Have you ever experienced Déjà vu when reading California Propositions?
“Wait a minute. Didn’t I vote for the environment, parks, and infrastructure in a previous bond measure for billions of dollars?”
Well, yes, since every California ballot seems to ask for billions in bonds. For example, in 2015 California voters approved a $7.5 billion bond to build dams and water facilities and as of 2023 no projects had been built.
Proposition 4 requests $10 billion for a buffet of unspecified projects such as water management facilities, forest and coast management, land conservation, industrial wind turbines, parks, climate change, environmental, and farmland projects.
This is not a deep dive into how much California owes or what exact benefits California taxpayers have realized save to say that the state already has long-term obligations of $280.9 billion. California’s annual payment for environment-related bonds alone is about $1.4 billion. And everyone knows that the state had a budget shortfall this year.
I’d like more specifics on the “land conversation” part of this proposition. It was recently announced that 25.2% of California land has now been conserved as well as 16.2% of its coastal waters. Since 2022, 2,350 square miles have been added to conservation areas and this year alone, 861,000 acres were newly protected. The goal is to protect 30% of the state's lands and coastal waters by 2030.
This is part of the 30x30 initiative in which the state plans to acquire six million acres, including 500,000 coastal acres, from private owners for conservation. To do this they need the kind of funding in ballot measures.
About 46%, or 48 million acres, of California’s land area is owned by the federal government. Of this,15 million acres are owned by BLM, which holds the lands for conservation. If more land is owned by government then there is less land for private development.
In the Official Voter Information Guide Prop 4 states that $1.2 billion will be used for land conservation and habitat restoration to . . . “purchase land to set aside so that it is not developed.”
If you’ve read this far, you know what I’m getting to. There will be less land for housing development (which the state adamantly insists it wants) and decreases the opportunities for supplying new or expanded local aggregate resources. This will result in higher home prices for residents and is one more method to control private land use.