ARGUMENT in Favor of
Proposition 60A
PROPOSITION 60A gives voters the chance to reduce the cost of the bonds they overwhelmingly approved in March as part of Governor Schwarzenegger's plan to help ease the state's budget crisis.
Unfortunately, those bonds carry a high price in the form of interest payments. There is a solution. Experts estimate California has more than $1,000,000,000 worth of surplus property. By requiring that proceeds from the sale of all such surplus property be used to help pay off the bonds early, PROPOSITION 60A COULD DRAMATICALLY LOWER COSTS TO TAXPAYERS.
Vote YES on Proposition 60A to SAVE MONEY.
DAN STANFORD, Former Chairman
California Fair Political Practices Commission
BARBARA O'CONNOR, Ph.D., Director
Institute for the Study of Politics & Media
California State University, Sacramento
GEORGE N. ZENOVICH, Associate Justice
Retired, 5th District Court of Appeal
REBUTTAL to Argument in Favor of Proposition 60A
Nowhere in the support arguments for Proposition 60A do you see mention of what Proposition 60A does to actually force the sale of surplus property in California. That's because Proposition 60A doesn't force the sale of surplus property-it only directs that the money raised IF surplus property is sold be used to pay off bond debt.
In seeking to compromise, the backers of Proposition 60A stopped short of what needs to be done.
That may be practicing the art of the possible, but it is no less "unpalatable" and deserves a no vote.
SENATOR BILL MORROW
ASSEMBLYMEMBER SARAH REYES |
|
|
ARGUMENT Against
Proposition 60A
In his speech on the Conciliation of America, Edmund Burke said, "All government, indeed, every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter."
Proposition 60A falls short of the mark.
It does make sense to sell surplus state property when we're in the middle of a budget crisis, but Proposition 60A only says that if surplus properties are sold then the proceeds can only be spent to pay off the deficit reduction bonds voters approved last March.
It doesn't actually force the sale of the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of surplus property the state owns.
As California's financial troubles have grown, taxpayer groups started putting legislators' feet to the fire to get rid of surplus property the state owns-including a Bay Area massage parlor, part of a golf course, strip malls, and fashionable properties in Sausalito and even Tahiti!
Proposition 60A is only half a response.
It's good the big spenders can't get their hands on the proceeds, but there needs to be more of a stick to get the bureaucrats off the dime to actually sell properties.
Proposition 60A does no harm, but voters deserve more. Voters deserve to see "for sale" signs popping up on the state's surplus property.
STATE SENATOR BILL MORROW
STATE ASSEMBLYMEMBER SARAH REYES
REBUTTAL to Argument Against Proposition 60A
Proposition 60A helps to lower costs to taxpayers by requiring that proceeds from the sale of all surplus state property be used to pay off Governor Schwarzenegger's deficit reduction bonds early.
Vote Yes on Proposition 60A!
BARBARA O'CONNOR, Ph.D., Director Institute for the Study of Politics & Media California State University, Sacramento
MICHAEL S. CARONA, Sheriff Orange County
HENRY L. "HANK" LACAYO, State President Congress of California Seniors |
|
