October 2004

The Statehouse

By James Lawlor

Voters in several states, mostly in the West, will be passing judgment early in November on ballot questions that have planning implications. Here are some of the highlights:

California voters will have to work their way through only 16 measures this year, a far cry from the record set in 1914, when 48 measures were on the ballot. The average number of ballot questions is 18, the Initiative and Referendum Institute says.

Proposition 1A, the first question on in the ballot, would amend the state constitution to bar the state from reducing local governments' share of property and sales tax revenue without a two-thirds vote of the legislature. In addition, the governor would have to declare a fiscal emergency, and any money diverted would have to be repaid within three years. Although questions near the top of the ballot historically garner more "yes" votes than questions near the bottom, and there seems to be no organized resistance to the proposal, local governments may have created confusion in voters' minds by initially championing a more restrictive measure, Proposition 65, which remains on the ballot. They are now put in the position of urging voters to reject Proposition 65 and vote for Proposition 1A.

Proposition 59, which also appears to have almost unanimous support, would amend the state constitution to guarantee public access to government documents and meetings. The person who wrote the ballot argument against the proposition says he is not really an opponent of the measure; he just wishes it was stronger. The proposition does not change any laws currently on the books, but does raise public access to the status of a constitutional right. Proponents hope it will nudge public officials into being more responsive to information requests. The measure exempts the legislature from its provisions and states it does not supersede the state constitutional right to privacy.

Two propositions concerning gambling could have an effect on transportation planning by potentially leading to an increase in the number of legal gambling establishments. Proposition 70 would allow any federally recognized Indian tribe to operate as many casinos and slot machines as it wanted on its land and permit the operation of games currently prohibited, such as roulette and craps. Proposition 68, pushed by the operators of card rooms and racetracks in the San Francisco Bay Area, would require tribes seeking to open a new casinos to execute a new compact with the state that would net the state 25 percent of their net slot machine revenue. The tribes also would have to consent to state court jurisdiction over disputes with customers or local governments and agree to abide by environmental laws. A provision requiring all tribes to sign onto the new deals would allow the card rooms and racetracks to operate up to a total of 30,000 slot machines if any tribe rejected the deal. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who campaigned on a promise to get a better deal for the state from the tribal casinos, has come out against both propositions.

Oregon voters will once again consider a proposal to require compensation of landowners who can establish that a state or local land-use regulation restricts the use off his property and reduces its fair market value. A similar measure, approved by the voters in 2000 as an amendment to the state constitution, was invalidated by the state Supreme Court on the ground it addressed more than one topic. The current ballot proposal would add a new law to the state statutes and thus could not be invalidated on technical grounds. Measure 37 requires local governments to compensate affected landowners, refrain from enforcing the regulation against them, or modify the regulation. The measure does not include any funding source for compensation payments that might be required under it.

A number of organizations, including the Oregon APA chapter, have stated their opposition to the measure. Opponents include several county farm bureaus, the state's winery operators, small-business owners, the League of Women Voters, the American Institute of Architects Oregon Chapter, the Nature Conservancy and the Historic Preservation League. Also opposing the measure are the current governor, Ted Kulongoski, and two former governors, Victor Atiyeh and John Kitzhaber.

Utah voters will weigh the merits of a $150 million bond issue proposal, the proceeds of which would largely be dedicated to acquisition of critical watersheds, wildlife habitat, and farmers and ranches. The bonds could be paid off by a 0.05 cent increase in the state sales tax, estimated to amount to about $14 a year for a typical family of four.

A poll taken by the Deseret Morning News in early October indicated 65 percent of Utahans support Initiative 1, but the open space initiative has attracted some strong opposition. Gov. Olene Walker came out against the initiative October 7, saying the bond issue could jeopardize the state's AAA bond rating. She also objected to the $30 million allocation of funding for community projects such as recreation centers and convention centers. Supporters of the bond issue point out that the allocation simply represents the maximum amount of funding that could go to such projects. Communities applying for building funds would still have to compete with conservation projects for the money, they say. Members of the Republican legislative leadership also have voiced opposition to the measure. The state tax review commission has expressed concerns over it, but has not take a formal position. The Utah farm bureau and the Utah taxpayers association also have come out against the measure.

Supporters of the measure include city governments, ranchers, farmers, environmental groups and hunting organizations. Both candidates to replace Gov. Walker — Jon Huntsman, Jr. and Scott Matheson, Jr. — back the initiative.

New Mexico: Development task force. Gov. Bill Richardson announced September 24 creation of a task force on "Our Communities, Our Future." It is charged with developing recommendations for the governor and the legislature by January 15, 2005, on urban and rural community development, specifically, opportunities for high-quality investment and development in New Mexico communities. The task force is also required to meet with the public to discuss community livability and opportunities for public-private partnerships to promote community growth. Other assignments include recommending incentives for development that will reinforce the state communities, support transit-oriented development, and assure that community growth is both efficient and livable, the governor's proclamation stated.