By KATHERINE PETERSEN
Twelve state propositions face scrutiny from Sunnyvale voters on the March 26 ballot. Some of the initiatives directly affect the city of Sunnyvale, and others indirectly affect the city because they could have an impact on the state's economy.
The Sun recently asked proponents and opponents of each proposition to clarify their positions and to explain how and what effect each may have on Sunnyvale. In addition, the Sunnyvale City Council on March 5 voted to take formal positions on some of the initiatives. Their responses appear below.
This is the first of two parts.
Proposition 192
Prop. 192 calls for a $2 billion bond issue to seismically retrofit bridges, interchanges and overpasses.
Mike Testa, a member of Californians for Safe Highways and Bridges, said Santa Clara County has 43 locations that would be retrofitted. He said that, if retrofitting is done, Sunnyvale taxpayers won't spend tax dollars for reconstruction as they did for the damaged Bay Bridge after the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989. The bond and its interest would be paid at an average of $36 million per year.
Yet state Assemblyman Bernie Richter of Chico, who opposes Prop. 192, said he resents one of its conditions, which says the proposition can be put on the November ballot if it fails in March. He added that the proposition would allow money for road repairs to come from state's general fund. Road repairs are now funded by road taxes.
"It's bridge maintenance as far as I'm concerned," Richter said of the $650 million allotted to toll bridges.
"They should either raise tolls or stop spending money for roads on other things, like public transportation. It's a significant demand on the general fund," he said.
The Sunnyvale City Council on March 5 voted to oppose this proposition.
Proposition 193
Passage of Prop. 193 would allow grandparents to transfer property to their grandchildren if the grandchildren's parents are dead.
Assemblyman David Knowles, who supports the proposition, said it would allow grandparents to transfer a primary residence worth up to $1 million without an increase to its assessed value according to Prop. 13. He said this situation would occur rarely and the small amount of lost property taxes that could affect schools would be repaid from the general fund.
Linda Kilian, president of the Sunnyvale Elementary School District Board of Education, said the school district currently is not receiving enough money from the state, and she worries that schools would not receive compensation for the loss.
The City Council opposes this proposition.
Proposition 194
Prop. 194 would deny unemployment benefits to prisoners who worked in a joint-venture program while in prison.
Kevin Nguyen, legislative assistant to state Sen. Rob Hurtt, said that "the public feels prisoners are being pampered, and voters disagree rightfully with giving prisoners unemployment benefits after they leave prison."
Nguyen added that prisoners should not be treated as law-abiding citizens. He said the added cost of unemployment benefits discourages businesses from participating in the joint-venture programs.
Emma Childers, director of legislation for the Friends Committee on Legislation, disagreed. She said the proposition would only affect Sunnyvale business owners who operate in a joint-venture program.
"This would not affect taxpayers," she said. "We believe prisoners are honestly employed in this program, get paid minimum wage, pay taxes and won't get unemployment just because they're prisoners."
The City Council took no position on this proposition.
Proposition 195
Prop. 195 adds murder during a carjacking, murder resulting from a carjacking kidnap, and the intentional murder of a juror in retaliation for (or prevention of) performance of official duties to the list of special circumstances for first-degree murder that may warrant the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole.
Lucy Camarillo, legislative coordinator for Sen. Steve Peace, said carjacking does not fit any of the existing special circumstances. It is not classified as a robbery, even if the car is stolen, she said. Peace believes these crimes should be considered as special circumstances and believes in the death penalty for these special cases.
Assemblyman John Burton, who opposes the initiative, said it is more politically inspired than for criminal justice purposes. He said that murders committed during robbery and kidnapping are already special circumstances and that carjackings do not occur without one or the other.
"It's already a law," Burton said. He added that there is no record of a juror being murdered.
"It seems to me that a political statement is being made about a problem that doesn't exist," he added.
The City Council took no position on this proposition.
Proposition 196
Prop. 196 calls for adding the murder of a person in a drive-by shooting to the list of special circumstances for first-degree murder that may warrant the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole. This measure would result in unknown state costs, potentially ranging into several millions of dollars annually in the long run.
State Sen. Ruben Ayala, who supports this proposition, said the benefits of not having repeat criminals on Sunnyvale's streets may outweigh any added costs. "Drive-by murder has reached epidemic proportions in California. This will ensure that these senseless murderers get what they deserve,"Ayala said.
Assemblyman John Burton, who opposes this proposition, said that although drive-by shootings should not be tolerated, he questions the logic behind levying the death penalty for shooting while driving a car but not for someone who gets out of the car to shoot.
"You or your loved one is still dead," Burton said.
He added that the measure is an attempt to be tough on crime, but doesn't address the problem.
The City Council has taken no position on this issue.
Proposition 197
Passage of Prop. 197 would repeal the mountain lion's status as a specially protected mammal. The measure would require the Fish and Game Commission to manage mountain lions as it manages other animals that are not rare, endangered or threatened. The measure authorizes taking mountain lions in priority zones consistent with the plan.
Funds will be reallocated in the Habitat Conservation Fund of up to $250,000 annually for three years and up to $100,000 annually thereafter until July 1, 2020. Additional state costs of up to $250,000 annually could be incurred to maintain public safety.
Robert Dugan of Californians for Balanced Wildlife Manage-ment said there has been an increase in reports of mountain lions threatening public safety and private property, including animals, in recent years. He said two-thirds of the century's serious lion vs. human incidents have occurred in the last six years.
"Under current law, the mountain lion population can't be managed. Any plan that is developed requires maintenance of a viable mountain lion population," Dugan said. He added that the plan would be subject to public scrutiny before implementation.
Dugan conceded that hunting is one of the many management tools available. Managing the mountain lion population would help keep a balance in California's wildlife, he said.
Yet Paul Van Dyke of No on 197, California Wildlife Protection Coalition, said Sunnyvale voters should not allow the trophy hunting of mountain lions. He added that while the hunting may be in the mountains, far from Sunnyvale, voters may not want to see the lions chased down by a pack of hounds with radio-controlled collars.
"People in Sunnyvale want to know there's wildlife in California and don't want to see it eradicated and abused, which will happen if Proposition 197 passes," he said.
Van Dyke said trophy hunting of mountain lions will disrupt the natural ecosystem.
The City Council has taken no position on this proposition.
Proposition 198
Passage of Prop. 198 would allow voters who are registered as independents or in minority parties to participate in primary elections.
Lynda Rice, campaign manager for Californians for an Open Primary, said such a primary would allow people to vote based on candidates rather than party affiliation. She said that giving the 1.5 million registered independents a vote in primaries would increase turnout at these elections.
Rice said that opening primaries to independents would encourage more moderate candidates to run and would give all voters more choices.
Yet Bob Mulholland, campaign adviser for the California Democratic Party, said that just as the Elks Club doesn't allow the Lions Club to vote in its board, so independents should not vote for Democrats or Republicans in primary elections. He said that turnout during the past 16 primaries, when the current primary system began, has been 3 percent higher than the 16 primaries previous to the current system.
Mulholland also believes the current primary system protects minor parties. "We can't become the nominee of the Reform or Libertarian parties," he said.
The City Council has taken no position on this proposition.
Proposition 199
Prop. 199 would phase out local rent-control laws on mobilehomes and prevent new state and local laws.
Denis Wolcott, spokesman for Californians for Mobilehome Fairness, said rent control limits park owners' ability to pay back bank loans, which in turn curbs new park construction. He added that many people, such as young families, look to mobilehome communities for an affordable first home.
In Sunnyvale, which has no rent-control laws, the threat of rent-control laws can make investors in new parks leery of not getting a return, Wolcott said. People who are searching for mobilehome spaces have fewer choices than they should have.
Ron Gray, a campaign consultant for the Golden State Mobilehome Owners League Inc., said Proposition 199 should be called "the widows' and seniors' eviction act. Revoking rent-control laws will make mobilehomes unaffordable because rents could skyrocket, Gray said.
"With or without rent control laws in California, mobilehome parks continue to be a very good investment with a very high profit margin for investors," he said.
While Sunnyvale currently has no rent-control laws in place, this proposition will take away the right to impose such laws in the future, Gray said.
The City Council opposes this proposition.
Proposition 200
Prop. 200 would require that an insurer pay benefits regardless of who is at fault in most motor-vehicle accidents. Lawsuits against another driver would be prohibited unless a specified crime has been proven. The proposition requires insurance benefits for medical and rehabilitation costs, wage loss, replacement services and death. Insurance companies must pay within 30 days or pay 2 percent more each month.
Tupper Hull, a spokesman for the Alliance to Revitalize California, said that Prop. 200 will take $2.5 billion in legal expenses and $3 billion in fraud out of auto insurance by getting lawyers out, which may lower insurance rates by 17 percent to 35 percent. He added that, under the current system of liability insurance, people usually need to hire lawyers and many people fake injuries.
"Proposition 200 will skip the lawyers. Your insurance company will pay your bills and, if they don't, the next step is arbitration," Hull said.
He said claims can still be taken to court after arbitration and that plaintiffs would be entitled to punitive damages.
Hilary McLean, spokeswoman for Consumers and their Attorneys against Propositions 200, 201 and 202, said Prop. 200 will raise insurance rates, lower benefits and double the paperwork to filled out.
"No-fault is no fair," McLean said.
All states with no-fault insurance have seen their rates climb an average of 40 percent. The cheapest policy is $50,000, which may not be enough to cover serious injuries. After the $50,000 has been spent, the consumer is on his/her own.
"If you're in a wheelchair for life, there's no accountability for a reckless driver who ran into you," McLean said. She added that this proposition does not cover the cost of fixing the car.
The City Council opposes this proposition.
Proposition 201
Prop. 201 would require the losing party to pay the winning party's reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses in shareholder actions against corporations and in class-action lawsuits. The court may require the plaintiff to furnish a bond for the defendant's estimated fees and expenses, unless the plaintiff owns or traded at least 5 percent of the company's shares.
Hull said Silicon Valley's high-tech industries have been hit hard by class-action lawsuits, and this proposition would make them more difficult to file. He said 68 percent of all companies in Silicon Valley have been sued at least once in this type of case. He added that the judge has the right to waive the loser-pays rule, for example in cases involving small investors.
McLean said Prop. 201 does not apply to the swindlers; it only applies to small investors. If it had been law, the victims of the Charles Keating/ Lincoln Savings and Loan swindle could not have recovered their money.
"It can be dangerous for elderly people because they account for 48 percent of small investors," McLean said.
She said judges can only reduce the fees after the case has gone to court. She called 201 a one-sided proposition that stacks the deck "against the little guy."
The City Council opposes this proposition.
Proposition 202
Prop. 202 limits fees that a plaintiff's attorney may collect, if the fees are contingent on the plaintiff's compensation in personal-injury or wrongful-death cases. Hourly rates would not be limited.
The attorney must submit a letter to the defendant; if the plaintiff accepts a settlement, the contingent fees could not exceed 15 percent of the compensation.
Hull said Proposition 202 gives people an incentive to accept early offers because they may receive more money. Contingency fees can range from 30 percent to 40 percent of the compensation, Hull said.
He said the proposition may encourage defendants to make reasonable offers of higher value to the plaintiff.
McLean said this proposition also is very one-sided and that it attempts to keep victims out of the courtroom. She said it does not limit fees for attorneys who represent corporations, insurance companies or attorneys paid by the hour.
McLean added that the proposition also requires the plaintiff to give out all the details of a case before beginning discovery. A good example, she said, would be a civil suit over a defective birth-control device.
"You would have to provide the defendant's home address, evidence photographs, witnesses, all medical records pertaining to injury to the corporation and attorney, but the corporation would not have to furnish any test, other complaints or anything," she said.
Businesses that sue other businesses on contingency fees are exempt from this proposition.
The City Council has taken no position on this proposition.
Proposition 203
Proposition 203 would provide $3 billion for construction, restoration and earthquake retrofitting for K-12 schools, community colleges and campuses of the California State University and University of California system. The bond would provide $2.02 billion for K-12 capital projects and $975 million for higher-education projects. About $300 million would be available over the next two years for community college projects if the bond passes.
More than $800 million is needed for school construction projects that have been approved but await funding. Overall, there is a $7.2 billion backlog of project applications for funding. (The Sunnyvale Elementary School District will have a $34 million bond on the June special election ballot.)
Jim Murdoch of the Coalition for Adequate School Housing, which favors this measure, said education is a statewide responsibility. Sunnyvale schools could use the money from this bond as matching funds for a local bond issue, which would reduce the cost of construction to local taxpayers and make local dollars go further.
According to the state Constitution, money from the state lottery can not be used for school construction and bond issue funding can only be used for construction and modernization. State taxes will not be increased because of this bond because the money has already been budgeted into the general fund for this purpose.
However, issuing more bonds will raise the ratio of debt level to state revenues (debt-service ratio). The debt-service ratio recently peaked at 5.3 percent and will decline by roughly 1 percent every four years if no other bonds are passed. Many financial analysts suggest a prudent debt service ratio of 5 percent. If Prop. 203 and the seismic bond pass, California's debt-service ratio could reach 5.7 percent in 1999-2000.
Jim Elwood of the Libertarian Party of California, which opposes the measure, said the bond measure is deceptive because only $100 million out of $3 billion will be spent on earthquake retrofitting. He added that California's public schools already receive 40 percent of the state's general fund, and that proceeds from the state lottery, after expenses, go toward public education.
Elwood said most of the money goes into bureaucracy rather than to teachers and students The ratio of administrators to teachers in California is 127 to 100, 10 times that of private schools, he said.
The City Council has taken no position on this proposition.
This article appeared in the Sunnyvale Sun, March 13, 1996.
©1996 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.