Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So I'm going through my General Election packet and researching the different propositions. One of the ones I'm stuck on is Prop 53.

The short and simple of it is that it would require any local projects in California that exceed 2 billion dollars to be approved state wide. The rebuttal is that it doesn't cover disaster relief funding or infrastructure improvements.

What do you guys think? I'm personally leaning yes because if there was a disaster I have faith that our fellow Californians would of course vote to provide relief and it seems like it would give us more control over hugely expensive projects that we might not want like that 60 billion dollar bullet train.

Thoughts?

I agree with you.

Sounds about right.

I think it is a bad idea.

According to the President and CEO of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, Proposition 53 would "force statewide votes on some local projects. It specifically requires cities and towns that want to come together with the state and form Joint Power Authorities to issue revenue bonds to put their measure on a statewide ballot. That means that if residents in Los Angeles decide they want to make bridge safety repairs, then voters from Redding to Bakersfield would have the right to veto that decision. Crazy? You bet."

If that bridge costs 2 billion dollars there's an issue. Sounds like the bridge to nowhere. I think that's a relatively safe threshold.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I think it is a bad idea.

According to the President and CEO of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, Proposition 53 would "force statewide votes on some local projects. It specifically requires cities and towns that want to come together with the state and form Joint Power Authorities to issue revenue bonds to put their measure on a statewide ballot. That means that if residents in Los Angeles decide they want to make bridge safety repairs, then voters from Redding to Bakersfield would have the right to veto that decision. Crazy? You bet."

The bridge would come under the infrastructure exceptions though.

I'll vote no because people can't be trusted to do the right thing.