin he needed to put a tax increase measure on the ballot. In return, the Republicans who were courted by Brown sought reforms to the spending side of the budget, particularly, a spending limit and a rainy day fund. Pressured by public employee unions, Democrats in the legislature showed no interest in accepting these reforms.

The effort to achieve a compromise package went nowhere. The governor then turned to the ballot, working with union groups already pushing a tax increase initiative to create Proposition 30.

On transportation in the special session, Democrats put forward a series of tax and fee increases. Republicans countered with a package of spending proposals using cap-and-trade dollars, redirecting current transportation revenues for the roads, re-doing Caltrans employment and reconsidering the high-speed rail project.

Republican senate leader Bob Huff said there is no support for tax increases in his caucus. Democratic majorities in committee killed the Caltrans and high-speed rail proposals. Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León said taking money from cap and trade for the roads is not a serious proposal. “There is no nexus between greenhouse gas emissions and potholes,” he said.

A number of large business organizations have offered support for funding sources to be used for transportation infrastructure purposes on one hand, while on the other strongly opposed both general and specific tax measures such as a property tax increases on commercial property (SCA5) and making it easier to raise local taxes (ACA4).

Some in the business community probably hope that support for transportation revenue may be balanced with other tax measures and other bills meeting a dead end.

The focus on the minimum wage issue, so recently debated in cities and counties, will come back to the state capitol (Senate Bill 3) along with concerns for rising workers compensation costs. Capitol-centered business interests will argue a double whammy on the economy with minimum wage increases and rising workers comp costs. They will try to find a solution to workers comp increases while leaving the politics of minimum wage to local jurisdictions.

The saga of environmental regulations and the resulting costs imposed on businesses will continue to be played out, especially focused on fuel costs if petroleum reduction measure SB350, and an increased greenhouse gas regulation (SB32) become law.

The California Chamber of Commerce is monitoring its list of Job Killer bills as it does every year.

Business is not a monolith, however. Small business and big business may express different views and even within these broad business categories there are differences of opinion. That could complicate the drive to find common ground with the Legislature and governor.

Business often survives on the art of the deal – a negotiation that leads to a gain for both sides of the negotiation. Similarly, government is said to advance on the art of compromise. So will broad business interests achieve certain goals while satisfying the powers-that-be under the capitol dome?

You can bet the discussions are already taking place. As to the results — we shall see.

The puzzle — how to get more money from drivers when you want them out of their cars?

The problem of raising money from diminishing use of a product is becoming endemic in California. Previously, I’ve written that agencies that rely on tobacco tax revenue are scrambling for more money as tobacco use drops off. In the same vein, water agencies are watching their budgets shrink as consumers use less water in response to the drought.

With better mileage per gallon of gasoline for newer cars and the introduction of electric vehicles, gas tax revenue has been reduced.

The conundrum continues if seeking gas and diesel tax increases and maybe even a mileage charge on vehicles goes forward at the same time city and state planners concoct strategies to keep vehicles parked in the garage.

A proposal introduced Monday by the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Business Roundtable, the California Association of Counties, the League of California Cities, and the California Alliance for Jobs representing construction unions would raise revenue for infrastructure from gas tax and diesel tax increases, boosts in vehicle registration fees as well as cap-and-trade money.

The L.A. proposal is designed to get drivers out of their cars — but opponents of the plan say it will do nothing more than lead to congestion and frustrated drivers. As someone who has seen a nearby street lose a lane to bicycle traffic, I can attest to that concern.

Senate Bill 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, is designed to reduce greenhouse gases by encouraging developers to build housing close to public transportation.

Advocates might argue both approaches are needed — more revenue to build and fix roads, fewer cars on the roads to reduce wear and tear on the asphalt.

But duel efforts to raise taxes and limit driving could make for disgruntled drivers and angry voters.

Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that the First 5 committee, which received funding from a previous cigarette tax increase, was concerned that fewer smokers would mean less revenue. The First 5 group, which focuses on improving early years of children’s lives, is attempting to rally the Legislature to add revenue from any new cigarette tax to include First 5 in those groups that receive new revenue.

But the cycle will certainly continue for First 5 and any agency that receives cigarette money. A tax increase will likely once again reduce the number of smokers and cigarette purchases and at some point reduce the revenue agencies expect to receive.

The cigarette tax revenue for First 5 has dropped about 17 percent, to $460 million, over a five-year span.

According to the article, First 5 is looking at an alternative for additional revenue by examining the promotion of a marijuana initiative and the tax revenue such an action would bring in to help fund their organization.

Others groups undoubtedly will also have their eyes on marijuana tax money despite the recent report from Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s committee studying marijuana legalization that declared tax revenue should be low priority in considering legalizing marijuana.

Consensus in Sacramento is that the roads are in bad shape and revenue is needed to attack the problem. In announcing the special session, Brown noted that annual available excise fuel revenues for roads are billions short of the revenue needed. Deferred road maintenance requires billions more.

Democratic solutions are focused on tax and fee increases. Discussions have revolved around an increase in the gas tax, vehicle license fee, and per mileage fee, among other ideas. One approach on the tax and fee front is Sen. Jim Beall’s Senate Bill 16, which would raise $3.5 billion through a combination of taxes and fees.

Republicans have taken a different approach. Noting that the state budget increased a whopping $7.5 billion over last year, they ask why hasn’t more revenue been dedicated to the roads. Priorities dictate that transportation needs must be cared for so that the California economy can thrive, which in turn would bring in added revenue to the state.

Assembly Republicans issued a nine-point proposal this week that they say could direct $6 billion in existing state funds to transportation infrastructure. Senate Republicans similarly have introduced legislation into the special session to use current state funds for roads.

Republican opposition could thwart attempts to raise taxes for the roads because it takes a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. Republicans would be in no mood to raise taxes if GOP ideas are given short shrift.

That’s where the pressure from Republican allies in the business community might come into play.

Business interests in Sacramento have been calling for transportation improvements for a long time. They are concerned that political gridlock would lead to more delay. Business community leaders have expressed openness to tax increases or new funding sources for roads under certain conditions.

California Chamber of Commerce president Allan Zaremberg told the L.A. Times’ George Skelton, “If Republicans want to vote for taxes for transportation, I’m absolutely fine with it. I just want to make sure the money is spent on transportation.”

Jim Wunderman, who heads the Bay Area Council, stated, “We’re open to funding ideas on transportation.  Our region is at a standstill.  That said, we don’t have anything specific to work with, so I haven’t asked the members.  But some of the bigger employers are desperate for transportation fixes, given the state of things.”

Business might conceivably try to influence a wider tax discussion when it engages on road taxes. Support the administration in a road-funding scheme while demanding that the administration vocally oppose other tax plans aimed at business currently under discussion such as increased property taxes on commercial property and an oil severance tax.

Like those troublesome dinosaurs in Jurassic World, the tax discussion in the special session may go beyond the fences intended keep them in and focused on the roads.