ecovote.org > no on proposition 90 > public safety impact
Prop. 90 Impacts Public Safety
[Download PDF of this Fact Sheet]
Proposition 90 hurts funding for law enforcement and fire, hindering the ability of local communities to keep the public safe
“Prop. 90 will restrict the ability of local agencies to enact even the most basic laws that are intended to protect the well-being and safety of our citizens.”
—Chief Steve Krull, president, California Police Chiefs Association
“Prop. 90 goes far beyond eminent domain reform and contains sweeping provisions that will pose great fiscal harm to taxpayers and strain local government budgets, including funding for public safety services.”
—Chief Michael Warren, president, California Fire Chiefs Association
Taxpayer, education, business, homeowner environmental, public safety, ethnic, local government and community groups are opposing Prop. 90, a deceptive initiative on California’s November ballot that has been dubbed the “Taxpayer Trap” initiative. Proponents say this measure is about eminent domain reform. But that’s just the bait. The trap is hidden within the fine print of the measure—far-reaching provisions that have nothing to do with eminent domain, but will cost taxpayers billions of dollars in new costs, and will hurt efforts to keep the public safe.
Here’s why public safety leaders oppose Prop. 90:
Could Cost Taxpayers Billions and Reduce General Fund Revenues Available for Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters. Prop. 90 will dramatically reduce resources available for local police and fire protection, emergency response and other critical local public safety services by forcing local governments to pay billions of dollars to enact measures that protect communities. That’s because the measure contains a hidden provision that allows virtually anyone to sue claiming a new law or regulation has impacted the value of their property or business – no matter how far-fetched the claim – and taxpayers will be on the hook to pay the bill.
- Two thirds of all city revenue and one third of all county revenue go to fund public safety. Even a small reduction in these funds could mean fewer police and sheriffs patrolling the streets and fewer firefighters available to respond to calls.
- Counties provide health and social services that help people get on their feet when they fall on rough times, such as drug and alcohol treatment, mental health services, and welfare-to-work programs. A reduction in these services could result in an increase in criminal activity.
“Prop. 90 is a trap that actually hurts homeowners. It would cost taxpayers billions and erode basic laws that protect our communities, our neighborhoods and the value of our homes.”
—Ken Willis, president, League of California Homeowners
Makes it More Difficult to Enact New Consumer Protection and Even Anti-Crime Laws. Prop. 90 will also discourage new consumer protection criminal laws from being enacted. For example, the initiative could require new taxpayer payouts for laws protecting consumers from identity theft, fraud and other crimes if the offending business makes a claim that such laws “devalue” their business – payouts that could make these laws too costly to enact.
Drives Up the Cost of Congestion Relief and Road Repair Projects That Are Essential for Quick Emergency Response. Prop. 90 requires new and unreasonable payouts whenever agencies acquire property for public works. These provisions will exponentially drive up the cost of infrastructure projects, causing delays, or even halting work on much-needed community projects. Taxpayers pay, or citizens lose out on projects we need, like congestion relief, road repairs.
- Firefighters and law enforcement officers are often the first emergency responders on the scene. When every second counts, it’s critical that they can travel quickly and safely to their destination.
Limits Communities’ Ability to Eliminate Conditions that Contribute to Crime. At its core, Prop. 90 attempts to limit local government’s ability to govern and to provide the basic services that community residents rely upon and demand. This includes their ability to create safe, livable neighborhoods by reducing or eliminating the conditions that contribute to crime and decrease the public’s safety.
- It would restrict local government’s ability to regulate unsavory businesses like adult bookstores, strip clubs and liquor stores and to eradicate slums and blight, all of which are magnets for crime.
Read more:
Background and History | Environmental Impact | Impact on Progressive Change | Effects on Business and Taxpayers | Impact on Public Safety | Quotations | Coalition List
© 2008 California League of Conservation Voters. Contact us.
