Councilman Leads Local Campaign for Proposition 22

In one year, the state of California took about $10 million in redevelopment and general funds from the city of South San Francisco to balance its budget, Councilman Richard Garbarino told a small group of Lion's Club members on Tuesday.

"The legislature has put a burden on us local elected officials to make the difficult decisions that they won't make or didn't make," Garbarino said in a second story South San Francisco Scavenger conference room overlooking San Francisco Bay.

If Proposition 22 passes, the legislature would be barred by constitutional amendment from borrowing or taking local redevelopment, transportation and fuel tax funds, even in dire fiscal times.

"It closes all the loopholes," Garbarino said.

As a member of the California League of Cities Peninsula Division, Garbarino has been busy stumping for Prop. 22. He helped collect signatures to qualify the Local Taxpayers, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act for the Nov. 2 ballot and has given presentations to various clubs and organizations about the measure.

Garbarino has also lent his voice to the cause: He joined other League of Cities members in singing a pro-Proposition 22 song while wearing "Save Our Services" shirts.

As an elected official, he said he felt obligated to get involved to keep the state's hands off city dollars, which according to the Yes on 22 campaign amounted to $5 billion from local government and transit funds last year.

"That leaves us without funding to do the things we need to do," Garbarino said. "We can't fix our potholes and our streets."

The state would be prohibited from temporarily shifting property taxes from cities and counties and using vehicle license fee revenues for state mandates under Prop. 22.

The South San Francisco City Council and Chamber of Commerce are supporting the initiative, along with a majority of California cities and council members.

The proposition's restrictions, however, could potentially cost the state several billion dollars a year in general fund revenue, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office, and critics say the initiative will only shift the burden to state services.

The state's education system would take an immediate $1 billion loss if the measure passes and could lose $400 million a year in funding after that, said Richard Stapler, spokesman for the No on Proposition 22 campaign.

The measure pits the interests of state employees and some counties against city workers. Powerful state unions, including the California Professional Firefighters, California Teachers Association and the California Nurses Association are opposing Prop. 22. Supervisors from counties such as Contra Costa and Santa Clara recently spoke out against Proposition 22, Stapler said.

"By just locking down at a constitutional level funding for redevelopment agencies you further tie the state's ability to balance its budget, and that comes at the cost of schools, of healthcare services that counties may provide," he said. "Everyone is in the same boat. If you start locking down these different funding streams, you are going to create this divisiveness."

Garbarino counters that the state should have to balance its budget just like local cities, calling this year's state budget, which was approved a record 100 days late, a joke.

"It's time to stop smoke and mirrors and sit down and do a real budget," he said.

Back at the South San Francisco Lion's Club meeting, 2nd Vice President Bruce Tognetti asked whether the initiative includes a plan to replace the state's lost funding. Garbarino said Prop. 22 doesn't address that.

"One of us is going to go bankrupt," Tognetti said.

"It's going to be the city before the state," Garbarino replied. "If [Prop. 22] doesn't succeed, it's going to get worse."