If Prop 53 passes, revenue bonds totaling $2 billion or more (e.g. that $60 billion High Speed Rail) would require statewide voter approval first. The intent of the prop is to prevent massive state debt because of poorly planned or financed projects. Currently, it's unclear whether this would impact local projects. If it did, people in LA, for example, would have to vote on something that only impacts SF. Neither side wants that.
Say the High Speed Rail is built, and nobody uses it because it's overrun with rats. High speed rats. To pay back the bond, the state has to pull from the General Fund
(i.e. taxpayer money honeypot). So it should make sense that you should have a say in whether a project should be built or not, right? You, as a tax-payer, are paying for it if it fails. Well, the opposition says that revenue bonds don't put the tax-payers at risk, just its users.[4 @ 19:00, 25:55]
If the High Speed Rail is over-budget, then the price for a ticket simply becomes more expensive. (You can continue down this rabbit-hole, and eventually get to taxpayers again.)
Dino Cortopassi, farmer and philanthropist, has spent over $4 million to get this passed, in an effort to stop "blank check debt" from legislators. Some say this measure is to personally stop the Twin Tunnels or High Speed Rail project.
The proposition has no exemptions for emergencies, like a natural disaster.
Proponents argue that wouldn't be a revenue bond in the first place.
But there's an example in 1910 where we have.[4 @ 22:40]
[We haven't been able to verify the example they cite in the podcast. Any leads?]