A grab bag of initiatives: Our takes

Voters in the Nov. 7 election will have no less than 13 statewide initiatives awaiting their decision. Billions of dollars in bond money for everything from school facilities to flood control projects hangs in the balance. Here are our takes on these initiatives:

Proposition 1A would keep gas tax funding strictly for transportation projects. We don’t buy the funding flexibility argument suggested by opponents. Yes.

Proposition 1B would provide nearly $20 billion in bonds to address the state’s ailing transportation system, particularly in regard to building new roads. Backers said funds will be spent responsibly and even the finicky California Taxpayers’ Association is backing it. Yes.

Proposition 1C: Where 1A and 1B would benefit everyone, 1C would ask for nearly $3 billion to benefit select groups. Surely, residents such as the low-income elderly and battered women need our help, but this isn’t the way to do it. No.

Proposition 1D seeks $10.4 billion in bonds to improve facilities at schools from K-12 to universities. This centralized approach is bereft of any specifics on how funds would be spent. Our districts may never see a dime - probably just more lawsuits. No.

Proposition 1E proposes $4 billion to pay for flood control and water quality projects. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the disastrous mudslides that have occurred statewide, funding here has more specific uses than 1D. For instance, 180 levee sites have been identified for repairs - repairs 1E could fund. Yes.

Proposition 83 would increase penalties for violent sex offenders and child molesters. It would bar them from living near schools and parks. Sex offenders would be monitored for life after release from prison. Yes.

Proposition 84 glosses over what 1E would do more effectively - offer funding for needed flood control. Like 1D, this initiative lacks specifics. No.

Proposition 85 proposes parental notification at least 48 hours before an unemancipated pregnant minor is allowed to have an abortion. As parents, grandparents and backers of concerned parents, we supported the initiative as Prop. 73 last year. We support it again this year. Yes.

Proposition 86 would add a $2.60 tax to each pack of cigarettes to fund health programs. Although smokers cite a violation of their rights, the rights of nonsmokers are continuously violated. The money would be used in part toward anti-smoking programs aimed at children. Yes.

Proposition 87 would establish a $4 billion program, funded by oil companies, to reduce petroleum consumption through incentives for alternative energy. Money would come from extraction fees applied to offshore drilling. Oil companies, naturally, are heavily funding the opposition. Yes.

Proposition 88 proposes an annual $50 tax per parcel to enhance K-12 education, but the Legislature decides where the money goes. It looks to us like more money going into a black hole. No.

Proposition 89 would provide candidates for state office “public campaign funding” through taxes on corporations and financial institutions. While we like the intention of not giving unfair advantage to wealthy and/or corporate-backed politicians, the idea of taxes to fund campaigns is repulsive to us. No.

Proposition 90 sounds good on the surface, preventing public entities from condemning private property for private use. However, the initiative goes too far. It leaves local governments vulnerable to litigation over land use changes, such as those proposed under the county’s Measure A. Taxpayers will be impacted by the legal damages that will occur. No.