According to an article in Saturday’s San Francisco Chronicle, the big infrastructure bonds appear on their way to victory. The Chronicle and several other major newspapers cite the most recent Field Poll results.

A quick look at the poll numbers:

• Proposition 1B: 56-28% yes

• Proposition 1C: 51-30% yes

• Proposition 1D: 56-29% yes

• Proposition 1E: 53-27% yes

• Proposition 84: 51-31% yes

The one caveat to keep in mind from news analysis and political observers that we have emphasized over the past month is that while it is good that all of the bonds are polling above 50%, there is no guarantee that they will pass unless they are well above 50%.

Proposition 1B and 1D appear very well-positioned to clear the hurdle, but the rest are still up in the air. Nonetheless, the recent spate of stumping for the propositions by the governor and other candidates and a truckload of television ads urging a “yes” vote appear to be on their way to paying off.

In addition, as pollsters have pointed out in recent news articles, the number of people expected to vote “no” on the measures has not expanded significantly since the last time polls were taken on the bonds — increasing the likelihood that the measures will pass, and get implemented.

Unless, of course, Proposition 90 passes, in which event all bets are off.

Bill Bradley, looking at a poll just released by the Public Policy Institute of California, observes on his blog this morning that the infrastructure measures are in trouble. The governor and many major state lawmakers and advocacy groups have gone up and down the state promoting and stumping for the measures. But none of the measures has increased its support in any significant way.

Support for Proposition 1B is stuck at 51-38%. Proposition 1C is at 56-34%, Proposition 1D is at 51-39%, and Proposition 1E is at 53-36%. Proposition 84, the water safety initiative, is well below the margin needed for passage, with 42% supporting it and 43% opposing it. As Bradley points out, even worse news for the measure’s supporters is that support for the measures among Democrats and independent voters, who are traditional supporters of bond expenditures, is far short of what it should be.

The PPIC polling data seem to suggest that voters are supportive of the concept of bond expenditures in general, but wary of the specific measures that appear on this year’s ballot. 58% of likely voters say that the $43 billion total that the bond measures, if implemented, would require is too costly. Focusing specifically on Proposition 1D, 87% of likely voters consider state spending on improvements in school facilities to be important for their individual communities, but support for that measure is essentially unchanged from last month.

A George Skelton piece in today’s Los Angeles Times notes that despite Schwarzenegger’s popularity, and despite several carefully orchestrated appearances at charter schools and Delta levees, he hasn’t been able to drum up much support for the infrastructure measures. Skelton surmises that if the bonds flop at the polls, it could take some of the luster off the projected Schwarzenegger re-election landslide.

Robert Salladay of the Los Angeles Times and Shane Goldmacher at The California Observer blog today both cite a new poll by J. Moore Methods gauging support for Propositions 1A-1E.

The poll shows all five measures are holding on to slim majority support or close to it. Proposition 1A has the highest support at 56-21%. Proposition 1E follows close behind at 55-31%. The other three bonds don’t fare quite as well. Proposition 1C is at 54-32%, 1D is at 52-34%, and 1B looks least likely to pass, with 50-36% support.

As Bill Bradley notes on his blog, the fact that the measures are stabilized at or slightly above 50% support is no guarantee of success. He cites what happened to the Rob Reiner-sponsored Proposition 82, which would have funded preschool for every child in California, and to Proposition 81, the 2006 library bond measure. Both looked like sure bets to pass according to most polls taken before the election; both failed to pass. (Proposition 82 in particular lost by a startlingly wide margin, 61-39%).

As Bradley observes:

While the measures are there to be won, they are also in dangerous territory. Finance-related initiatives that are hovering at or around 50% two weeks before a California election usually lose.

If Proposition 90 passes, according to an article in the October 18 issue of the Los Angeles Times, almost every expense that is contemplated by Propositions 1A through 1E could be put on hold almost indefinitely.

That’s because the provisions of Proposition 90 could entitle property owners who believe that their property values are being harmed to go to court anytime a city or local agency released planning documents, which could essentially paralyze public works projects throughout the state. One expert quoted in the article noted that property owners in Oregon have filed nearly 40,000 lawsuits against local governments since Measure 37 passed in 2004 (Measure 37 has provisions that are substantially similar to some provisions of Proposition 90. One main difference is that Measure 37 deals mainly with land-use regulations, whereas Proposition 90 deals more directly with putting restrictions on governments’ authority to exercise eminent domain. Oregon also has a more directly eminent-domain-related measure, Measure 39, on this year’s ballot, and it’s sponsored by the same group that sponsored Measure 37, Oregonians in Action.)

Supporters of Proposition 90 counter that experts and government agencies that express alarm about the restrictions that Proposition 90 could impose are engaging in scare tactics because they don’t want to cede their right to exercise eminent domain.

According to an article in today’s Sacramento Bee, most likely voters don’t know that the four major infrastructure bond measures (Propositions 1B-1E) are on the ballot, and when they find out about them and how much they are projected to cost, they are less likely to support passing them. This pattern is confirmed by polling data from the Public Policy Institute of California.

The article notes, “If voters approve the separate measures on transportation, education, flood protection and housing, it’s going to cost an average of $2.45 billion a year for the next three decades — a little more than the state now pays annually for in-home support services for the poor, all of its public health programs and the entire budget of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency.” The article goes on to note that the state already has $45 billion in outstanding bond debt, with yet another $45 billion waiting to be sold and financed, including $10 billion in bonds approved by voters in the 2004 election.

The state’s debt service ratio (the amount of the general fund that the state uses to retire bond debt) will increase from 4.2% to 4.8% by 2008-2009 if the bond measures on this year’s ballot pass.

Both gubernatorial candidates fervently support the package of five bond measures on the ballot. So do heavyweight state legislators like Don Perata and Fabian Núñez. So do several major state newspapers (including the San Francisco Chronicle, the Sacramento Bee, and the San José Mercury News). It’s hard to argue with the improvements in state infrastructure and services that the bonds would ostensibly help fund without looking like Ebenezer Scrooge.

The bond measures’ opponents don’t generally dispute the need for shoring up the state’s infrastructure. Rather, they argue that the improvements should be paid from the general fund, with hard decisions made by the Legislature. They argue that bond measures allow legislators to whistle past the graveyard while state debt obligation skyrockets.

A Chronicle article today points out that likely voters either know very little about the bond measures on the ballot (Propositions 1B through 1E) or are “wary” about supporting them because of the vast expense they would involve. Just as an example, Proposition 1D alone (70% of which would be spent, according to its backers, mainly to modernize K-12 school facilities) would require almost $10.5 billion in bonds to be issued, with the cost of the principal and interest on those bonds eventually reaching $20.3 billion, according to the State Legislative Analyst.

The last major polling on all four bond measures was conducted last month by the Public Policy Institute of California. The polling showed Propositions 1C (affordable housing) and Proposition 1E (water infrastructure enhancements) with the highest support (at 55% and 57%). Proposition 1B (transportation infrastructure enhancements) had 51% support. Proposition 1D had 49% support. An often-used rule of thumb is that ballot measures with bare majority support or less usually fail to pass.

For much more detail on the bond measures and the other propositions on the ballot, including links to news articles, reports, public opinion surveys, major campaign contributors, and official voter information, visit our Hot Topics pages.