Why I don't like the 1A-1B-1C-1D-1E propositions
But I'm opposed to them, especially 1B for reasons I'll get into below.
The reason that I don't like this package, as much as I think that our state needs to beef up its transportation, education, and diaster-preparedness facilities, is that this is going about it the "borrow and spend" way, which will cost us double in the long run.
Californians are so afraid of paying taxes, even though it's the only place that the investments in our infrastructure can come from, that we seem willing just put off the cost until way down the road, even when it will end up costing us twice as much when you factor in the interest.
I am not against bond measures in general; a bond for some big project like an upgrade makes sense. But to essentially replace the function of taxing for everyday expenses like education and transportation, no thank you. Nobody likes a tax bill on their desk today, but I'd rather pay it now than pay double (or have my kids pay it) later.
So let's look at measure 1B, the transportation piece of the pie. This is mostly about building more highways - something we don't need with the climate crisis we are facing and the oil supply peaking. This is a big moneymaker for the automotive industry, and we as citizens lose. We should be expanding facilities for useable transit, biking, and walking ... not just increasing freeway capacity (which helps with congestion for the short term, but then fills up as more people use their cars to take advantage of the capacity!)
From what I understand, we in the Bay Area currently spend about 75% of transportation funds on transit, not highways. The proposed measure is a setback because it allocates 75% toward unsustainable freeway spending!
Are we building California, or building debt? I think we should say NO to these measures and instead find another way - even if that means (gasp!) paying for it in taxes.