OGDEN: Vote 'No' on Prop. 31

Proposition 31 contains 17 provisions in 9,000 words. So, it's no wonder you haven't heard about the most consequential provisions. Buried deep in Proposition 31 is language that allows for regional taxation schemes or strategic action plans. Under these plans, county, city, and school districts could share property taxes and this shared revenue would be administered by a committee of local elected officials. These plans could cost state and local governments tens of millions to implement. Local government would be liable for the cost of performance review and effectiveness for their programs. The regional plans could request waivers to certain laws and regulations, but the waivers can be rejected by the Legislature or whatever governing board they concern, opening up endless avenues for litigation. Proposition 31 adds layers of government and increases costs.

What could this mean for our area? Well, consider the possibility that money could be drained from a financially solvent city like Modesto to bail out Riverbank or another local agency with big debts, whether or not they are in close proximity.

Cities, counties and school districts can already work together — and do. Communities are free to create regional agencies to build roads or operate an animal shelter. Why would voters want to enshrine in the state constitution a proposal whose impacts — financial and others — are so hard to predict and that very likely would grow the government bureaucracy?

Proposition 31 is being sold as reform in accountability, transparency and locality. Why then, did its framers bury this provision in unusually lengthy and deliberately ambiguous language? Because the result would be the exact opposite. Proposition 31 is so awful in concept that it has united the teachers union and the tea party, the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register in opposition. Vote No on 31.

Kimberly Ogden, of Modesto, is a homemaker, community volunteer and blogger.