Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

S 806MBS

Authors

S 806MBS

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3711 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "S_806MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1577890" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(96111) "in collaboration with The James Irvine Foundation Mark Baldassare Research Director & Survey Director The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns: California in the global economy; demography; education; employment and income; environment, growth, and infrastructure; government and public finance; health and social policy; immigrants and immigration; key sectors in the California economy; and political participation. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens—William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller—recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Thomas C. Sutton is Chair of the Board of Directors. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 phone: 415.291.4400 fax: 415.291.4401 www.ppic.org survey@ppic.org TABLE OF CONTENTS About the Survey Press Release November Election Californians and the Future State Issues Regional Map Methodology Questionnaire and Results 1 3 7 15 23 30 31 33 ABOUT THE SURVEY The PPIC Statewide Survey series provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the perceptions, opinions, and public policy preferences of California residents. Inaugurated in April 1998, this is the 70th PPIC Statewide Survey in a series that has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 146,000 Californians. The current survey is the first in a series of four surveys on the topic of Californians and the Future, supported by funding from The James Irvine Foundation. California has 37 million residents today and is expected to add about 10 million more people over the next 20 years, according to the Department of Finance. On November 7th, California voters will make important decisions about the state’s future in a statewide election that involves the selection of a governor and members of other executive branch offices, 100 members of the California Legislature, one U.S. Senator and 53 Congressional representatives. The state ballot will also present the voters with 13 state propositions on a wide range of topics, including funding for the state’s infrastructure and public works projects. The November ballot has five state bond measures placed before the voters by the legislature and through the citizens’ initiative process that total about $43 billion, for transportation, education, water, housing, and parks. Other propositions on the state ballot call for tax, spending, and regulatory measures in other areas. The three pre-election surveys that we are conducting in August, September, and October are designed to provide information on Californians’ attitudes toward the future, their perceptions of the November election and support for state ballot measures, and the role of government trust in shaping public opinion about ballot choices and attitudes toward the future. This survey series seeks to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussion about the state’s future, current governance and fiscal systems, and fiscal and governance reforms. This report presents the responses of 2,001 California adults on a wide range of issues: „ The November 7th election, including preferences in the governor’s election and satisfaction with the candidates, views about the most important issues, awareness of election news, and voters’ attitudes toward state bonds in general and the bond measures placed on the ballot by the state legislature (Propositions 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E), and through the initiative process (Proposition 84). „ Californians and the future, including perceptions of the current and future population of the state and the effects of growth, priorities for future planning and infrastructure, outlook for the future, preferences for transportation, education, and water policies, and the role of state and local government and elected officials and voters in making decisions about growth issues. „ State issues, including attitudes toward the citizens’ initiative process in California, approval ratings for Governor Schwarzenegger and the state legislature, the general direction of the state and outlook for the state’s economy, and trust in state government and its effectiveness. „ The extent to which Californians – based on their political party affiliation, region of residence, race/ethnicity, and other demographics – may differ with regard to perceptions, attitudes, and preferences involving the November election, the state’s future, and current state issues. Copies of this report may be ordered by e-mail (order@ppic.org) or phone (415-291-4400). Copies of this and earlier reports are posted on the publications page of the PPIC web site (www.ppic.org). For questions about the survey, please contact survey@ppic.org. 1 PRESS RELEASE Para ver este comunicado de prensa en español, por favor visite nuestra página de internet: http://www.ppic.org/main/pressreleaseindex.asp SURVEY ON CALIFORNIANS AND THE FUTURE Oh, We of Little Faith! Californians in Funk over Future, Lukewarm to Big Bond Bucks TRUST IN GOVERNMENT REMAINS AT HISTORIC LOW; SCHWARZENEGGER MAINTAINS LEAD IN RACE FOR GOVERNOR SAN FRANCISCO, California, August 30, 2006 — Californians are overwhelmed by the future, but underwhelmed by the plan to deal with it, according to a survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), with funding from The James Irvine Foundation. State residents question the wisdom of throwing dollars at growth, as well as government’s ability to provide leadership, leaving the outcome for California’s historic infrastructure bond package up in the air. Between now and 2025, the state’s population is expected to grow from 37 million to 47 million. Few Californians are aware of the dimensions of the population growth facing the state: Only 17 percent place the state’s current population in the 30 to 39 million range and a mere 9 percent put the population at 40 to 49 million in 20 years. How do they feel about this population increase when they hear about it? Fifty-six percent say it will be a bad thing for them and their families; only 14 percent think it will be a good thing. And nearly half (46%) think the state will be a worse place to live in 2025 than it is today; only 24 percent say it will be a better place. Adding to the gloom about the future is a profound lack of faith in government: Four in 10 residents (38%) have little or no confidence in the state government’s ability to plan for California’s future growth. But how would state residents choose to manage this growth? Here, they are in general agreement, preferring mostly to manage existing systems more efficiently rather than undertake costly new projects: 70 percent of state residents prefer to focus on making more efficient use of freeways and highways and expanding mass transit rather than building new freeways; 56 percent say their region should focus on using existing public education facilities more efficiently instead of building more public schools and universities; and 54 percent want to use the current water supply more efficiently rather than building new water storage systems. Against this backdrop, voters are being asked to vote on a package of growth-related bond measures. Although each of the four infrastructure measures that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state legislature put on the ballot are supported by at least 50 percent of likely voters, that support is far from overwhelming: „ Proposition 1B ($19.9 billion transportation bond): 50 percent yes, 38 percent no „ Proposition 1C ($2.85 billion affordable housing bond): 57 percent yes, 32 percent no „ Proposition 1D ($10.4 billion education facilities bond): 51 percent yes, 39 percent no „ Proposition 1E ($4.1 billion water and flood control bond): 56 percent yes, 35 percent no A fifth measure – Proposition 84 – would provide about $5.4 billion in state bonds for water, flood control, natural resources, parks, and conservation projects. Voters are currently split over this initiative (40% yes, 45% no). While likely voters generally like the idea of using state bonds to pay for infrastructure projects, support is lower today than it was four years ago (59% today from 69% in September 2002). The sheer size of the package may also be a reason for the tepid response: 59 percent of likely voters say the $43 billion price tag for the five bond measures on the ballot is too much. “There is really a disconnect between Californians’ preferences and the choices they are being presented with,” says PPIC survey director Mark Baldassare. “The conversation took place without them, but they’ll have the last word.” 3 Californians and the Future State Leaders Dinged for Poor Planning; Schwarzenegger Remains Frontrunner in Governor’s Race Dissatisfaction with the government response to future challenges is reflected in Californians’ approval ratings for the governor and state legislature: Residents are more likely today than they were two years ago to say they disapprove of the way the state legislature (54% today from 47% in August 2004) and governor (46% today from 30% in 2004) are handling plans and policies for the state’s future. The state legislature fares poorly overall, with majorities of adults (53%) and likely voters (61%) unhappy with its performance. But Governor Schwarzenegger’s star has risen in recent months: Residents are now as likely to approve as they are to disapprove (44% to 46%) of the job he is doing, an 8-point improvement since May. The governor’s approval rating among likely voters is also up by eight points, with 50 percent approving and 42 percent disapproving of his performance in office. Republican Governor Schwarzenegger leads his Democratic challenger, State Treasurer Phil Angelides, by a 13point margin among likely voters (45% to 32%). Voter preferences have changed little since one month ago (43% to 30%). Possible explanations for Schwarzenegger’s lead? While 82 percent of Republicans favor Schwarzenegger, only 58 percent of Democrats choose Angelides. Independents are choosing Schwarzenegger over Angelides by a wide margin (42% to 23%). Schwarzenegger’s lead in Republican-leaning areas is commanding – 30 points in the Central Valley and 23 points in the Southern California counties outside of Los Angeles. Angelides’ performance in key Democratic enclaves is less convincing: He leads by 10 points in the San Francisco Bay Area, while Schwarzenegger actually enjoys a slight lead in Los Angeles (41% to 36%). And finally, Democrats (42%) are much less likely than Republicans (58%) to be satisfied with their gubernatorial choices. Despite their varying levels of enthusiasm for the candidates, Democrats (65%), Republicans (63%), and likely voters generally (64%) are equally likely to say they are very or fairly closely following news about the election in November. However, this level of interest is low by historical standards. In August 2002 – prior to the last scheduled gubernatorial election – 74 percent of likely voters were closely following election news. As a barometer of voter interest, this comparison is worrisome: The 2002 governor’s election had the lowest general election turnout of registered voters in the state’s history. Disillusioned with Government, Californians Want to be the Deciders What’s fueling the lack of interest in the November election? Californians’ deep distrust of state government may have something to do with it. Only 31 percent of state residents – and 23 percent of likely voters – say they trust state government to do what is right just about always or most of the time. Strong majorities of state residents (63%) and likely voters (72%) say they trust government only some of the time. Faith in government has plummeted in recent years: In January 2002, 47 percent of Californians said they trust government to do what is right always or some of the time. In keeping with their negative views of state leadership, many residents believe the state wastes a lot of their tax dollars (58%) and is run by a few big interests (66%). One exception to this perception? Latinos are far more likely than are whites to trust state government just about always or most of the time (45% to 24%) and to believe that state government is run for the benefit of all the people (38% to 22%). Given their lack of faith in government, it’s no wonder that Californians remain attached to the initiative process. Overwhelming majorities of state residents (71%) and likely voters (74%) say it is a good thing that voters can make laws and change public policies by passing initiatives. And six in 10 residents (59%) believe decisions made by voters through the initiative process are probably better than those made by the governor and state legislature. Still, Californians are not blinded by their affection for the initiative process: While most residents (61%) describe themselves as somewhat satisfied with the way the process is working today, only a few (11%) express great satisfaction and a quarter (25%) say they are not satisfied. And they also see the influence of the process as limited: Residents say that the state legislature (41%) has more influence over public policy in the state today than does the governor or the initiative process (24% each). However, the initiative process is gaining ground: One year ago, only 19 percent of Californians named the initiative process as having the most influence over policy in the state, while 34 percent named the governor and 35 percent said the legislature. 4 PPIC Statewide Survey Press Release MORE KEY FINDINGS „ Immigration a key issue in 2006 Governor’s Race — Page 9 Immigration (21%) and education (18%) continue to top the list of issues likely voters want to hear their gubernatorial candidates discuss in the coming months, followed distantly by jobs and the economy (9%), the state budget (8%), and the environment (6%). Democrats (23%) are more likely to cite education as their top issue, while Republicans (32%) name immigration. Latinos (32%) are more likely than whites (20%) to say they want to hear the candidates talk about immigration. „ Economy, jobs the priority for California in 2025 — Pages 17, 18 In planning for the population growth that will take place over the next two decades, Californians think improving the economy and jobs (34%) should be the most important priority, followed by providing roads, schools and water systems (23%), protecting the environment (15%), and creating a more equal society (10%). Affordable housing (32%) is seen as a higher priority for funding than are school facilities (25%), surface transportation (21%), or water systems and flood control (12%). Residents are not of one mind when it comes to which type of surface transportation should receive first priority for dollars as the state girds for new growth: 50 percent opt for transit oriented projects, including light rail (36%), and public bus systems (14%), while 40 percent choose road-oriented solutions, including freeways (25%), local streets and roads (9%), and carpool lanes (6%). „ Mixed reviews for state’s economic prospects, direction — Page 28 Residents are divided about California’s economic conditions: 43 percent expect good times in the next 12 months and 46 percent foresee bad times. Although hardly a cause for celebration, these findings are an improvement over those from one year ago (38% good times, 51% bad times). Californians today are in a more optimistic mood overall, with 42 percent saying the state is headed in the right direction compared to 34 percent last year. Still seems low? Consider the national mood: According to a recent AP poll, only 26 percent of Americans say the U.S. is on the right track. ABOUT THE SURVEY This edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey – a survey on Californians and the future – is the first in a four-survey series made possible with funding from The James Irvine Foundation. This survey is intended to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussions about issues related to California’s future, trust in government, and the November election. Findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed between August 16 and August 23, 2006. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2% and for the 989 likely voters is +/- 3%. For more information on methodology, see page 31. Mark Baldassare is research director at PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public policy through objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues that affect Californians. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. August 2006 5 NOVEMBER ELECTION KEY FINDINGS „ Arnold Schwarzenegger continues to hold a 13-point lead over Phil Angelides in the governor’s race. Republicans are more satisfied than Democrats with the choice of gubernatorial candidates. (page 8) „ Likely voters most want to hear the gubernatorial candidates talk about immigration and education. Republicans are most interested in immigration, and Democrats are most interested in education. About six in 10 likely voters are very or fairly closely following election news. (page 9, 10) „ The four infrastructure bonds placed on the ballot by the legislature each have support from at least 50 percent of likely voters, with disaster/flooding and affordable housing bonds leading by wider margins than the transportation and education bonds. (pages 10, 11, 12) „ Proposition 84, the citizen’s initiative that would provide state bonds for water and parks, is the one bond measure with fewer yes votes than no votes. Fewer than half of Democrats would vote yes, while six in 10 Republicans would vote no. (page 12) „ Six in 10 likely voters say it is a good idea to issue state bonds for infrastructure projects, but a similar number believe that the $43 billion amount on the ballot is too much. Nearly half of Democrats say the total amount is too much. (page 13) 11E-B8-Di4T-rsaaWns11atstDCe--perro,SH,rcfotlphuaoatosrioioolnkdnsssg Governor's Race 17 6 45 32 Likely Voters Schwarzenegger Angelides Other candidates Don't know Percent Likely Voters Percent Voting Yes on Propositions 80 70 60 50 57 51 56 50 40 40 30 20 10 0 7 Californians and the Future GOVERNOR’S RACE Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is ahead of State Treasurer Phil Angelides in the governor’s race (45% to 32%), maintaining the 13-point margin he held last month (43% to 30%). One in six likely voters remains undecided and six percent name another candidate. While 82 percent of Republicans favor Schwarzenegger, 58 percent of Democrats support Angelides. Independents currently lean toward Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger holds a 30-point lead over Angelides in the Central Valley and a 23-point lead in the Other Southern California region. Angelides has a 10-point margin over Schwarzenegger in the San Francisco Bay Area. The governor’s race is close in Los Angeles (41% Schwarzenegger, 36% Angelides). There is a gender gap in this race, with Schwarzenegger receiving much more support among men than women. There are also racial/ethnic differences, with Angelides favored over Schwarzenegger among Latinos (39% to 25%) and whites supporting Schwarzenegger over Angelides (51% to 29%). Support for Schwarzenegger tends to increase with age, education, homeownership, and income. Liberals favor Angelides by a wide margin, and conservatives are strongly supporting Schwarzenegger, while political moderates are more divided (38% Schwarzenegger, 32% Angelides, 30% other/don’t know). “If the election for governor were being held today, who would you vote for …” * Likely voters only Arnold Schwarzenegger Phil Angelides Other Candidates Don’t know All Likely Voters 45% 32% 6% 17% Party Democrat Republican 18 58 82 3 5 19 3 12 Independent 42 23 12 23 Central Valley 55 25 5 15 Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 32 41 42 36 8 18 5 18 Other Southern California 49 26 7 18 Gender Men Women 51 29 40 35 7 13 5 20 Race/Ethnicity Latinos Whites * For complete text of question, see p. 33. 25 51 39 29 8 28 6 14 8 PPIC Statewide Survey November Election GOVERNOR’S RACE (CONTINUED) Forty-seven percent of likely voters say they are satisfied with the choice of candidates in the governor’s election this year, while 42 percent are not satisfied. Republicans are more likely to say they are satisfied, while Democrats and independents are more likely to say they are not satisfied. Latinos are divided on this question; whites are more likely to say they are satisfied than dissatisfied (50% to 41%). In our August 2002 survey, during the campaign between Gray Davis and Bill Simon, 38 percent of likely voters were satisfied and 54 percent were not satisfied with the choice of candidates for governor. Likely voters only Satisfied Not satisfied Don’t know “Would you say you are satisfied or not satisfied with the choices of candidates in the election for governor on November 7th?” All Likely Voters Dem Party Rep Ind 47% 42% 58% 37% 42 48 11 10 31 11 51 12 Latinos 42% 41 17 VOTERS’ PRIORITIES Likely voters continue to place immigration (21%) and education (18%) at the top of the list of issues they would most like the candidates for governor to talk about this year. Fewer than one in 10 name any other single issue, including jobs and the economy, the state budget and taxes, and environment and pollution. Democrats are most interested in hearing about education, while Republicans are most interested in hearing about immigration. Independents are divided on these issues. The priorities voiced in our May survey were similar. One in three conservatives names immigration as the top issue, compared to far fewer moderates (19%) and liberals (10%). This issue is mentioned more often in Los Angeles and the Other Southern California region than elsewhere. Latinos (32%) are more likely than whites (20%) to say they want to hear the candidates talk about immigration. In our August 2002 survey, during the last governor’s election campaign, the top two issues were education (17%) and jobs and the economy (13%). Only three percent named immigration. “Which one issue would you most like to hear the gubernatorial candidates talk about before the November 7th election?” Top five issues mentioned All Likely Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Immigration, illegal immigration Education, schools 21% 13% 18 23 32% 20% 12 22 Jobs, economy 9 12 7 9 State budget, deficit, taxes 8 6 10 10 Environment, pollution 6 6 54 Latinos 32% 21 7 3 1 August 2006 9 Californians and the Future VOTERS’ PRIORITIES (CONTINUED) News about the governor’s race is generating less interest now than at the same point in the 2002 governor’s election. Today, 64 percent of likely voters are very (15%) or fairly (49%) closely following the news about the candidates. In our August 2002 survey, 74 percent of likely voters were very (22%) or fairly (52%) closely following news about the candidates. The November 2002 governor’s election had the lowest turnout of registered voters for a governor’s election in the state’s history. Today, there are little differences across parties in the level of attention to gubernatorial election news. Interest in news about the gubernatorial candidates is higher in Los Angeles (70%) than elsewhere, increases with education and income, and is much higher among whites than Latinos (67% to 50%). “How closely are you following news about candidates for the2006 governor’s election?” Likely voters only All Likely Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Very closely Fairly closely Not too closely Not at all closely Don’t know 15% 13% 49 52 28 27 77 11 20% 9% 43 52 28 30 87 12 INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS The four infrastructure bonds placed on the November ballot for funding of transportation, affordable housing, education facilities, and water and flood control are currently receiving support from at least 50 percent of likely voters when they were read each of the ballot titles and labels in their entirety. The bond measures with lower amounts of funding are supported more strongly by the voters. For example, the transportation and education bonds, which have higher funding levels, receive less support than the water and flood controls and affordable housing bonds. We found a partisan divide in terms of support for all four of these bond measures, more so for housing and education than transportation and water and flood controls. Proposition 1B, the transportation bond (about $19.9 billion), is supported by 50 percent of voters and opposed by 38 percent. Sixty percent of Democrats compared to 48 percent of independents would vote yes on 1B. Republicans oppose the bond measure by an 8-point margin (48% no, 40% yes). Proposition 1C, the affordable housing bond ($2.85 billion), is favored by 57 percent of likely voters, while 32 percent would vote no. Seventy-one percent of Democrats and 58 percent of independents would vote yes on 1C. Fifty percent of Republicans oppose this measure; 40 percent would vote yes. Proposition 1D, the education facilities bond (about $10.4 billion), is supported by 51 percent of likely voters and opposed by 39 percent. Two in three Democrats and 50 percent of independents would vote yes on 1D. Republicans are opposed by a nearly two-to-one margin (61% no, 32% yes). 10 PPIC Statewide Survey November Election INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS (CONTINUED) Proposition 1E, the water and flood control bond (about $4.1 billion), receives a 56 percent vote of yes and a 35 percent vote of no. Sixty-six percent of Democrats and 56 percent of independents favor the bond measure. Republicans are divided (46% yes, 47% no). “If the election were held today, how would you vote on …” * Likely voters only All Likely Voters Dem Party Rep Proposition 1B Transportation Yes No Don’t know 50% 60% 40% 38 29 48 12 11 12 Proposition 1C Affordable housing Yes No Don’t know 57 71 40 32 19 50 11 10 10 Proposition 1D Education facilities Yes No Don’t know 51 67 32 39 23 61 10 10 7 Proposition 1E Water facilities Yes No Don’t know 56 35 9 * For complete text of proposition questions, see pp. 34-36. 66 46 25 47 97 Ind 48% 39 13 58 30 12 50 35 15 56 34 10 When we asked about these four infrastructure bonds in our May survey, we mentioned only the type of infrastructure concerned and the amount of spending (since the ballot titles and labels had not yet been made public). We found higher levels of support among likely voters in May than today for the transportation (65%), education (68%), and flood protection (62%) bonds and less support for the affordable housing bond (49%). Voter support for these bond measures varies across state regions, reflecting in some degree the partisan differences between these areas but perhaps also variations in the perceived severity of regional problems. Proposition 1B (transportation) has the most support in Los Angeles and the least in the Other Southern California region, while Proposition 1C (affordable housing) has the most support and the least opposition in the San Francisco Bay Area. Voters are more divided on Proposition 1D (education facilities) in the Central Valley and the Other Southern California region than in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. Proposition 1E (water and flood controls) has more support in the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay Area than Los Angeles and the Other Southern California region. August 2006 11 Californians and the Future INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS (CONTINUED) “If the election were held today, how would you vote on …” * Likely voters only Proposition 1B Transportation Yes No Don’t know All Likely Voters 50% 38 12 Central Valley 49% 37 14 Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 53% 56% 35 35 12 9 Proposition 1C Affordable housing Yes No 57 56 60 59 32 38 26 29 Don’t know 11 6 14 12 Yes Proposition 1D Education facilities No 51 50 56 54 39 42 30 36 Don’t know 10 8 14 10 Proposition 1E Water facilities Yes No 56 35 Don’t know 9 * For complete text of proposition questions, see pp. 34-36. 59 34 7 59 54 29 37 12 9 Other Southern California 44% 44 12 56 36 8 47 43 10 52 39 9 PROPOSITION 84: WATER AND PARKS BOND INITIATIVE Californians will also vote on a citizens’ initiative that was placed on the ballot by its supporters. This initiative seeks to provide about $5.4 billion in state bonds for water, flood control, natural resources, parks, and conservation projects. When read the ballot title and label for Proposition 84, voters are split in their opinions (40% yes, 45% no) and deeply divided along party lines. Support falls short of a majority across regions, as well as income and education groups, and declines with age (53% support among those under age 35, 39% among ages 35 to 54, and 36% among those age 55 and older). The proposition has more support among Latinos (52%) than whites (38%). “If the election were held today, how would you vote on Proposition 84?” * Likely voters only All Likely Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Yes 40% 49% No 45 36 Don’t know 15 15 * For complete text of proposition question, see pp. 36. 28% 59 13 44% 40 16 12 PPIC Statewide Survey November Election ATTITUDES TOWARD STATE BONDS The idea of using state bonds to pay for infrastructure projects was debated in the legislature earlier this year. Bond opponents claimed that it was passing on debt to future generations. Bond supporters pointed to the need for large amounts of cash to make long-term investments. Californians support the concept of using state bonds for such purposes by a nearly two-to-one margin. About six in 10 likely voters in every region of the state think it is a good idea for the state to issue bonds to pay for infrastructure projects, while about three in 10 think it is a bad idea. Republicans are divided on this issue (46% good idea, 43% bad idea), while Democrats (69%) and independents (58%) think it’s a good idea. There is little difference across age, education, income, or homeownership groups. Still, it is important to note that support among likely voters for using state bonds for this purpose is lower today than it was in September 2002 (69% good idea, 22% bad idea), also in the context of several state propositions involving billions of dollars in state bonds on the November ballot. “In general, do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea for the state government to issue bonds to pay for infrastructure improvements such as schools, roads, and water projects?” Likely voters only Good idea All Likely Voters 59% Central Valley 60% Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 61% 60% Other Southern California 57% Bad idea 31 33 27 29 31 Don’t know 10 7 12 11 12 Does the total amount of debt (about $43 billion) in the five state bond measures on the November 2006 ballot give voters some pause for thought in supporting this method of funding? Six in 10 likely voters (76% of Republicans, 56 %of independents, 48% of Democrats) consider the amount presented on the ballot too much. Majorities of voters across regions, age, education, homeownership, income, and racial/ethnic groups say the amount on the ballot is too much. Among those who say it is a good idea for the state to issue bonds, 46 percent say that the $43 billion total on the November ballot is too much. Many who say they would vote yes on the individual bond measures think the total amount is too much (46% for 1B, 51% for 1C, 44% for 1D, 51% for 1E, 43% for 84). Among those who currently plan to vote no on these measures, about eight in 10 say the total amount on the ballot is too much. “On the November ballot, there are five bond measures totaling about $43 billion. Do you think this bond amount is …” Likely voters only All Likely Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Too much Too little Right amount Don’t know 59% 48% 45 21 28 16 19 76% 2 9 13 56% 6 25 13 August 2006 13 CALIFORNIANS AND THE FUTURE KEY FINDINGS Infrastructure Priorities „ Only one in six Californians know the state’s population is between 30 to 39 million, and few know that growth is predicted to lead to 40 to 49 million people by 2025. Most are pessimistic about growth and the future. (page 16) Percent All Adults 60 50 40 32 30 25 21 20 12 10 7 3 „ Residents rank infrastructure behind jobs 0 else know Don’t Somethincgontrol systSeurfmsaAfcfaeSonrtcdrdhfaalobnoollsoepfdoahrcotiluaitstiiioenngs and the economy in planning for the future. Californians say their infrastructure priority in planning for the future is affordable housing— followed by schools, transportation, and water systems. Light W ater rail systems are seen as a higher transportation priority than freeways and highways. (pages 17, 18) „ Few residents express a great deal of confidence in the state government’s Confidence in Planning for the State's Future 91 12 ability to plan for the future or for growth, and four in 10 have little or no confidence in state government’s ability to plan for the future. (page 19) 29 „ Most Californians choose the more efficient use of existing education facilities, roads, and water facilities over building new infrastructure. (pages 19, 20, 21) „ Most residents agree that local governments should work together on regional planning; however, Republicans and Democrats disagree on the role of state government. (pages 21, 22) All Adults 49 A great deal Only some Very little None at all Don't know „ About seven in 10 residents, across regions of the state, want local voters to make important decisions on growth issues at the ballot box, rather than rely on their local elected officials. (page 22) 15 Californians and the Future POPULATION TODAY AND IN 2025 Few Californians know what the state’s population is today or by how much it may grow by 2025. Currently, about 37 million people live in the state, but fewer than 2 percent of residents named this number, while 17 percent placed the population somewhere between 30 to 39 million residents. Thirty percent of residents think the current population is less than 30 million, 23 percent think it is 40 million or more, and 30 percent are unwilling to make a guess. Knowledge of the state’s current population increases somewhat with age, education, homeownership, and income. The state’s population is estimated to increase by about 10 million residents by 2025, from 37 million to about 47 million, according to the state’s Department of Finance. When asked about the size of the state’s population in 2025, only 9 percent of residents say it will be between 40 and 49 million, 34 percent think it will be 50 million or more, 25 percent think it will be fewer than 40 million, and one in three is unsure. Californians are more likely today (17%) than they were two years ago (11%) to say the state’s population is currently 50 million or more and will be 50 million or more in 2025 (27% in 2004, 34% today). “What do you think the state of California’s population is today—in millions?” and “Could you please tell me what the state of California’s population will be about 20 years from now—in millions?” All adults California Population Today California Population 2025 Under 10 million 10-19 million 20-29 million 30-39 million 40-49 million 50 million or more Don’t know 10% 9 11 17 7 16 30 5% 7 7 6 9 34 32 With California already the most populous state in the nation, how do residents feel about adding another 10 million people? When told the state’s population will increase by about 10 million residents between now and 2025, relatively few residents have a positive response. Fifty-six percent of residents say this population growth is a bad thing, 14 percent say it is a good thing, and 25 percent say it will make no difference to themselves and their families. Across political groups, majorities think this level of population growth is a bad thing (64% Republicans, 60% Democrats, 55% independents). Whites (62%) are more negative about this expected growth than are Latinos (45%), and negative opinions on population growth increase with age, education, and income. Sixty percent of U.S.-born residents say this growth is a bad thing, compared to 45 percent of foreign-born residents. Californians are about as likely today as they were in 2004 to say that an increase in population of 10 million would be a bad thing (59% 2004, 56% today). 16 PPIC Statewide Survey Californians and the Future FUTURE PRIORITIES In anticipation of adding 10 million residents to California by 2025, we asked residents what they think the state’s most important priority should be in planning for this expected population growth. Thirty-four percent of residents and 30 percent of likely voters say improving jobs and the economy should be the top priority. Among other priorities we asked about, 23 percent of residents think infrastructure such as roads, schools, and water systems should be the top priority, 15 percent think protecting the environment should be of highest concern, 10 percent want to see the state work to create a more equal society, and 15 percent mention other priorities for the state, including closing the borders and stopping illegal immigration (4%). Two years ago, a similar one in three residents (34%) named jobs and the economy as the state’s most important priority. Today, improving jobs and the economy is the highest priority in all party groups and across three regions (40% Los Angeles, 33% Other Southern California, and 31% Central Valley), and is ahead of infrastructure. Among San Francisco Bay Area residents, similar proportions place their highest priority on improving jobs and the economy (27%) and providing infrastructure (25%), while one in five mentions the environment. “In planning for the expected population growth between now and 2025, what do you think should be the state’s most important priority?” All Adults Improving jobs and the economy Providing roads, schools, and water systems Protecting the environment Creating a more equal society Closing border, stopping illegal immigration (volunteered) Other 34% 23 15 10 4 11 Central Valley 31% 23 15 11 Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 27% 40% 25 21 20 13 11 11 Likely Voters Other Southern California 33% 30% 23 26 15 15 98 344 5 6 13 12 9 12 12 Don’t know 3 412 3 3 August 2006 17 Californians and the Future FUTURE PRIORITIES (CONTINUED) When asked which of four infrastructure projects should have top funding priority in planning for 2025, all adults place affordable housing (32%) before school facilities (25%), surface transportation (21%), and water systems and flood control (12%). Likely voters rank housing, schools, and transportation about equally and place a lower priority on water systems. In response to a list of potential surface transportation projects, more residents choose light rail systems (36%) than freeways and highways (25%), public bus systems (14%), local streets and roads (9%), or carpool lanes (6%). Likely voters have similar priorities for transportation funding. Light rail systems are mentioned most often in all regions. Other Southern California residents (29%) are the most likely to name freeways and highways. Two years ago, light rail (32%) and freeways and highways (31%) were named almost equally. “What type of surface transportation project do you think should have the top priority for public funding as California gets ready for the growth that is expected by 2025?” Light rail system All Adults 36% Central Valley 36% Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 41% 33% Likely Voters Other Southern California 33% 43% Freeways and highways Public bus system Local streets and roads Carpool lanes Other Don’t know 25 14 9 6 5 5 24 23 26 29 26 12 13 17 14 9 10 7 8 9 8 448 7 4 783 5 6 745 3 4 OUTLOOK FOR 2025 Overall, residents are not overly optimistic about California in 2025. Nearly half of all residents (46%) think the state will be a worse place to live than it is now, 24 percent think it will be a better place, and 24 percent think there will be no change. Likely voters are slightly more pessimistic about the future. Opinions were similar two years ago (25% better place, 49% worse place, 20% no change). “Overall, do you think that in 2025 California will be a better place to live than it is now or a worse place to live than it is now or will there be no change?” Better place All Adults 24% High School 29% Education Some College 23% College Graduate 21% Likely Voters 21% Worse place 46 41 46 49 51 No change 24 24 26 23 23 Don’t know 6 6 57 5 Residents of Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area are the most optimistic about the state in 2025 (27% each, better place) while residents of the Central Valley are the most pessimistic (21% better place). Fewer whites (20%) than Latinos (34%) say California will be a better place to live in the future. Optimism about the future decreases with education, age, and income, and pessimism is higher 18 PPIC Statewide Survey Californians and the Future OUTLOOK FOR 2025 (CONTINUED) among homeowners than renters (49% to 41%). Residents with children under 18 (50%) are more likely than residents without children under 18 (43%) to say that California in 2025 will be a worse place to live than it is now. Only 12 percent of residents have a great deal of confidence in the state government’s ability to plan for California’s future and growth, while 49 percent have only some, and four in 10 have little or no confidence. Residents expressed similar confidence levels two years ago (12% great deal, 46% only some, 31% very little, 9% none at all). Latinos (20%) are more likely than whites (8%) to say they have a great deal of confidence in the state government’s ability to plan for the future. Twenty percent of foreign-born residents say they have a great deal of confidence in the state government in this regard, compared to only eight percent of U.S.-born residents. Having a great deal of confidence in state government declines with age, education, and income. A great deal Only some Very little None at all Don’t know “How much confidence do you have in the state government’s ability to plan for the state’s future and growth?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind 12% 8% 11% 9% 7% 49 54 48 51 53 29 28 28 31 29 9 8 12 8 11 1 2 11 0 Confidence levels are low across the regions and differences in confidence levels across political parties are small. Confidence in the state government’s future planning abilities is strongly related to the perception of what kind of place the state will be in 2025. Nearly six in 10 of the residents who have very little or no confidence in the state government’s ability to plan say California will be a worse place to live in 2025. TRADEOFFS FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES Over the next 20 years, California is expected to increase its population by about 10 million people. This level of population growth will require the state to make choices about such infrastructure as schools, transportation, and water. These choices include how to spend money on new construction and how to manage existing systems to accommodate population growth. In the context of current discussions about state infrastructure bonds, we repeated a series of three “trade-off” questions from a PPIC survey in 2004 to understand how Californians are thinking about these planning issues today. When asked to consider focusing either on building more public schools and universities or on more efficient use of existing facilities in planning for 2025, majorities of Californians (56%) and likely voters (62%) say that the focus should be on more efficient use of existing facilities. Preferences today are similar to when we first asked this question in 2004 (42% build more, 55% efficiency). Residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (63%) and the Central Valley (60%) are more likely than those in the Other Southern California region (54%) and Los Angeles (50%) to want to focus on greater efficiency rather than on more building. Among political groups, Democrats (42%) are somewhat more August 2006 19 Californians and the Future TRADEOFFS FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES (CONTINUED) likely than independents (37%) or Republicans (30%) to want to focus on building more public schools and universities. Whites (62%) are much more likely than Latinos (43%) to believe that the focus should be on efficiency rather than on building. The choice of more efficiency over more building increases with age, education, and income. Residents with children under 18 prefer building more public schools and universities. “Which one of the following is closest to your views about planning for 2025 in your part of California…”* All Adults Focus on building more public schools and universities Focus on more efficient use of existing facilities Don’t know 39% 56 5 Central Valley 36% 60 4 Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 34% 45% 63 50 35 Likely Voters Other Southern California 41% 34% 54 62 54 *For full question text see p.38. TRADEOFFS FOR TRANSPORTATION Seven in 10 California adults and likely voters want the focus of planning for 2025 in their region to be on expanding mass transit and on making more efficient use of existing freeways and highways rather than on building more freeways and highways. These opinions about future transportation planning were similar in PPIC’s 2004 survey (30% build more, 67% efficiency). “Which one of the following is closest to your views about planning for 2025 in your part of California…”* All Adults Focus on building more freeways and highways Focus on expanding mass transit and more efficient use Don’t know 27% 70 3 Central Valley 30% 66 4 Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 18% 30% 79 66 34 Likely Voters Other Southern California 29% 25% 68 71 34 *For full question text see p.38. Residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (18%) are the least likely to state that California should build more freeways and highways, while about three in 10 residents in other major regions prefer this option. Democrats and independents (74% each) are more likely than Republicans (63%) to state that California should focus on mass transit and more efficient use of existing freeways and highways. Whites are more likely than Latinos (72% to 64%), and women are more likely than men (72% to 67%), to say that the focus should be on efficiency. The belief that California should build more freeways and highways decreases with age and education; however, there are no differences across income levels. TRADEOFFS FOR WATER SYSTEMS Californians are somewhat more divided in their opinions about the need for increased building when it comes to future planning for water systems. More than half of Californians and likely voters (54% each) state that the focus should be on more efficiently using the current water supply, while four in 10 adults 20 PPIC Statewide Survey Californians and the Future and likely voters (41% each) believe it should be on building new water storage systems. Results today are similar to when we first asked this question in 2004 (55% more efficiency, 41% more building). Across the state’s regions, residents of the Central Valley (49%) are more likely than those in other regions to want to focus on building new water storage systems. Residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (58%) are the most likely to want to focus on more efficient use of the current water supply. Republicans (48%) and independents (45%) are more likely than Democrats (37%) to want to focus on building new water storage systems instead of increasing efficiency. Women (57%) are more likely than men (51%) to favor focusing on more efficient use of the current water supply. Focus on efficiency decreases with age and increases with education; there are no differences across income groups. “Which one of the following is closest to your views about planning for 2025 in your part of California…”* All Adults Focus on building new water storage systems Focus on more efficiently using the current water supply Don’t know 41% 54 5 Central Valley 49% Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 37% 40% Likely Voters Other Southern California 41% 41% 47 58 54 55 54 456 4 5 *For full question text see p.38. GROWTH AND POLICY MAKING When asked how local governments should go about planning for growth, Californians believe that local governments should work together and have a common regional plan (77%) rather than working independently on their own plans (20%). Identical preferences for how local governments should plan for growth were expressed in PPIC’s 2004 survey (77% work together, 20% work independently). Vast majorities across political parties (Democrats 82%, independents 79%, Republicans 71%) want local governments to have a regional plan. This preference is similarly high across regions and age, education, income, and racial/ethnic groups. “Which statement comes closer to your views...”* All Adults Local governments should work together and have a common regional plan Local governments should work independently and each have its own local plan Don’t know 77% 20 3 Dem 82% 16 2 Party Rep 71% 26 3 Ind 79% 18 3 Likely Voters 79% 19 2 August 2006 21 Californians and the Future GROWTH AND POLICY MAKING (CONTINUED) We also asked about the role of the state government in planning for local growth. About half of Californians (51%) believe the state should provide guidelines for local housing and land use planning, while about four in 10 (43%) believe the state government should not be involved. The percentage believing the state should not be involved in local planning has increased since PPIC’s 2004 survey (37% 2004, 43%, today), while the percentage believing the state should provide guidelines has decreased (57% 2004, 51% today). Democrats (59%) are much more likely than Republicans (39%) and independents (46%) to think that the state government should provide guidelines for local housing and land use planning. Residents of the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles (56% each) are more likely than those in the Other Southern California region (48%) and the Central Valley (45%) to think that the state government should provide local guidelines. Whites (49%) are less likely than Latinos (53%) to believe that the government should be involved in local housing and land use planning. The belief that the state government should be involved declines with age, but it is similar across education groups. “Which statement comes closer to your views...”* All Adults The state government should provide guidelines for local housing and land use planning The state government should not be involved in local housing and land use planning Don’t know 51% 43 6 Dem 59% 37 4 Party Rep 39% 58 3 *For full question text see pg. 39. Ind 46% 50 4 Likely Voters 46% 50 4 When asked who should make the important decisions at the local level, seven in 10 Californians and likely voters believe that local voters should do so at the ballot box, while about one in four adults and likely voters believe that local elected officials should provide leadership by making the most important decisions. Opinions today are similar to 2004 when an overwhelming proportion of residents favored local voters making important decisions at the ballot box (73% local voters, 23% local officials). Although preferences are similar across regions, residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (64%) are the least likely to state that important decisions should be made by local voters. Democrats (28%) are slightly more likely than Republicans (25%) or independents (24%) to think that local officials should make the important decisions. A strong preference for voters to make the decisions occurs across all political and demographic groups in the survey. “Which statement comes closer to your views...”* All Adults Local elected officials should provide leadership and make the most important decisions Local voters should make the important decisions at the ballot box Don’t know 26% 69 5 Central Valley 27% Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 32% 25% 70 64 34 70 5 *For full question text see pg. 39. Other Southern California 25% 71 4 Likely Voters 26% 71 3 22 PPIC Statewide Survey STATE ISSUES KEY FINDINGS „ The legislature is seen as having more influence in policymaking than either the governor or the initiative process. Most Californians think the initiative process is a good thing, but few are very satisfied with the way it is working. (pages 24, 25) „ The governor’s approval rating continues to improve, reaching 50 percent for likely voters, though it is well below the high level of two years ago. There are large partisan differences in approval. (page 26) „ Majorities of likely voters disapprove of the legislature and of its handling of plans and policies for the future. Californians across the state’s regions give the legislature low approval. (page 27) „ Californians’ overall feelings about the direction of the state and the economy remain mixed, but show improvement compared to one year ago. (page 28) „ The public’s trust in state government to do what is right, not to waste money, and to be run for the benefit of all the people remains near historic lows. (page 29) Percent Likely Voters Percent Likely Voters Governor Schwarzenegger's Approval Ratings 80 Approve 70 Disapprove 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Jan Aug Jan Aug Jan Aug 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 California Legislature's Approval Ratings 80 Approve Disapprove 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Jan Aug Jan Aug Jan Aug 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 23 Californians and the Future CITIZENS’ INITIATIVES Despite the prevalence of citizens’ initiatives on statewide election ballots, Californians do not believe initiatives have the most influence over public policy; they are more likely to say that the state legislature (41%) has the most influence, and are as likely to name the governor (24%) as ballot initiatives (24%). Across political parties and among likely voters, most residents believe the legislature carries the most weight in policymaking. Republicans are more likely than Democrats or independents to name the legislature and less likely to name the governor as most influential in the policy arena. In the past, residents have been more divided about whether the governor or legislature has the most influence, while initiatives were seen as less influential. In August 2005, 34 percent named the governor, 35 percent named the legislature, and 19 percent named initiatives. In 2004, more residents named the governor than the legislature (39% to 31%), and 18 percent mentioned initiatives as the most influential. “In California state government today, which of the following do you think has the most influence over public policy?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind The governor The legislature Initiatives on the state ballot Other (specify) Don’t know 24% 27% 16% 27% 41 39 53 45 24 24 25 20 2 322 9 746 Likely Voters 20% 47 25 2 6 While they may believe that initiatives have less influence over public policy than the legislature, overwhelming majorities of adults (71%) and likely voters (74%) maintain that it is a good thing that voters can make laws and change public policy by passing initiatives, while fewer than one in four in either group say it is a bad thing. Since we first asked this question in October 2000, more than two in three adults have said that it is a good thing that voters can use the initiative process (69% October 2000, 74% August 2004, 68% August 2005). Across political parties today, Republicans (77%) are more likely than independents (73%) or Democrats (69%) to say that it is a good thing voters can make laws and change public policies. More than two in three residents across regions and racial/ethnic, gender, age, education, and income groups also say that this is a good thing. “In general, do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that a majority of voters can make laws and change public policies by passing initiatives?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind Good thing Bad thing 71% 69% 77% 73% 74% 22 24 18 21 21 Other (specify) Don’t know 1 201 1 6 555 4 24 PPIC Statewide Survey State Issues CITIZENS’ INITIATIVES (CONTINUED) Californians not only think it is a good thing that voters can make policy, but they also express a great deal of faith in the decisions that voters make at the ballot box. Six in 10 adults (59%) and likely voters (60%) believe public policy decisions made by voters through initiatives are probably better than policy decisions made by the governor and state legislature, while one in four in each group believes voters’ decisions are probably worse. This belief has remained constant over time, with nearly six in 10 adults saying voters’ decisions are probably better than elected officials’ decisions the previous three times this question was asked (56% October 2000, 59% August 2004, 57% August 2005). Democrats (57%) are somewhat less likely than independents (63%) or Republicans (64%) to say that the voters’ decisions are probably better. The belief that voters make better policy decisions declines among those with college degrees (61% high school, 67% some college, 53% college graduate). “Overall, do you think public policy decisions made through the initiative process by California voters are probably better or probably worse than public policy decisions made by the governor and state legislature?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind Probably better Probably worse Same (volunteered) 59% 57% 64% 63% 60% 24 27 23 20 24 5 637 6 Don’t know 12 10 10 10 10 Seven in 10 Californians are satisfied with the way the initiative process is working in California today, but few are highly satisfied. Most Californians (61%) are somewhat satisfied, 11 percent are very satisfied, and one in four (25%) are not satisfied. Satisfaction has been similar in the past, with 68 percent saying they were very or somewhat satisfied with the initiative process in October 2000 (10% very, 58% somewhat), August 2004 (11% very, 57% somewhat), and August 2005 (10% very, 58% somewhat). Although relatively few respondents in any political or demographic group say they are very satisfied with the initiative process, strong majorities say they are somewhat satisfied. Across parties, Democrats (30%) are more likely than independents (25%) and Republicans (21%) to say they are not satisfied. Across regions, residents of the San Francisco Bay Area are less likely to say they are satisfied than residents in other regions. Of those who believe it is a good thing that voters can make policy, 79 percent are very (12%) or somewhat satisfied (67%) with the process; of those who think it is a bad thing, about half (47%) are not satisfied with the process. “Generally speaking, would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or not satisfied with the way the initiative process is working in California today?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied 11% 9% 12% 10% 10% 61 58 65 63 61 Not satisfied Don’t know 25 30 21 25 27 3 322 2 August 2006 25 Californians and the Future GOVERNOR’S APPROVAL RATINGS Approval ratings for Governor Schwarzenegger have increased from a low point of 32 percent after last fall’s special election. Adults today are about as likely to approve (44%) as they are to disapprove (46%) of his overall performance. While approval has increased eight points since May (36%), it is well below what it was two years ago (65% August 2004). Today, more likely voters approve (50%) than disapprove (42%) of the governor’s overall performance in office. Among likely voters, approval is similar to July (49%), and eight points higher than in May (42%), but it is 19 points lower than in August 2004 (69%). Significant differences in approval ratings of the governor still exist across political parties, with three in four Republicans (76%) saying they approve and six in 10 Democrats (61%) saying they disapprove. Independents are more likely to approve (47%) than disapprove (40%). Across regions, residents in Los Angeles (36%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (42%) are less likely to approve of the way Governor Schwarzenegger is handling his job compared to residents in the Other Southern California region (47%) and the Central Valley (50%). Approval of the governor’s job performance is higher among whites than Latinos (54% to 28%) and men than women (48% to 41%) and increases with age, homeownership, and income. Of likely voters who plan to vote for Schwarzenegger in November’s gubernatorial election, 87 percent approve of his job as governor. Of likely voters who plan to vote for Phil Angelides, 79 percent disapprove of the governor’s job performance. Approve Disapprove Don’t know “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind 44% 30% 46 61 10 9 76% 47% 50% 18 40 42 6 13 8 As the governor focuses attention on infrastructure in 2006, residents offer mixed evaluations of his handling of plans and policies for the future (40% approve, 46% disapprove). Likely voters are somewhat more positive (46% approve, 41% disapprove). Just as overall approval ratings have declined significantly from two years ago, so have approval ratings for his handling of plans and policies for the future (55% approve 30% disapprove, August 2004). Today, seven in 10 Republicans (69%) approve while six in 10 Democrats (60%) disapprove, and independents are divided (44% approve, 40% disapprove). Approval for the governor’s planning efforts increases with age, education, and income, and is higher among men than women (44% to 36%) and whites than Latinos (50% to 25%). “Overall, from what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling plans and policies for California’s future?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind Approve Disapprove Don’t know 40% 26% 46 60 14 14 69% 44% 46% 19 40 41 12 16 13 26 PPIC Statewide Survey State Issues LEGISLATURE’S APPROVAL RATINGS With the legislative session near its end, we asked residents how they rate the state legislature overall. Majorities of adults (53%) and likely voters (61%) disapprove of the way the legislature is handling its job. Although approval ratings continue to be low, (31% all adults, 27% likely voters), they have improved slightly since May (26% all adults, 23% likely voters). Approval sank to an all-time low last fall (25% October 2005) and has remained there most of the past year. A year ago, a similar share of residents said they approved (27%) of the way the legislature was handling its job. The last time the scales tipped to the legislature’s side was October 2004 (43% approve, 41% disapprove). While Democrats and independents (33% each) are more likely than Republicans (23%) to approve of the job the legislature is doing, at least half across all parties disapprove. Gains in approval since May among Democrats (26% to 33%) and independents (24% to 33%) account for the legislature’s slightly better marks this month. Republican sentiment is unchanged since May. Across regions, disapproval is higher in the Central Valley (58%) than in Los Angeles (53%), the San Francisco Bay Area (52%), and the Other Southern California region (52%). Among racial/ethnic groups, whites are more negative than Latinos (56% to 46%), and disapproval increases with age, education and income. Men are more likely than women to disapprove (57% to 50%). “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling its job?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind Approve Disapprove Don’t know 31% 33% 23% 33% 27% 53 50 66 54 61 16 17 11 13 12 With its bond package placed on the November ballot, we asked residents to rate the legislature for its handling of plans and policies for the future. Fewer than three in 10 adults (28%) and likely voters (23%) approve of its performance in this area, while majorities of both groups disapprove. Approval was seven points higher two years ago (35% approve, 47% disapprove). Majorities across parties disapprove today although Republicans are the most likely to disapprove. Regional differences in approval are small (26% Central Valley, 26% Other Southern California region, 28% Los Angeles, 30% San Francisco Bay Area) as are gender differences (29% men, 27% women). Approval is lower among whites (24%) than Latinos (37%) and it decreases with age, education, and income. “Overall, from what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling plans and policies for California’s future?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind Approve Disapprove Don’t know 28% 29% 21% 27% 23% 54 52 67 56 62 18 19 12 17 15 August 2006 27 Californians and the Future OVERALL MOOD Californians’ overall mood about the direction of the state remains mixed, with 42 percent of all adults saying the state is headed in the right direction and 47 percent saying it’s going in the wrong direction. Likely voter findings are similar to those of all adults. The mood today is more optimistic compared to a year ago (34% right, 57% wrong), and is somewhat similar to August 2004 (44% right, 42% wrong). Across regions, residents express similarly mixed views on the direction of the state, with an equal number or more in each region saying the state is headed in the wrong direction than the right direction. Republicans (45%) and independents (43%) are somewhat more likely to say things are headed in the right direction than Democrats (39%). Men (45%) are more likely than women (39%) to say things are going in the right direction. There is little difference between Latinos (41%) and whites (44%) in their views on the direction of the state. Of residents who say they approve of Governor Schwarzenegger’s job performance, 56 percent say the state is headed in the right direction, while of those who say they disapprove, 62 percent say it is headed in the wrong direction. “Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction?” Right direction All Adults 42% Central Valley 42% Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 45% 40% Other Southern California 41% Likely Voters 42% Wrong direction 47 48 45 49 47 49 Don’t know 11 10 10 11 12 9 Californians also continue to express mixed views on the state’s economic conditions. Forty-three percent of residents think we will have good times financially in the next 12 months while 46 percent think we will have bad times. Likely voters are also divided (45% good times, 43% bad). Our findings today are an improvement from a year ago (38% good times, 51% bad), and almost as positive as in August 2004 (45% good times, 40% bad). Republicans (54%) are much more likely than independents (41%) and Democrats (36%) today to expect good times. Of those who approve of the governor, 57 percent expect good economic times, while 58 percent of those who disapprove expect bad times. Residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (49%) are more likely than others to say they expect good financial times in the next year while Los Angeles residents are the least likely (38%). Among racial/ethnic groups, whites and Latinos are similarly divided about the prospects for good economic times. Optimism about the state’s economic outlook increases with income. Good times Bad times Don’t know “Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind 43% 36% 46 51 11 13 54% 37 9 41% 50 9 Likely Voters 45% 43 12 28 PPIC Statewide Survey State Issues TRUST IN STATE GOVERNMENT Consistent with their disapproval of the legislature, only about three in 10 Californians (31%) and one in four likely voters (23%) trust the government in Sacramento to do what is right just about always or most of the time. The share of Californians who say they trust the state government always or most of the time is similar to last August (30%) and has stayed between 27 and 37 percent since August 2002. By comparison, almost half expressed this level of trust in January 2001 (46%) and January 2002 (47%). Trust in state government is slightly lower among Republicans (23%) than Democrats (27%) and independents (28%). Across regions, trust is similarly low (29% San Francisco Bay Area, 31% Los Angeles, 32% Central Valley, 32% Other Southern California region). Latinos (45%) are far more likely than whites (24%) to trust the state government just about always or most of the time, while distrust increases with age, education, and income. “How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Sacramento to do what is right?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind Just about always 7% 4% 5% 4% Most of the time 24 23 18 24 Only some of the time 63 66 72 66 None of the time (volunteered) 4 554 Don’t know 2 202 Likely Voters 3% 20 72 5 0 Many Californians also have negative views of the fiscal efficiency of state government, with nearly six in 10 saying that those in state government waste a lot of taxpayer money. Perceptions of government waste were similar last August (61%), and have remained above 50 percent since February 2003; it was less than a majority earlier. Republicans (67%) are more likely than Democrats (53%) or independents (59%) to believe state government wastes a lot of taxpayer money. The belief in a lot of government waste increases with age and decreases with education. “Do you think the people in state government waste a lot of the money we pay in taxes, waste some of it, or don’t waste very much of it?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind A lot Some Don’t waste very much Don’t know 58% 53% 67% 59% 35 40 31 32 4 417 3 312 Likely Voters 61% 34 4 1 When asked if the state government is pretty much run by a few big interests or is run for the benefit of all of the people, about two in three adults say that it is run by a few big interests (66%). This perception of state government is similar to last August (65%) and is unchanged since January 2004, while fewer held this belief in January 2001 (60%) and January 2002 (54%). Today, the belief that state government is run by a few big interests is similar across partisan groups. Latinos (55%) are much less likely than whites (71%) to hold this view. Men (69%) are more likely than women (63%) to think the state is run by a few big interests, and this perception increases with age, education and income. August 2006 29 REGIONAL MAP 30 METHODOLOGY The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, research director and survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance in research and writing from Jennifer Paluch, project manager for this survey, and survey research associates Dean Bonner and Sonja Petek. The survey and focus groups were conducted with funding from The James Irvine Foundation and benefited from discussions with foundation staff and grantees; however, survey methods, questions, and content of this report were solely determined by Mark Baldassare. The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed August 16-23, 2006. Interviewing took place on weekday nights and weekend days, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in California were eligible. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called up to six times to increase the likelihood of reaching eligible households. Once a household was reached, an adult respondent (age 18 or older) was randomly chosen for interviewing using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender. Each interview took an average of 20 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English or Spanish. Accent on Languages translated the survey into Spanish with assistance from Renatta DeFever. Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. conducted the telephone interviewing. We used recent U.S. Census and state figures to compare the demographic characteristics of the survey sample with characteristics of California’s adult population. The survey sample was closely comparable to the census and state figures. The survey data in this report were statistically weighted to account for any demographic differences. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,001 adults is +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger: For the 1,530 registered voters, it is +/- 2.5 percent; for the 989 likely voters it is +/- 3 percent. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. Throughout the report, we present results for four geographic regions accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. “Central Valley” includes Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba Counties. “SF Bay Area” includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. “Los Angeles” refers to Los Angeles County, and “Other Southern California” includes Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. Residents from other geographic areas are included in the results reported for all adults, registered voters, and likely voters. However, sample sizes for these less populated areas are not large enough to report separately in tables and text. We present specific results for Latinos because they account for about 30 percent of the state’s adult population and constitute one of the fastest growing voter groups. The sample sizes for African Americans and Asians are not large enough for separate statistical analysis. We do compare the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The “independents” category includes those who are registered to vote as “decline to state.” We also include the responses of “likely voters”— those who are most likely to vote in the state’s elections based on past voting, current interest, and vote intentions. We compare PPIC Statewide Survey responses to earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys to analyze trends over time in California. 31 QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS CALIFORNIANS AND THE FUTURE August 16-23, 2006 2,001 California Adult Residents: English, Spanish MARGIN OF ERROR +/-2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE [Responses recorded for questions 1-12 are for likely voters only. All other responses are from all adults, except where noted.] 1. First, I have a few questions about the November 7th general election. If the election for governor were being held today, would you vote for…? [rotate names, then ask “or someone else”] 45% Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican, Governor 32 Phil Angelides, Democrat, State Treasurer 3 Peter Miguel Camejo, Green, Financial Advisor 1 Art Olivier, Libertarian, Engineer 1 Edward C. Noonan, American Independent, Computer Shop Owner 1 someone else (specify) 17 don’t know 2. Would you say you are satisfied or not satisfied with the choices of candidates in the election for governor on November 7th? 47% satisfied 42 not satisfied 11 don’t know 3. Which one issue would you most like to hear the gubernatorial candidates talk about before the November 7th election? [code don’t read] 21% immigration, illegal immigration 18 education, schools 9 jobs, economy 8 state budget, deficit, taxes 6 environment, pollution 4 health care, health costs 3 gas prices 2 electricity costs, supply, energy 18 other 11 don’t know 4. How closely are you following news about candidates for the 2006 governor’s election? 15% very closely 49 fairly closely 28 not too closely 7 not at all closely 1 don’t know August 2006 33 Californians and the Future 5. Which one of the state propositions on the November 7th ballot are you most interested in? [code response; do not read list] 2% Proposition 1A 1 Proposition 1B 1 Proposition 1C 3 Proposition 1D 0 Proposition 1E 3 Proposition 83 1 Proposition 84 1 Proposition 85 4 Proposition 86 12 Proposition 87 1 Proposition 88 1 Proposition 89 1 Proposition 90 11 no, none of them 2 all equally 3 other answer (specify) 53 don’t know Next, we have a few questions to ask you about some of the propositions on the November ballot. [rotate Q6 through Q10] 6. Proposition 1B is called the “Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006.” This act makes safety improvements and repairs to state highways, upgrades freeways to reduce congestion, repairs local streets and roads, upgrades highways along major transportation corridors, improves seismic safety of local bridges, expands public transit, helps complete the state’s network of carpool lanes, reduces air pollution, and improves anti-terrorism security at shipping ports by providing for a bond issue not to exceed nineteen billion nine hundred twenty-five million dollars ($19,925,000,000). There would be state costs of approximately $38.9 billion over 30 years to repay bonds and additional unknown state and local operations and maintenance costs. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 1B? 50% yes 38 no 12 don’t know 34 PPIC Statewide Survey 7. Proposition 1C is called the “Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006.” For the purpose of providing shelters for battered women and their children, clean and safe housing for lowincome senior citizens; homeownership assistance for the disabled, military veterans, and working families and repairs and accessibility improvements to apartment for families and disabled citizens the state shall issue bonds totaling two billion eight hundred fifty million dollars ($2,850,000,000) paid from existing state funds at an average annual cost of two hundred and four million dollars ($204,000,000) per year over the 30 year life of the bonds. Requires reporting and publication of annual independent audited reports showing use of funds, and limits administration and overhead costs. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 1C? 57% yes 32 no 11 don’t know Questionnaire and Results 8. Proposition 1D is called the “Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006.” This ten billion four hundred sixteen million dollar ($10,416,000,000) bond issue will provide needed funding to relieve public school overcrowding and to repair older schools. It will improve earthquake safety and fund vocational educational facilities in public schools and bond funds must be spent according to strict accountability measures. Funds will also be used to repair and upgrade existing public college and university buildings and to build new classrooms to accommodate the growing student enrollment in the California Community Colleges, the University of California, and the California State University. Fiscal impacts are state costs of about $20.3 billion to pay off both the principal ($10.4 billion) and interest ($9.9 billion) on the bonds and payments of about $680 million per year. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 1D? 51% yes 39 no 10 don’t know August 2006 35 Californians and the Future 9. Proposition 1E is called the “Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006.” This act rebuilds and repairs California’s most vulnerable flood control structures to protect homes and prevent loss of life from flood-related disasters, including levee failures, flash floods, and mudslides; it protects California’s drinking water supply system by rebuilding delta levees that are vulnerable to earthquakes and storms; by authorizing a $4.09 billion bond act. Fiscal impacts are state costs of approximately $8 billion over 30 years to repay bonds, reduction in local property tax revenues of potentially up to several million dollars annually and additional unknown state and local operations costs. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 1E? 56% yes 35 no 9 don’t know 10. Proposition 84 is called the “Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements. Bonds. Initiative Statute.” It funds water, flood control, natural resources, park and conservation projects by authorizing $5,388,000,000 in general obligation bonds. Includes emergency drinking water safety provisions. Fiscal impacts include a state cost of $10.5 billion over 30 years to repay bonds, reduced local property tax revenues of several million dollars annually and unknown state and local operations and maintenance costs, potentially tens of million of dollars annually. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 84? 40% yes 45 no 15 don’t know 36 PPIC Statewide Survey [rotate Q11 and Q12] 11.In general, do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea for the state government to issue bonds to pay for infrastructure improvements such as schools, roads, and water projects? 59% good idea 31 bad idea 10 don’t know 12.On the November ballot there are five bond measures totaling about $43 billion. Do you think this bond amount is too much, too little, or the right amount? 59% too much 4 too little 21 right amount 16 don’t know Changing topics, 13.Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 44% approve 46 disapprove 10 don’t know 14.Overall, from what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling plans and policies for California’s future? 40% approve 46 disapprove 14 don’t know 15.Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling its job? 31% approve 53 disapprove 16 don’t know 16.Overall, from what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling plans and policies for California’s future? 28% approve 54 disapprove 18 don’t know 17.Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 42% right direction 47 wrong direction 11 don’t know 18.Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 43% good times 46 bad times 11 don’t know 19.On another topic, what do you think the state of California’s population is today— in millions? [code directly to nearest million] 10% under 10 million 9 10-19 million 11 20-29 million 17 30-39 million 7 40-49 million 16 50 million or more 30 don’t know 20.Could you please tell me what you think the state of California’s population will be about 20 years from now—that is, in 2025—in millions? [code directly to nearest million] 5% under 10 million 7 10-19 million 7 20-29 million 6 30-39 million 9 40-49 million 34 50 million or more 32 don’t know Questionnaire and Results 21.Between now and 2025, California’s population is estimated to increase by about 10 million people from 37 million to about 47 million. On balance, do you think this population growth is a good thing or a bad thing or does it make no difference to you and your family? 14% good thing 56 bad thing 25 no difference 5 don’t know 22.In planning for the expected population growth between now and 2025, what do you think should be the state’s most important priority? [read rotated list, then ask, “or something else?”] 34% improving jobs and the economy 23 providing roads, schools, and water systems 15 protecting the environment 10 creating a more equal society 4 closing borders, stopping illegal immigration (volunteered) 11 something else (specify) 3 don’t know 23.As you may know, the term “infrastructure” refers to a variety of public works projects. Which of the following infrastructure projects do you think should have the top priority for public funding as California gets ready for the population growth that is expected by 2025? [read rotated list, then ask, “or something else?”] 32% affordable housing 25 school facilities 21 surface transportation 12 water systems and flood control 7 something else (specify) 3 don’t know August 2006 37 Californians and the Future 24.What type of surface transportation project do you think should have the top priority for public funding as California gets ready for the growth that is expected by 2025? [read rotated list, then ask, “ or something else?”] 36% light rail system 25 freeways and highways 14 public bus system 9 local streets and roads 6 carpool lanes 5 something else (specify) 5 don’t know 25.How much confidence do you have in the state government’s ability to plan for the state’s future and growth—a great deal, only some, very little, or none at all? 12% great deal 49 only some 29 very little 9 none at all 1 don’t know 26.Overall, do you think that in 2025 California will be a better place to live than it is now or a worse place to live than it is now or will there be no change? 24% better place 46 worse place 24 no change 6 don’t know Many people say there are tradeoffs involved in growth and infrastructure issues, meaning that you have to give up some things in order to have other things. For each of the following pairs of statements, which one is closest to your views about planning for 2025 in your part of California? [rotate questions and statements for q27q29] 27.(1) We should focus on building more public schools and universities; [or] (2) We should focus on repairs and renovation, year-round schools, and other strategies to more efficiently use the existing public education facilities. 39% focus on building more public schools and universities 56 focus on more efficient use 5 don’t know 28.(1) We should focus on building more freeways and highways; [or] (2) We should focus on expanding mass transit and using carpool lanes, pricing, and other strategies to more efficiently use the existing freeways and highways. 27% building more freeways and highways 70 expanding mass transit and more efficient use of freeways and highways 3 don’t know 29.(1) We should focus on building new water storage systems and increasing the water supply; [or] (2) We should focus on water conservation, user allocation, pricing, and other strategies to more efficiently use the current water supply. 41% building new water storage systems 54 more efficiently use the current water supply 5 don’t know People have different views about growth issues. Please tell me if the first statement or the second statement comes closer to your views—even if neither is exactly right. [rotate q30 to q32 and statements] 38 PPIC Statewide Survey 30.(1) Local governments should work together and have a common regional plan; [or] (2) Local governments should work independently and each have its own local plan. 77% local governments should work together 20 local governments should work independently 3 don’t know 31.(1) The state government should provide guidelines for local housing and land use planning; [or] (2) The state government should not be involved in local housing and land use planning. 51% state government should provide guidelines 43 state government should not be involved 6 don’t know 32.(1) Local elected officials should provide leadership and make the most important decisions; [or] (2) Local voters should make the important decisions at the ballot box. 26% local officials make decisions 69 local voters make decisions 5 don’t know 33.Next, how much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Sacramento to do what is right? 7% just about always 24 most of the time 63 only some of the time 4 none of the time, not at all 2 don’t know 34.Would you say the state government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, or that it is run for the benefit of all of the people? 66% a few big interests 27 benefit of all of the people 7 don’t know Questionnaire and Results 35.Do you think the people in state government waste a lot of the money we pay in taxes, waste some of it, or don’t waste very much of it? 58% a lot 35 some 4 don’t waste very much 3 don’t know 36.On another topic, in California state government today, which of the following do you think has the most influence over public policy? [rotate] 24% the governor 41 the legislature 24 initiatives on the state ballot 2 other (specify) 9 don’t know California uses the direct initiative process, which enables voters to bypass the legislature and have issues put on the ballot—as state propositions—for voter approval or rejection. 37.In general, do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that a majority of voters can make laws and change public policies by passing initiatives? 71% good thing 22 bad thing 1 other (specify) 6 don’t know 38.Overall, do you think public policy decisions made through the initiative process by California voters are probably better or probably worse than public policy decisions made by the governor and state legislature? 59% probably better 24 probably worse 5 same (volunteered) 12 don’t know August 2006 39 Californians and the Future 39.Generally speaking, would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or not satisfied with the way the initiative process is working in California today? 11% very satisfied 61 somewhat satisfied 25 not satisfied 3 don’t know 40.On another topic, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? 77% yes [ask q41a] 23 no [skip to q42a] 41a.Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 45% Democrat [skip to q43] 34 Republican [skip to q43] 19 independent [ask q42a] 2 another party (specify) [skip to q43] 42a.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 25% Republican Party 49 Democratic Party 19 neither (volunteered) 7 don’t know 43.On another topic, would you consider yourself to be politically: [read list, rotate order top to bottom] 10% very liberal 20 somewhat liberal 32 middle-of-the-road 25 somewhat conservative 11 very conservative 2 don’t know 44.Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics? 22% great deal 43 fair amount 30 only a little 5 none [D1-D12: demographic questions] 40 PPIC Statewide Survey PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Angela Blackwell Founder and Chief Executive Officer PolicyLink Paul Brest President The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mollyann Brodie Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley James E. Canales President The James Irvine Foundation Matthew K. Fong President Strategic Advisory Group William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Dennis A. Hunt Vice President Communications and Public Affairs The California Endowment Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Carol S. Larson President and Chief Executive Officer The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Monica Lozano Publisher and Chief Executive Officer La Opinión Donna Lucas CEO Lucas Public Affairs Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Carol Stogsdill President Stogsdill Consulting Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center The PPIC Statewide Survey Advisory Committee is a diverse group of experts who provide advice on survey issues. However, survey methods, questions, content, and timing are determined solely by PPIC. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Thomas C. Sutton, Chair Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Pacific Life Insurance Company Linda Griego President and Chief Executive Officer Griego Enterprises, Inc. Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Gary K. Hart Founder Institute for Education Reform California State University, Sacramento Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities ADVISORY COUNCIL Stuart A.Gabriel Director and Lusk Chair Lusk Center for Real Estate University of Southern California Clifford W. Graves Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director California Policy Research Center University of California Office of the President David W. Lyon President and Chief Executive Officer Public Policy Institute of California Cheryl White Mason Vice-President Litigation Legal Department Hospital Corporation of America Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Norman R. King Director, University Transportation Center California State University, San Bernardino Dean Misczynski Director California Research Bureau Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND Corporation PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 phone: 415.291.4400 fax: 415.291.4401 www.ppic.org survey@ppic.org" } ["___content":protected]=> string(102) "

S 806MBS

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(104) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-the-future-august-2006/s_806mbs/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8560) ["ID"]=> int(8560) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:38:41" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3781) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(8) "S 806MBS" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(8) "s_806mbs" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "S_806MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1577890" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(96111) "in collaboration with The James Irvine Foundation Mark Baldassare Research Director & Survey Director The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns: California in the global economy; demography; education; employment and income; environment, growth, and infrastructure; government and public finance; health and social policy; immigrants and immigration; key sectors in the California economy; and political participation. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens—William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller—recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Thomas C. Sutton is Chair of the Board of Directors. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 phone: 415.291.4400 fax: 415.291.4401 www.ppic.org survey@ppic.org TABLE OF CONTENTS About the Survey Press Release November Election Californians and the Future State Issues Regional Map Methodology Questionnaire and Results 1 3 7 15 23 30 31 33 ABOUT THE SURVEY The PPIC Statewide Survey series provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the perceptions, opinions, and public policy preferences of California residents. Inaugurated in April 1998, this is the 70th PPIC Statewide Survey in a series that has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 146,000 Californians. The current survey is the first in a series of four surveys on the topic of Californians and the Future, supported by funding from The James Irvine Foundation. California has 37 million residents today and is expected to add about 10 million more people over the next 20 years, according to the Department of Finance. On November 7th, California voters will make important decisions about the state’s future in a statewide election that involves the selection of a governor and members of other executive branch offices, 100 members of the California Legislature, one U.S. Senator and 53 Congressional representatives. The state ballot will also present the voters with 13 state propositions on a wide range of topics, including funding for the state’s infrastructure and public works projects. The November ballot has five state bond measures placed before the voters by the legislature and through the citizens’ initiative process that total about $43 billion, for transportation, education, water, housing, and parks. Other propositions on the state ballot call for tax, spending, and regulatory measures in other areas. The three pre-election surveys that we are conducting in August, September, and October are designed to provide information on Californians’ attitudes toward the future, their perceptions of the November election and support for state ballot measures, and the role of government trust in shaping public opinion about ballot choices and attitudes toward the future. This survey series seeks to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussion about the state’s future, current governance and fiscal systems, and fiscal and governance reforms. This report presents the responses of 2,001 California adults on a wide range of issues: „ The November 7th election, including preferences in the governor’s election and satisfaction with the candidates, views about the most important issues, awareness of election news, and voters’ attitudes toward state bonds in general and the bond measures placed on the ballot by the state legislature (Propositions 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E), and through the initiative process (Proposition 84). „ Californians and the future, including perceptions of the current and future population of the state and the effects of growth, priorities for future planning and infrastructure, outlook for the future, preferences for transportation, education, and water policies, and the role of state and local government and elected officials and voters in making decisions about growth issues. „ State issues, including attitudes toward the citizens’ initiative process in California, approval ratings for Governor Schwarzenegger and the state legislature, the general direction of the state and outlook for the state’s economy, and trust in state government and its effectiveness. „ The extent to which Californians – based on their political party affiliation, region of residence, race/ethnicity, and other demographics – may differ with regard to perceptions, attitudes, and preferences involving the November election, the state’s future, and current state issues. Copies of this report may be ordered by e-mail (order@ppic.org) or phone (415-291-4400). Copies of this and earlier reports are posted on the publications page of the PPIC web site (www.ppic.org). For questions about the survey, please contact survey@ppic.org. 1 PRESS RELEASE Para ver este comunicado de prensa en español, por favor visite nuestra página de internet: http://www.ppic.org/main/pressreleaseindex.asp SURVEY ON CALIFORNIANS AND THE FUTURE Oh, We of Little Faith! Californians in Funk over Future, Lukewarm to Big Bond Bucks TRUST IN GOVERNMENT REMAINS AT HISTORIC LOW; SCHWARZENEGGER MAINTAINS LEAD IN RACE FOR GOVERNOR SAN FRANCISCO, California, August 30, 2006 — Californians are overwhelmed by the future, but underwhelmed by the plan to deal with it, according to a survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), with funding from The James Irvine Foundation. State residents question the wisdom of throwing dollars at growth, as well as government’s ability to provide leadership, leaving the outcome for California’s historic infrastructure bond package up in the air. Between now and 2025, the state’s population is expected to grow from 37 million to 47 million. Few Californians are aware of the dimensions of the population growth facing the state: Only 17 percent place the state’s current population in the 30 to 39 million range and a mere 9 percent put the population at 40 to 49 million in 20 years. How do they feel about this population increase when they hear about it? Fifty-six percent say it will be a bad thing for them and their families; only 14 percent think it will be a good thing. And nearly half (46%) think the state will be a worse place to live in 2025 than it is today; only 24 percent say it will be a better place. Adding to the gloom about the future is a profound lack of faith in government: Four in 10 residents (38%) have little or no confidence in the state government’s ability to plan for California’s future growth. But how would state residents choose to manage this growth? Here, they are in general agreement, preferring mostly to manage existing systems more efficiently rather than undertake costly new projects: 70 percent of state residents prefer to focus on making more efficient use of freeways and highways and expanding mass transit rather than building new freeways; 56 percent say their region should focus on using existing public education facilities more efficiently instead of building more public schools and universities; and 54 percent want to use the current water supply more efficiently rather than building new water storage systems. Against this backdrop, voters are being asked to vote on a package of growth-related bond measures. Although each of the four infrastructure measures that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state legislature put on the ballot are supported by at least 50 percent of likely voters, that support is far from overwhelming: „ Proposition 1B ($19.9 billion transportation bond): 50 percent yes, 38 percent no „ Proposition 1C ($2.85 billion affordable housing bond): 57 percent yes, 32 percent no „ Proposition 1D ($10.4 billion education facilities bond): 51 percent yes, 39 percent no „ Proposition 1E ($4.1 billion water and flood control bond): 56 percent yes, 35 percent no A fifth measure – Proposition 84 – would provide about $5.4 billion in state bonds for water, flood control, natural resources, parks, and conservation projects. Voters are currently split over this initiative (40% yes, 45% no). While likely voters generally like the idea of using state bonds to pay for infrastructure projects, support is lower today than it was four years ago (59% today from 69% in September 2002). The sheer size of the package may also be a reason for the tepid response: 59 percent of likely voters say the $43 billion price tag for the five bond measures on the ballot is too much. “There is really a disconnect between Californians’ preferences and the choices they are being presented with,” says PPIC survey director Mark Baldassare. “The conversation took place without them, but they’ll have the last word.” 3 Californians and the Future State Leaders Dinged for Poor Planning; Schwarzenegger Remains Frontrunner in Governor’s Race Dissatisfaction with the government response to future challenges is reflected in Californians’ approval ratings for the governor and state legislature: Residents are more likely today than they were two years ago to say they disapprove of the way the state legislature (54% today from 47% in August 2004) and governor (46% today from 30% in 2004) are handling plans and policies for the state’s future. The state legislature fares poorly overall, with majorities of adults (53%) and likely voters (61%) unhappy with its performance. But Governor Schwarzenegger’s star has risen in recent months: Residents are now as likely to approve as they are to disapprove (44% to 46%) of the job he is doing, an 8-point improvement since May. The governor’s approval rating among likely voters is also up by eight points, with 50 percent approving and 42 percent disapproving of his performance in office. Republican Governor Schwarzenegger leads his Democratic challenger, State Treasurer Phil Angelides, by a 13point margin among likely voters (45% to 32%). Voter preferences have changed little since one month ago (43% to 30%). Possible explanations for Schwarzenegger’s lead? While 82 percent of Republicans favor Schwarzenegger, only 58 percent of Democrats choose Angelides. Independents are choosing Schwarzenegger over Angelides by a wide margin (42% to 23%). Schwarzenegger’s lead in Republican-leaning areas is commanding – 30 points in the Central Valley and 23 points in the Southern California counties outside of Los Angeles. Angelides’ performance in key Democratic enclaves is less convincing: He leads by 10 points in the San Francisco Bay Area, while Schwarzenegger actually enjoys a slight lead in Los Angeles (41% to 36%). And finally, Democrats (42%) are much less likely than Republicans (58%) to be satisfied with their gubernatorial choices. Despite their varying levels of enthusiasm for the candidates, Democrats (65%), Republicans (63%), and likely voters generally (64%) are equally likely to say they are very or fairly closely following news about the election in November. However, this level of interest is low by historical standards. In August 2002 – prior to the last scheduled gubernatorial election – 74 percent of likely voters were closely following election news. As a barometer of voter interest, this comparison is worrisome: The 2002 governor’s election had the lowest general election turnout of registered voters in the state’s history. Disillusioned with Government, Californians Want to be the Deciders What’s fueling the lack of interest in the November election? Californians’ deep distrust of state government may have something to do with it. Only 31 percent of state residents – and 23 percent of likely voters – say they trust state government to do what is right just about always or most of the time. Strong majorities of state residents (63%) and likely voters (72%) say they trust government only some of the time. Faith in government has plummeted in recent years: In January 2002, 47 percent of Californians said they trust government to do what is right always or some of the time. In keeping with their negative views of state leadership, many residents believe the state wastes a lot of their tax dollars (58%) and is run by a few big interests (66%). One exception to this perception? Latinos are far more likely than are whites to trust state government just about always or most of the time (45% to 24%) and to believe that state government is run for the benefit of all the people (38% to 22%). Given their lack of faith in government, it’s no wonder that Californians remain attached to the initiative process. Overwhelming majorities of state residents (71%) and likely voters (74%) say it is a good thing that voters can make laws and change public policies by passing initiatives. And six in 10 residents (59%) believe decisions made by voters through the initiative process are probably better than those made by the governor and state legislature. Still, Californians are not blinded by their affection for the initiative process: While most residents (61%) describe themselves as somewhat satisfied with the way the process is working today, only a few (11%) express great satisfaction and a quarter (25%) say they are not satisfied. And they also see the influence of the process as limited: Residents say that the state legislature (41%) has more influence over public policy in the state today than does the governor or the initiative process (24% each). However, the initiative process is gaining ground: One year ago, only 19 percent of Californians named the initiative process as having the most influence over policy in the state, while 34 percent named the governor and 35 percent said the legislature. 4 PPIC Statewide Survey Press Release MORE KEY FINDINGS „ Immigration a key issue in 2006 Governor’s Race — Page 9 Immigration (21%) and education (18%) continue to top the list of issues likely voters want to hear their gubernatorial candidates discuss in the coming months, followed distantly by jobs and the economy (9%), the state budget (8%), and the environment (6%). Democrats (23%) are more likely to cite education as their top issue, while Republicans (32%) name immigration. Latinos (32%) are more likely than whites (20%) to say they want to hear the candidates talk about immigration. „ Economy, jobs the priority for California in 2025 — Pages 17, 18 In planning for the population growth that will take place over the next two decades, Californians think improving the economy and jobs (34%) should be the most important priority, followed by providing roads, schools and water systems (23%), protecting the environment (15%), and creating a more equal society (10%). Affordable housing (32%) is seen as a higher priority for funding than are school facilities (25%), surface transportation (21%), or water systems and flood control (12%). Residents are not of one mind when it comes to which type of surface transportation should receive first priority for dollars as the state girds for new growth: 50 percent opt for transit oriented projects, including light rail (36%), and public bus systems (14%), while 40 percent choose road-oriented solutions, including freeways (25%), local streets and roads (9%), and carpool lanes (6%). „ Mixed reviews for state’s economic prospects, direction — Page 28 Residents are divided about California’s economic conditions: 43 percent expect good times in the next 12 months and 46 percent foresee bad times. Although hardly a cause for celebration, these findings are an improvement over those from one year ago (38% good times, 51% bad times). Californians today are in a more optimistic mood overall, with 42 percent saying the state is headed in the right direction compared to 34 percent last year. Still seems low? Consider the national mood: According to a recent AP poll, only 26 percent of Americans say the U.S. is on the right track. ABOUT THE SURVEY This edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey – a survey on Californians and the future – is the first in a four-survey series made possible with funding from The James Irvine Foundation. This survey is intended to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussions about issues related to California’s future, trust in government, and the November election. Findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed between August 16 and August 23, 2006. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2% and for the 989 likely voters is +/- 3%. For more information on methodology, see page 31. Mark Baldassare is research director at PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public policy through objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues that affect Californians. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. August 2006 5 NOVEMBER ELECTION KEY FINDINGS „ Arnold Schwarzenegger continues to hold a 13-point lead over Phil Angelides in the governor’s race. Republicans are more satisfied than Democrats with the choice of gubernatorial candidates. (page 8) „ Likely voters most want to hear the gubernatorial candidates talk about immigration and education. Republicans are most interested in immigration, and Democrats are most interested in education. About six in 10 likely voters are very or fairly closely following election news. (page 9, 10) „ The four infrastructure bonds placed on the ballot by the legislature each have support from at least 50 percent of likely voters, with disaster/flooding and affordable housing bonds leading by wider margins than the transportation and education bonds. (pages 10, 11, 12) „ Proposition 84, the citizen’s initiative that would provide state bonds for water and parks, is the one bond measure with fewer yes votes than no votes. Fewer than half of Democrats would vote yes, while six in 10 Republicans would vote no. (page 12) „ Six in 10 likely voters say it is a good idea to issue state bonds for infrastructure projects, but a similar number believe that the $43 billion amount on the ballot is too much. Nearly half of Democrats say the total amount is too much. (page 13) 11E-B8-Di4T-rsaaWns11atstDCe--perro,SH,rcfotlphuaoatosrioioolnkdnsssg Governor's Race 17 6 45 32 Likely Voters Schwarzenegger Angelides Other candidates Don't know Percent Likely Voters Percent Voting Yes on Propositions 80 70 60 50 57 51 56 50 40 40 30 20 10 0 7 Californians and the Future GOVERNOR’S RACE Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is ahead of State Treasurer Phil Angelides in the governor’s race (45% to 32%), maintaining the 13-point margin he held last month (43% to 30%). One in six likely voters remains undecided and six percent name another candidate. While 82 percent of Republicans favor Schwarzenegger, 58 percent of Democrats support Angelides. Independents currently lean toward Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger holds a 30-point lead over Angelides in the Central Valley and a 23-point lead in the Other Southern California region. Angelides has a 10-point margin over Schwarzenegger in the San Francisco Bay Area. The governor’s race is close in Los Angeles (41% Schwarzenegger, 36% Angelides). There is a gender gap in this race, with Schwarzenegger receiving much more support among men than women. There are also racial/ethnic differences, with Angelides favored over Schwarzenegger among Latinos (39% to 25%) and whites supporting Schwarzenegger over Angelides (51% to 29%). Support for Schwarzenegger tends to increase with age, education, homeownership, and income. Liberals favor Angelides by a wide margin, and conservatives are strongly supporting Schwarzenegger, while political moderates are more divided (38% Schwarzenegger, 32% Angelides, 30% other/don’t know). “If the election for governor were being held today, who would you vote for …” * Likely voters only Arnold Schwarzenegger Phil Angelides Other Candidates Don’t know All Likely Voters 45% 32% 6% 17% Party Democrat Republican 18 58 82 3 5 19 3 12 Independent 42 23 12 23 Central Valley 55 25 5 15 Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 32 41 42 36 8 18 5 18 Other Southern California 49 26 7 18 Gender Men Women 51 29 40 35 7 13 5 20 Race/Ethnicity Latinos Whites * For complete text of question, see p. 33. 25 51 39 29 8 28 6 14 8 PPIC Statewide Survey November Election GOVERNOR’S RACE (CONTINUED) Forty-seven percent of likely voters say they are satisfied with the choice of candidates in the governor’s election this year, while 42 percent are not satisfied. Republicans are more likely to say they are satisfied, while Democrats and independents are more likely to say they are not satisfied. Latinos are divided on this question; whites are more likely to say they are satisfied than dissatisfied (50% to 41%). In our August 2002 survey, during the campaign between Gray Davis and Bill Simon, 38 percent of likely voters were satisfied and 54 percent were not satisfied with the choice of candidates for governor. Likely voters only Satisfied Not satisfied Don’t know “Would you say you are satisfied or not satisfied with the choices of candidates in the election for governor on November 7th?” All Likely Voters Dem Party Rep Ind 47% 42% 58% 37% 42 48 11 10 31 11 51 12 Latinos 42% 41 17 VOTERS’ PRIORITIES Likely voters continue to place immigration (21%) and education (18%) at the top of the list of issues they would most like the candidates for governor to talk about this year. Fewer than one in 10 name any other single issue, including jobs and the economy, the state budget and taxes, and environment and pollution. Democrats are most interested in hearing about education, while Republicans are most interested in hearing about immigration. Independents are divided on these issues. The priorities voiced in our May survey were similar. One in three conservatives names immigration as the top issue, compared to far fewer moderates (19%) and liberals (10%). This issue is mentioned more often in Los Angeles and the Other Southern California region than elsewhere. Latinos (32%) are more likely than whites (20%) to say they want to hear the candidates talk about immigration. In our August 2002 survey, during the last governor’s election campaign, the top two issues were education (17%) and jobs and the economy (13%). Only three percent named immigration. “Which one issue would you most like to hear the gubernatorial candidates talk about before the November 7th election?” Top five issues mentioned All Likely Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Immigration, illegal immigration Education, schools 21% 13% 18 23 32% 20% 12 22 Jobs, economy 9 12 7 9 State budget, deficit, taxes 8 6 10 10 Environment, pollution 6 6 54 Latinos 32% 21 7 3 1 August 2006 9 Californians and the Future VOTERS’ PRIORITIES (CONTINUED) News about the governor’s race is generating less interest now than at the same point in the 2002 governor’s election. Today, 64 percent of likely voters are very (15%) or fairly (49%) closely following the news about the candidates. In our August 2002 survey, 74 percent of likely voters were very (22%) or fairly (52%) closely following news about the candidates. The November 2002 governor’s election had the lowest turnout of registered voters for a governor’s election in the state’s history. Today, there are little differences across parties in the level of attention to gubernatorial election news. Interest in news about the gubernatorial candidates is higher in Los Angeles (70%) than elsewhere, increases with education and income, and is much higher among whites than Latinos (67% to 50%). “How closely are you following news about candidates for the2006 governor’s election?” Likely voters only All Likely Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Very closely Fairly closely Not too closely Not at all closely Don’t know 15% 13% 49 52 28 27 77 11 20% 9% 43 52 28 30 87 12 INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS The four infrastructure bonds placed on the November ballot for funding of transportation, affordable housing, education facilities, and water and flood control are currently receiving support from at least 50 percent of likely voters when they were read each of the ballot titles and labels in their entirety. The bond measures with lower amounts of funding are supported more strongly by the voters. For example, the transportation and education bonds, which have higher funding levels, receive less support than the water and flood controls and affordable housing bonds. We found a partisan divide in terms of support for all four of these bond measures, more so for housing and education than transportation and water and flood controls. Proposition 1B, the transportation bond (about $19.9 billion), is supported by 50 percent of voters and opposed by 38 percent. Sixty percent of Democrats compared to 48 percent of independents would vote yes on 1B. Republicans oppose the bond measure by an 8-point margin (48% no, 40% yes). Proposition 1C, the affordable housing bond ($2.85 billion), is favored by 57 percent of likely voters, while 32 percent would vote no. Seventy-one percent of Democrats and 58 percent of independents would vote yes on 1C. Fifty percent of Republicans oppose this measure; 40 percent would vote yes. Proposition 1D, the education facilities bond (about $10.4 billion), is supported by 51 percent of likely voters and opposed by 39 percent. Two in three Democrats and 50 percent of independents would vote yes on 1D. Republicans are opposed by a nearly two-to-one margin (61% no, 32% yes). 10 PPIC Statewide Survey November Election INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS (CONTINUED) Proposition 1E, the water and flood control bond (about $4.1 billion), receives a 56 percent vote of yes and a 35 percent vote of no. Sixty-six percent of Democrats and 56 percent of independents favor the bond measure. Republicans are divided (46% yes, 47% no). “If the election were held today, how would you vote on …” * Likely voters only All Likely Voters Dem Party Rep Proposition 1B Transportation Yes No Don’t know 50% 60% 40% 38 29 48 12 11 12 Proposition 1C Affordable housing Yes No Don’t know 57 71 40 32 19 50 11 10 10 Proposition 1D Education facilities Yes No Don’t know 51 67 32 39 23 61 10 10 7 Proposition 1E Water facilities Yes No Don’t know 56 35 9 * For complete text of proposition questions, see pp. 34-36. 66 46 25 47 97 Ind 48% 39 13 58 30 12 50 35 15 56 34 10 When we asked about these four infrastructure bonds in our May survey, we mentioned only the type of infrastructure concerned and the amount of spending (since the ballot titles and labels had not yet been made public). We found higher levels of support among likely voters in May than today for the transportation (65%), education (68%), and flood protection (62%) bonds and less support for the affordable housing bond (49%). Voter support for these bond measures varies across state regions, reflecting in some degree the partisan differences between these areas but perhaps also variations in the perceived severity of regional problems. Proposition 1B (transportation) has the most support in Los Angeles and the least in the Other Southern California region, while Proposition 1C (affordable housing) has the most support and the least opposition in the San Francisco Bay Area. Voters are more divided on Proposition 1D (education facilities) in the Central Valley and the Other Southern California region than in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. Proposition 1E (water and flood controls) has more support in the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay Area than Los Angeles and the Other Southern California region. August 2006 11 Californians and the Future INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS (CONTINUED) “If the election were held today, how would you vote on …” * Likely voters only Proposition 1B Transportation Yes No Don’t know All Likely Voters 50% 38 12 Central Valley 49% 37 14 Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 53% 56% 35 35 12 9 Proposition 1C Affordable housing Yes No 57 56 60 59 32 38 26 29 Don’t know 11 6 14 12 Yes Proposition 1D Education facilities No 51 50 56 54 39 42 30 36 Don’t know 10 8 14 10 Proposition 1E Water facilities Yes No 56 35 Don’t know 9 * For complete text of proposition questions, see pp. 34-36. 59 34 7 59 54 29 37 12 9 Other Southern California 44% 44 12 56 36 8 47 43 10 52 39 9 PROPOSITION 84: WATER AND PARKS BOND INITIATIVE Californians will also vote on a citizens’ initiative that was placed on the ballot by its supporters. This initiative seeks to provide about $5.4 billion in state bonds for water, flood control, natural resources, parks, and conservation projects. When read the ballot title and label for Proposition 84, voters are split in their opinions (40% yes, 45% no) and deeply divided along party lines. Support falls short of a majority across regions, as well as income and education groups, and declines with age (53% support among those under age 35, 39% among ages 35 to 54, and 36% among those age 55 and older). The proposition has more support among Latinos (52%) than whites (38%). “If the election were held today, how would you vote on Proposition 84?” * Likely voters only All Likely Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Yes 40% 49% No 45 36 Don’t know 15 15 * For complete text of proposition question, see pp. 36. 28% 59 13 44% 40 16 12 PPIC Statewide Survey November Election ATTITUDES TOWARD STATE BONDS The idea of using state bonds to pay for infrastructure projects was debated in the legislature earlier this year. Bond opponents claimed that it was passing on debt to future generations. Bond supporters pointed to the need for large amounts of cash to make long-term investments. Californians support the concept of using state bonds for such purposes by a nearly two-to-one margin. About six in 10 likely voters in every region of the state think it is a good idea for the state to issue bonds to pay for infrastructure projects, while about three in 10 think it is a bad idea. Republicans are divided on this issue (46% good idea, 43% bad idea), while Democrats (69%) and independents (58%) think it’s a good idea. There is little difference across age, education, income, or homeownership groups. Still, it is important to note that support among likely voters for using state bonds for this purpose is lower today than it was in September 2002 (69% good idea, 22% bad idea), also in the context of several state propositions involving billions of dollars in state bonds on the November ballot. “In general, do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea for the state government to issue bonds to pay for infrastructure improvements such as schools, roads, and water projects?” Likely voters only Good idea All Likely Voters 59% Central Valley 60% Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 61% 60% Other Southern California 57% Bad idea 31 33 27 29 31 Don’t know 10 7 12 11 12 Does the total amount of debt (about $43 billion) in the five state bond measures on the November 2006 ballot give voters some pause for thought in supporting this method of funding? Six in 10 likely voters (76% of Republicans, 56 %of independents, 48% of Democrats) consider the amount presented on the ballot too much. Majorities of voters across regions, age, education, homeownership, income, and racial/ethnic groups say the amount on the ballot is too much. Among those who say it is a good idea for the state to issue bonds, 46 percent say that the $43 billion total on the November ballot is too much. Many who say they would vote yes on the individual bond measures think the total amount is too much (46% for 1B, 51% for 1C, 44% for 1D, 51% for 1E, 43% for 84). Among those who currently plan to vote no on these measures, about eight in 10 say the total amount on the ballot is too much. “On the November ballot, there are five bond measures totaling about $43 billion. Do you think this bond amount is …” Likely voters only All Likely Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Too much Too little Right amount Don’t know 59% 48% 45 21 28 16 19 76% 2 9 13 56% 6 25 13 August 2006 13 CALIFORNIANS AND THE FUTURE KEY FINDINGS Infrastructure Priorities „ Only one in six Californians know the state’s population is between 30 to 39 million, and few know that growth is predicted to lead to 40 to 49 million people by 2025. Most are pessimistic about growth and the future. (page 16) Percent All Adults 60 50 40 32 30 25 21 20 12 10 7 3 „ Residents rank infrastructure behind jobs 0 else know Don’t Somethincgontrol systSeurfmsaAfcfaeSonrtcdrdhfaalobnoollsoepfdoahrcotiluaitstiiioenngs and the economy in planning for the future. Californians say their infrastructure priority in planning for the future is affordable housing— followed by schools, transportation, and water systems. Light W ater rail systems are seen as a higher transportation priority than freeways and highways. (pages 17, 18) „ Few residents express a great deal of confidence in the state government’s Confidence in Planning for the State's Future 91 12 ability to plan for the future or for growth, and four in 10 have little or no confidence in state government’s ability to plan for the future. (page 19) 29 „ Most Californians choose the more efficient use of existing education facilities, roads, and water facilities over building new infrastructure. (pages 19, 20, 21) „ Most residents agree that local governments should work together on regional planning; however, Republicans and Democrats disagree on the role of state government. (pages 21, 22) All Adults 49 A great deal Only some Very little None at all Don't know „ About seven in 10 residents, across regions of the state, want local voters to make important decisions on growth issues at the ballot box, rather than rely on their local elected officials. (page 22) 15 Californians and the Future POPULATION TODAY AND IN 2025 Few Californians know what the state’s population is today or by how much it may grow by 2025. Currently, about 37 million people live in the state, but fewer than 2 percent of residents named this number, while 17 percent placed the population somewhere between 30 to 39 million residents. Thirty percent of residents think the current population is less than 30 million, 23 percent think it is 40 million or more, and 30 percent are unwilling to make a guess. Knowledge of the state’s current population increases somewhat with age, education, homeownership, and income. The state’s population is estimated to increase by about 10 million residents by 2025, from 37 million to about 47 million, according to the state’s Department of Finance. When asked about the size of the state’s population in 2025, only 9 percent of residents say it will be between 40 and 49 million, 34 percent think it will be 50 million or more, 25 percent think it will be fewer than 40 million, and one in three is unsure. Californians are more likely today (17%) than they were two years ago (11%) to say the state’s population is currently 50 million or more and will be 50 million or more in 2025 (27% in 2004, 34% today). “What do you think the state of California’s population is today—in millions?” and “Could you please tell me what the state of California’s population will be about 20 years from now—in millions?” All adults California Population Today California Population 2025 Under 10 million 10-19 million 20-29 million 30-39 million 40-49 million 50 million or more Don’t know 10% 9 11 17 7 16 30 5% 7 7 6 9 34 32 With California already the most populous state in the nation, how do residents feel about adding another 10 million people? When told the state’s population will increase by about 10 million residents between now and 2025, relatively few residents have a positive response. Fifty-six percent of residents say this population growth is a bad thing, 14 percent say it is a good thing, and 25 percent say it will make no difference to themselves and their families. Across political groups, majorities think this level of population growth is a bad thing (64% Republicans, 60% Democrats, 55% independents). Whites (62%) are more negative about this expected growth than are Latinos (45%), and negative opinions on population growth increase with age, education, and income. Sixty percent of U.S.-born residents say this growth is a bad thing, compared to 45 percent of foreign-born residents. Californians are about as likely today as they were in 2004 to say that an increase in population of 10 million would be a bad thing (59% 2004, 56% today). 16 PPIC Statewide Survey Californians and the Future FUTURE PRIORITIES In anticipation of adding 10 million residents to California by 2025, we asked residents what they think the state’s most important priority should be in planning for this expected population growth. Thirty-four percent of residents and 30 percent of likely voters say improving jobs and the economy should be the top priority. Among other priorities we asked about, 23 percent of residents think infrastructure such as roads, schools, and water systems should be the top priority, 15 percent think protecting the environment should be of highest concern, 10 percent want to see the state work to create a more equal society, and 15 percent mention other priorities for the state, including closing the borders and stopping illegal immigration (4%). Two years ago, a similar one in three residents (34%) named jobs and the economy as the state’s most important priority. Today, improving jobs and the economy is the highest priority in all party groups and across three regions (40% Los Angeles, 33% Other Southern California, and 31% Central Valley), and is ahead of infrastructure. Among San Francisco Bay Area residents, similar proportions place their highest priority on improving jobs and the economy (27%) and providing infrastructure (25%), while one in five mentions the environment. “In planning for the expected population growth between now and 2025, what do you think should be the state’s most important priority?” All Adults Improving jobs and the economy Providing roads, schools, and water systems Protecting the environment Creating a more equal society Closing border, stopping illegal immigration (volunteered) Other 34% 23 15 10 4 11 Central Valley 31% 23 15 11 Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 27% 40% 25 21 20 13 11 11 Likely Voters Other Southern California 33% 30% 23 26 15 15 98 344 5 6 13 12 9 12 12 Don’t know 3 412 3 3 August 2006 17 Californians and the Future FUTURE PRIORITIES (CONTINUED) When asked which of four infrastructure projects should have top funding priority in planning for 2025, all adults place affordable housing (32%) before school facilities (25%), surface transportation (21%), and water systems and flood control (12%). Likely voters rank housing, schools, and transportation about equally and place a lower priority on water systems. In response to a list of potential surface transportation projects, more residents choose light rail systems (36%) than freeways and highways (25%), public bus systems (14%), local streets and roads (9%), or carpool lanes (6%). Likely voters have similar priorities for transportation funding. Light rail systems are mentioned most often in all regions. Other Southern California residents (29%) are the most likely to name freeways and highways. Two years ago, light rail (32%) and freeways and highways (31%) were named almost equally. “What type of surface transportation project do you think should have the top priority for public funding as California gets ready for the growth that is expected by 2025?” Light rail system All Adults 36% Central Valley 36% Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 41% 33% Likely Voters Other Southern California 33% 43% Freeways and highways Public bus system Local streets and roads Carpool lanes Other Don’t know 25 14 9 6 5 5 24 23 26 29 26 12 13 17 14 9 10 7 8 9 8 448 7 4 783 5 6 745 3 4 OUTLOOK FOR 2025 Overall, residents are not overly optimistic about California in 2025. Nearly half of all residents (46%) think the state will be a worse place to live than it is now, 24 percent think it will be a better place, and 24 percent think there will be no change. Likely voters are slightly more pessimistic about the future. Opinions were similar two years ago (25% better place, 49% worse place, 20% no change). “Overall, do you think that in 2025 California will be a better place to live than it is now or a worse place to live than it is now or will there be no change?” Better place All Adults 24% High School 29% Education Some College 23% College Graduate 21% Likely Voters 21% Worse place 46 41 46 49 51 No change 24 24 26 23 23 Don’t know 6 6 57 5 Residents of Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area are the most optimistic about the state in 2025 (27% each, better place) while residents of the Central Valley are the most pessimistic (21% better place). Fewer whites (20%) than Latinos (34%) say California will be a better place to live in the future. Optimism about the future decreases with education, age, and income, and pessimism is higher 18 PPIC Statewide Survey Californians and the Future OUTLOOK FOR 2025 (CONTINUED) among homeowners than renters (49% to 41%). Residents with children under 18 (50%) are more likely than residents without children under 18 (43%) to say that California in 2025 will be a worse place to live than it is now. Only 12 percent of residents have a great deal of confidence in the state government’s ability to plan for California’s future and growth, while 49 percent have only some, and four in 10 have little or no confidence. Residents expressed similar confidence levels two years ago (12% great deal, 46% only some, 31% very little, 9% none at all). Latinos (20%) are more likely than whites (8%) to say they have a great deal of confidence in the state government’s ability to plan for the future. Twenty percent of foreign-born residents say they have a great deal of confidence in the state government in this regard, compared to only eight percent of U.S.-born residents. Having a great deal of confidence in state government declines with age, education, and income. A great deal Only some Very little None at all Don’t know “How much confidence do you have in the state government’s ability to plan for the state’s future and growth?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind 12% 8% 11% 9% 7% 49 54 48 51 53 29 28 28 31 29 9 8 12 8 11 1 2 11 0 Confidence levels are low across the regions and differences in confidence levels across political parties are small. Confidence in the state government’s future planning abilities is strongly related to the perception of what kind of place the state will be in 2025. Nearly six in 10 of the residents who have very little or no confidence in the state government’s ability to plan say California will be a worse place to live in 2025. TRADEOFFS FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES Over the next 20 years, California is expected to increase its population by about 10 million people. This level of population growth will require the state to make choices about such infrastructure as schools, transportation, and water. These choices include how to spend money on new construction and how to manage existing systems to accommodate population growth. In the context of current discussions about state infrastructure bonds, we repeated a series of three “trade-off” questions from a PPIC survey in 2004 to understand how Californians are thinking about these planning issues today. When asked to consider focusing either on building more public schools and universities or on more efficient use of existing facilities in planning for 2025, majorities of Californians (56%) and likely voters (62%) say that the focus should be on more efficient use of existing facilities. Preferences today are similar to when we first asked this question in 2004 (42% build more, 55% efficiency). Residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (63%) and the Central Valley (60%) are more likely than those in the Other Southern California region (54%) and Los Angeles (50%) to want to focus on greater efficiency rather than on more building. Among political groups, Democrats (42%) are somewhat more August 2006 19 Californians and the Future TRADEOFFS FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES (CONTINUED) likely than independents (37%) or Republicans (30%) to want to focus on building more public schools and universities. Whites (62%) are much more likely than Latinos (43%) to believe that the focus should be on efficiency rather than on building. The choice of more efficiency over more building increases with age, education, and income. Residents with children under 18 prefer building more public schools and universities. “Which one of the following is closest to your views about planning for 2025 in your part of California…”* All Adults Focus on building more public schools and universities Focus on more efficient use of existing facilities Don’t know 39% 56 5 Central Valley 36% 60 4 Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 34% 45% 63 50 35 Likely Voters Other Southern California 41% 34% 54 62 54 *For full question text see p.38. TRADEOFFS FOR TRANSPORTATION Seven in 10 California adults and likely voters want the focus of planning for 2025 in their region to be on expanding mass transit and on making more efficient use of existing freeways and highways rather than on building more freeways and highways. These opinions about future transportation planning were similar in PPIC’s 2004 survey (30% build more, 67% efficiency). “Which one of the following is closest to your views about planning for 2025 in your part of California…”* All Adults Focus on building more freeways and highways Focus on expanding mass transit and more efficient use Don’t know 27% 70 3 Central Valley 30% 66 4 Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 18% 30% 79 66 34 Likely Voters Other Southern California 29% 25% 68 71 34 *For full question text see p.38. Residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (18%) are the least likely to state that California should build more freeways and highways, while about three in 10 residents in other major regions prefer this option. Democrats and independents (74% each) are more likely than Republicans (63%) to state that California should focus on mass transit and more efficient use of existing freeways and highways. Whites are more likely than Latinos (72% to 64%), and women are more likely than men (72% to 67%), to say that the focus should be on efficiency. The belief that California should build more freeways and highways decreases with age and education; however, there are no differences across income levels. TRADEOFFS FOR WATER SYSTEMS Californians are somewhat more divided in their opinions about the need for increased building when it comes to future planning for water systems. More than half of Californians and likely voters (54% each) state that the focus should be on more efficiently using the current water supply, while four in 10 adults 20 PPIC Statewide Survey Californians and the Future and likely voters (41% each) believe it should be on building new water storage systems. Results today are similar to when we first asked this question in 2004 (55% more efficiency, 41% more building). Across the state’s regions, residents of the Central Valley (49%) are more likely than those in other regions to want to focus on building new water storage systems. Residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (58%) are the most likely to want to focus on more efficient use of the current water supply. Republicans (48%) and independents (45%) are more likely than Democrats (37%) to want to focus on building new water storage systems instead of increasing efficiency. Women (57%) are more likely than men (51%) to favor focusing on more efficient use of the current water supply. Focus on efficiency decreases with age and increases with education; there are no differences across income groups. “Which one of the following is closest to your views about planning for 2025 in your part of California…”* All Adults Focus on building new water storage systems Focus on more efficiently using the current water supply Don’t know 41% 54 5 Central Valley 49% Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 37% 40% Likely Voters Other Southern California 41% 41% 47 58 54 55 54 456 4 5 *For full question text see p.38. GROWTH AND POLICY MAKING When asked how local governments should go about planning for growth, Californians believe that local governments should work together and have a common regional plan (77%) rather than working independently on their own plans (20%). Identical preferences for how local governments should plan for growth were expressed in PPIC’s 2004 survey (77% work together, 20% work independently). Vast majorities across political parties (Democrats 82%, independents 79%, Republicans 71%) want local governments to have a regional plan. This preference is similarly high across regions and age, education, income, and racial/ethnic groups. “Which statement comes closer to your views...”* All Adults Local governments should work together and have a common regional plan Local governments should work independently and each have its own local plan Don’t know 77% 20 3 Dem 82% 16 2 Party Rep 71% 26 3 Ind 79% 18 3 Likely Voters 79% 19 2 August 2006 21 Californians and the Future GROWTH AND POLICY MAKING (CONTINUED) We also asked about the role of the state government in planning for local growth. About half of Californians (51%) believe the state should provide guidelines for local housing and land use planning, while about four in 10 (43%) believe the state government should not be involved. The percentage believing the state should not be involved in local planning has increased since PPIC’s 2004 survey (37% 2004, 43%, today), while the percentage believing the state should provide guidelines has decreased (57% 2004, 51% today). Democrats (59%) are much more likely than Republicans (39%) and independents (46%) to think that the state government should provide guidelines for local housing and land use planning. Residents of the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles (56% each) are more likely than those in the Other Southern California region (48%) and the Central Valley (45%) to think that the state government should provide local guidelines. Whites (49%) are less likely than Latinos (53%) to believe that the government should be involved in local housing and land use planning. The belief that the state government should be involved declines with age, but it is similar across education groups. “Which statement comes closer to your views...”* All Adults The state government should provide guidelines for local housing and land use planning The state government should not be involved in local housing and land use planning Don’t know 51% 43 6 Dem 59% 37 4 Party Rep 39% 58 3 *For full question text see pg. 39. Ind 46% 50 4 Likely Voters 46% 50 4 When asked who should make the important decisions at the local level, seven in 10 Californians and likely voters believe that local voters should do so at the ballot box, while about one in four adults and likely voters believe that local elected officials should provide leadership by making the most important decisions. Opinions today are similar to 2004 when an overwhelming proportion of residents favored local voters making important decisions at the ballot box (73% local voters, 23% local officials). Although preferences are similar across regions, residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (64%) are the least likely to state that important decisions should be made by local voters. Democrats (28%) are slightly more likely than Republicans (25%) or independents (24%) to think that local officials should make the important decisions. A strong preference for voters to make the decisions occurs across all political and demographic groups in the survey. “Which statement comes closer to your views...”* All Adults Local elected officials should provide leadership and make the most important decisions Local voters should make the important decisions at the ballot box Don’t know 26% 69 5 Central Valley 27% Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 32% 25% 70 64 34 70 5 *For full question text see pg. 39. Other Southern California 25% 71 4 Likely Voters 26% 71 3 22 PPIC Statewide Survey STATE ISSUES KEY FINDINGS „ The legislature is seen as having more influence in policymaking than either the governor or the initiative process. Most Californians think the initiative process is a good thing, but few are very satisfied with the way it is working. (pages 24, 25) „ The governor’s approval rating continues to improve, reaching 50 percent for likely voters, though it is well below the high level of two years ago. There are large partisan differences in approval. (page 26) „ Majorities of likely voters disapprove of the legislature and of its handling of plans and policies for the future. Californians across the state’s regions give the legislature low approval. (page 27) „ Californians’ overall feelings about the direction of the state and the economy remain mixed, but show improvement compared to one year ago. (page 28) „ The public’s trust in state government to do what is right, not to waste money, and to be run for the benefit of all the people remains near historic lows. (page 29) Percent Likely Voters Percent Likely Voters Governor Schwarzenegger's Approval Ratings 80 Approve 70 Disapprove 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Jan Aug Jan Aug Jan Aug 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 California Legislature's Approval Ratings 80 Approve Disapprove 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Jan Aug Jan Aug Jan Aug 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 23 Californians and the Future CITIZENS’ INITIATIVES Despite the prevalence of citizens’ initiatives on statewide election ballots, Californians do not believe initiatives have the most influence over public policy; they are more likely to say that the state legislature (41%) has the most influence, and are as likely to name the governor (24%) as ballot initiatives (24%). Across political parties and among likely voters, most residents believe the legislature carries the most weight in policymaking. Republicans are more likely than Democrats or independents to name the legislature and less likely to name the governor as most influential in the policy arena. In the past, residents have been more divided about whether the governor or legislature has the most influence, while initiatives were seen as less influential. In August 2005, 34 percent named the governor, 35 percent named the legislature, and 19 percent named initiatives. In 2004, more residents named the governor than the legislature (39% to 31%), and 18 percent mentioned initiatives as the most influential. “In California state government today, which of the following do you think has the most influence over public policy?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind The governor The legislature Initiatives on the state ballot Other (specify) Don’t know 24% 27% 16% 27% 41 39 53 45 24 24 25 20 2 322 9 746 Likely Voters 20% 47 25 2 6 While they may believe that initiatives have less influence over public policy than the legislature, overwhelming majorities of adults (71%) and likely voters (74%) maintain that it is a good thing that voters can make laws and change public policy by passing initiatives, while fewer than one in four in either group say it is a bad thing. Since we first asked this question in October 2000, more than two in three adults have said that it is a good thing that voters can use the initiative process (69% October 2000, 74% August 2004, 68% August 2005). Across political parties today, Republicans (77%) are more likely than independents (73%) or Democrats (69%) to say that it is a good thing voters can make laws and change public policies. More than two in three residents across regions and racial/ethnic, gender, age, education, and income groups also say that this is a good thing. “In general, do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that a majority of voters can make laws and change public policies by passing initiatives?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind Good thing Bad thing 71% 69% 77% 73% 74% 22 24 18 21 21 Other (specify) Don’t know 1 201 1 6 555 4 24 PPIC Statewide Survey State Issues CITIZENS’ INITIATIVES (CONTINUED) Californians not only think it is a good thing that voters can make policy, but they also express a great deal of faith in the decisions that voters make at the ballot box. Six in 10 adults (59%) and likely voters (60%) believe public policy decisions made by voters through initiatives are probably better than policy decisions made by the governor and state legislature, while one in four in each group believes voters’ decisions are probably worse. This belief has remained constant over time, with nearly six in 10 adults saying voters’ decisions are probably better than elected officials’ decisions the previous three times this question was asked (56% October 2000, 59% August 2004, 57% August 2005). Democrats (57%) are somewhat less likely than independents (63%) or Republicans (64%) to say that the voters’ decisions are probably better. The belief that voters make better policy decisions declines among those with college degrees (61% high school, 67% some college, 53% college graduate). “Overall, do you think public policy decisions made through the initiative process by California voters are probably better or probably worse than public policy decisions made by the governor and state legislature?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind Probably better Probably worse Same (volunteered) 59% 57% 64% 63% 60% 24 27 23 20 24 5 637 6 Don’t know 12 10 10 10 10 Seven in 10 Californians are satisfied with the way the initiative process is working in California today, but few are highly satisfied. Most Californians (61%) are somewhat satisfied, 11 percent are very satisfied, and one in four (25%) are not satisfied. Satisfaction has been similar in the past, with 68 percent saying they were very or somewhat satisfied with the initiative process in October 2000 (10% very, 58% somewhat), August 2004 (11% very, 57% somewhat), and August 2005 (10% very, 58% somewhat). Although relatively few respondents in any political or demographic group say they are very satisfied with the initiative process, strong majorities say they are somewhat satisfied. Across parties, Democrats (30%) are more likely than independents (25%) and Republicans (21%) to say they are not satisfied. Across regions, residents of the San Francisco Bay Area are less likely to say they are satisfied than residents in other regions. Of those who believe it is a good thing that voters can make policy, 79 percent are very (12%) or somewhat satisfied (67%) with the process; of those who think it is a bad thing, about half (47%) are not satisfied with the process. “Generally speaking, would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or not satisfied with the way the initiative process is working in California today?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied 11% 9% 12% 10% 10% 61 58 65 63 61 Not satisfied Don’t know 25 30 21 25 27 3 322 2 August 2006 25 Californians and the Future GOVERNOR’S APPROVAL RATINGS Approval ratings for Governor Schwarzenegger have increased from a low point of 32 percent after last fall’s special election. Adults today are about as likely to approve (44%) as they are to disapprove (46%) of his overall performance. While approval has increased eight points since May (36%), it is well below what it was two years ago (65% August 2004). Today, more likely voters approve (50%) than disapprove (42%) of the governor’s overall performance in office. Among likely voters, approval is similar to July (49%), and eight points higher than in May (42%), but it is 19 points lower than in August 2004 (69%). Significant differences in approval ratings of the governor still exist across political parties, with three in four Republicans (76%) saying they approve and six in 10 Democrats (61%) saying they disapprove. Independents are more likely to approve (47%) than disapprove (40%). Across regions, residents in Los Angeles (36%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (42%) are less likely to approve of the way Governor Schwarzenegger is handling his job compared to residents in the Other Southern California region (47%) and the Central Valley (50%). Approval of the governor’s job performance is higher among whites than Latinos (54% to 28%) and men than women (48% to 41%) and increases with age, homeownership, and income. Of likely voters who plan to vote for Schwarzenegger in November’s gubernatorial election, 87 percent approve of his job as governor. Of likely voters who plan to vote for Phil Angelides, 79 percent disapprove of the governor’s job performance. Approve Disapprove Don’t know “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind 44% 30% 46 61 10 9 76% 47% 50% 18 40 42 6 13 8 As the governor focuses attention on infrastructure in 2006, residents offer mixed evaluations of his handling of plans and policies for the future (40% approve, 46% disapprove). Likely voters are somewhat more positive (46% approve, 41% disapprove). Just as overall approval ratings have declined significantly from two years ago, so have approval ratings for his handling of plans and policies for the future (55% approve 30% disapprove, August 2004). Today, seven in 10 Republicans (69%) approve while six in 10 Democrats (60%) disapprove, and independents are divided (44% approve, 40% disapprove). Approval for the governor’s planning efforts increases with age, education, and income, and is higher among men than women (44% to 36%) and whites than Latinos (50% to 25%). “Overall, from what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling plans and policies for California’s future?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind Approve Disapprove Don’t know 40% 26% 46 60 14 14 69% 44% 46% 19 40 41 12 16 13 26 PPIC Statewide Survey State Issues LEGISLATURE’S APPROVAL RATINGS With the legislative session near its end, we asked residents how they rate the state legislature overall. Majorities of adults (53%) and likely voters (61%) disapprove of the way the legislature is handling its job. Although approval ratings continue to be low, (31% all adults, 27% likely voters), they have improved slightly since May (26% all adults, 23% likely voters). Approval sank to an all-time low last fall (25% October 2005) and has remained there most of the past year. A year ago, a similar share of residents said they approved (27%) of the way the legislature was handling its job. The last time the scales tipped to the legislature’s side was October 2004 (43% approve, 41% disapprove). While Democrats and independents (33% each) are more likely than Republicans (23%) to approve of the job the legislature is doing, at least half across all parties disapprove. Gains in approval since May among Democrats (26% to 33%) and independents (24% to 33%) account for the legislature’s slightly better marks this month. Republican sentiment is unchanged since May. Across regions, disapproval is higher in the Central Valley (58%) than in Los Angeles (53%), the San Francisco Bay Area (52%), and the Other Southern California region (52%). Among racial/ethnic groups, whites are more negative than Latinos (56% to 46%), and disapproval increases with age, education and income. Men are more likely than women to disapprove (57% to 50%). “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling its job?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind Approve Disapprove Don’t know 31% 33% 23% 33% 27% 53 50 66 54 61 16 17 11 13 12 With its bond package placed on the November ballot, we asked residents to rate the legislature for its handling of plans and policies for the future. Fewer than three in 10 adults (28%) and likely voters (23%) approve of its performance in this area, while majorities of both groups disapprove. Approval was seven points higher two years ago (35% approve, 47% disapprove). Majorities across parties disapprove today although Republicans are the most likely to disapprove. Regional differences in approval are small (26% Central Valley, 26% Other Southern California region, 28% Los Angeles, 30% San Francisco Bay Area) as are gender differences (29% men, 27% women). Approval is lower among whites (24%) than Latinos (37%) and it decreases with age, education, and income. “Overall, from what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling plans and policies for California’s future?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind Approve Disapprove Don’t know 28% 29% 21% 27% 23% 54 52 67 56 62 18 19 12 17 15 August 2006 27 Californians and the Future OVERALL MOOD Californians’ overall mood about the direction of the state remains mixed, with 42 percent of all adults saying the state is headed in the right direction and 47 percent saying it’s going in the wrong direction. Likely voter findings are similar to those of all adults. The mood today is more optimistic compared to a year ago (34% right, 57% wrong), and is somewhat similar to August 2004 (44% right, 42% wrong). Across regions, residents express similarly mixed views on the direction of the state, with an equal number or more in each region saying the state is headed in the wrong direction than the right direction. Republicans (45%) and independents (43%) are somewhat more likely to say things are headed in the right direction than Democrats (39%). Men (45%) are more likely than women (39%) to say things are going in the right direction. There is little difference between Latinos (41%) and whites (44%) in their views on the direction of the state. Of residents who say they approve of Governor Schwarzenegger’s job performance, 56 percent say the state is headed in the right direction, while of those who say they disapprove, 62 percent say it is headed in the wrong direction. “Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction?” Right direction All Adults 42% Central Valley 42% Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 45% 40% Other Southern California 41% Likely Voters 42% Wrong direction 47 48 45 49 47 49 Don’t know 11 10 10 11 12 9 Californians also continue to express mixed views on the state’s economic conditions. Forty-three percent of residents think we will have good times financially in the next 12 months while 46 percent think we will have bad times. Likely voters are also divided (45% good times, 43% bad). Our findings today are an improvement from a year ago (38% good times, 51% bad), and almost as positive as in August 2004 (45% good times, 40% bad). Republicans (54%) are much more likely than independents (41%) and Democrats (36%) today to expect good times. Of those who approve of the governor, 57 percent expect good economic times, while 58 percent of those who disapprove expect bad times. Residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (49%) are more likely than others to say they expect good financial times in the next year while Los Angeles residents are the least likely (38%). Among racial/ethnic groups, whites and Latinos are similarly divided about the prospects for good economic times. Optimism about the state’s economic outlook increases with income. Good times Bad times Don’t know “Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind 43% 36% 46 51 11 13 54% 37 9 41% 50 9 Likely Voters 45% 43 12 28 PPIC Statewide Survey State Issues TRUST IN STATE GOVERNMENT Consistent with their disapproval of the legislature, only about three in 10 Californians (31%) and one in four likely voters (23%) trust the government in Sacramento to do what is right just about always or most of the time. The share of Californians who say they trust the state government always or most of the time is similar to last August (30%) and has stayed between 27 and 37 percent since August 2002. By comparison, almost half expressed this level of trust in January 2001 (46%) and January 2002 (47%). Trust in state government is slightly lower among Republicans (23%) than Democrats (27%) and independents (28%). Across regions, trust is similarly low (29% San Francisco Bay Area, 31% Los Angeles, 32% Central Valley, 32% Other Southern California region). Latinos (45%) are far more likely than whites (24%) to trust the state government just about always or most of the time, while distrust increases with age, education, and income. “How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Sacramento to do what is right?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind Just about always 7% 4% 5% 4% Most of the time 24 23 18 24 Only some of the time 63 66 72 66 None of the time (volunteered) 4 554 Don’t know 2 202 Likely Voters 3% 20 72 5 0 Many Californians also have negative views of the fiscal efficiency of state government, with nearly six in 10 saying that those in state government waste a lot of taxpayer money. Perceptions of government waste were similar last August (61%), and have remained above 50 percent since February 2003; it was less than a majority earlier. Republicans (67%) are more likely than Democrats (53%) or independents (59%) to believe state government wastes a lot of taxpayer money. The belief in a lot of government waste increases with age and decreases with education. “Do you think the people in state government waste a lot of the money we pay in taxes, waste some of it, or don’t waste very much of it?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind A lot Some Don’t waste very much Don’t know 58% 53% 67% 59% 35 40 31 32 4 417 3 312 Likely Voters 61% 34 4 1 When asked if the state government is pretty much run by a few big interests or is run for the benefit of all of the people, about two in three adults say that it is run by a few big interests (66%). This perception of state government is similar to last August (65%) and is unchanged since January 2004, while fewer held this belief in January 2001 (60%) and January 2002 (54%). Today, the belief that state government is run by a few big interests is similar across partisan groups. Latinos (55%) are much less likely than whites (71%) to hold this view. Men (69%) are more likely than women (63%) to think the state is run by a few big interests, and this perception increases with age, education and income. August 2006 29 REGIONAL MAP 30 METHODOLOGY The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, research director and survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance in research and writing from Jennifer Paluch, project manager for this survey, and survey research associates Dean Bonner and Sonja Petek. The survey and focus groups were conducted with funding from The James Irvine Foundation and benefited from discussions with foundation staff and grantees; however, survey methods, questions, and content of this report were solely determined by Mark Baldassare. The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed August 16-23, 2006. Interviewing took place on weekday nights and weekend days, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in California were eligible. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called up to six times to increase the likelihood of reaching eligible households. Once a household was reached, an adult respondent (age 18 or older) was randomly chosen for interviewing using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender. Each interview took an average of 20 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English or Spanish. Accent on Languages translated the survey into Spanish with assistance from Renatta DeFever. Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. conducted the telephone interviewing. We used recent U.S. Census and state figures to compare the demographic characteristics of the survey sample with characteristics of California’s adult population. The survey sample was closely comparable to the census and state figures. The survey data in this report were statistically weighted to account for any demographic differences. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,001 adults is +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger: For the 1,530 registered voters, it is +/- 2.5 percent; for the 989 likely voters it is +/- 3 percent. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. Throughout the report, we present results for four geographic regions accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. “Central Valley” includes Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba Counties. “SF Bay Area” includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. “Los Angeles” refers to Los Angeles County, and “Other Southern California” includes Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. Residents from other geographic areas are included in the results reported for all adults, registered voters, and likely voters. However, sample sizes for these less populated areas are not large enough to report separately in tables and text. We present specific results for Latinos because they account for about 30 percent of the state’s adult population and constitute one of the fastest growing voter groups. The sample sizes for African Americans and Asians are not large enough for separate statistical analysis. We do compare the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The “independents” category includes those who are registered to vote as “decline to state.” We also include the responses of “likely voters”— those who are most likely to vote in the state’s elections based on past voting, current interest, and vote intentions. We compare PPIC Statewide Survey responses to earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys to analyze trends over time in California. 31 QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS CALIFORNIANS AND THE FUTURE August 16-23, 2006 2,001 California Adult Residents: English, Spanish MARGIN OF ERROR +/-2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE [Responses recorded for questions 1-12 are for likely voters only. All other responses are from all adults, except where noted.] 1. First, I have a few questions about the November 7th general election. If the election for governor were being held today, would you vote for…? [rotate names, then ask “or someone else”] 45% Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican, Governor 32 Phil Angelides, Democrat, State Treasurer 3 Peter Miguel Camejo, Green, Financial Advisor 1 Art Olivier, Libertarian, Engineer 1 Edward C. Noonan, American Independent, Computer Shop Owner 1 someone else (specify) 17 don’t know 2. Would you say you are satisfied or not satisfied with the choices of candidates in the election for governor on November 7th? 47% satisfied 42 not satisfied 11 don’t know 3. Which one issue would you most like to hear the gubernatorial candidates talk about before the November 7th election? [code don’t read] 21% immigration, illegal immigration 18 education, schools 9 jobs, economy 8 state budget, deficit, taxes 6 environment, pollution 4 health care, health costs 3 gas prices 2 electricity costs, supply, energy 18 other 11 don’t know 4. How closely are you following news about candidates for the 2006 governor’s election? 15% very closely 49 fairly closely 28 not too closely 7 not at all closely 1 don’t know August 2006 33 Californians and the Future 5. Which one of the state propositions on the November 7th ballot are you most interested in? [code response; do not read list] 2% Proposition 1A 1 Proposition 1B 1 Proposition 1C 3 Proposition 1D 0 Proposition 1E 3 Proposition 83 1 Proposition 84 1 Proposition 85 4 Proposition 86 12 Proposition 87 1 Proposition 88 1 Proposition 89 1 Proposition 90 11 no, none of them 2 all equally 3 other answer (specify) 53 don’t know Next, we have a few questions to ask you about some of the propositions on the November ballot. [rotate Q6 through Q10] 6. Proposition 1B is called the “Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006.” This act makes safety improvements and repairs to state highways, upgrades freeways to reduce congestion, repairs local streets and roads, upgrades highways along major transportation corridors, improves seismic safety of local bridges, expands public transit, helps complete the state’s network of carpool lanes, reduces air pollution, and improves anti-terrorism security at shipping ports by providing for a bond issue not to exceed nineteen billion nine hundred twenty-five million dollars ($19,925,000,000). There would be state costs of approximately $38.9 billion over 30 years to repay bonds and additional unknown state and local operations and maintenance costs. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 1B? 50% yes 38 no 12 don’t know 34 PPIC Statewide Survey 7. Proposition 1C is called the “Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006.” For the purpose of providing shelters for battered women and their children, clean and safe housing for lowincome senior citizens; homeownership assistance for the disabled, military veterans, and working families and repairs and accessibility improvements to apartment for families and disabled citizens the state shall issue bonds totaling two billion eight hundred fifty million dollars ($2,850,000,000) paid from existing state funds at an average annual cost of two hundred and four million dollars ($204,000,000) per year over the 30 year life of the bonds. Requires reporting and publication of annual independent audited reports showing use of funds, and limits administration and overhead costs. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 1C? 57% yes 32 no 11 don’t know Questionnaire and Results 8. Proposition 1D is called the “Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006.” This ten billion four hundred sixteen million dollar ($10,416,000,000) bond issue will provide needed funding to relieve public school overcrowding and to repair older schools. It will improve earthquake safety and fund vocational educational facilities in public schools and bond funds must be spent according to strict accountability measures. Funds will also be used to repair and upgrade existing public college and university buildings and to build new classrooms to accommodate the growing student enrollment in the California Community Colleges, the University of California, and the California State University. Fiscal impacts are state costs of about $20.3 billion to pay off both the principal ($10.4 billion) and interest ($9.9 billion) on the bonds and payments of about $680 million per year. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 1D? 51% yes 39 no 10 don’t know August 2006 35 Californians and the Future 9. Proposition 1E is called the “Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006.” This act rebuilds and repairs California’s most vulnerable flood control structures to protect homes and prevent loss of life from flood-related disasters, including levee failures, flash floods, and mudslides; it protects California’s drinking water supply system by rebuilding delta levees that are vulnerable to earthquakes and storms; by authorizing a $4.09 billion bond act. Fiscal impacts are state costs of approximately $8 billion over 30 years to repay bonds, reduction in local property tax revenues of potentially up to several million dollars annually and additional unknown state and local operations costs. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 1E? 56% yes 35 no 9 don’t know 10. Proposition 84 is called the “Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements. Bonds. Initiative Statute.” It funds water, flood control, natural resources, park and conservation projects by authorizing $5,388,000,000 in general obligation bonds. Includes emergency drinking water safety provisions. Fiscal impacts include a state cost of $10.5 billion over 30 years to repay bonds, reduced local property tax revenues of several million dollars annually and unknown state and local operations and maintenance costs, potentially tens of million of dollars annually. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 84? 40% yes 45 no 15 don’t know 36 PPIC Statewide Survey [rotate Q11 and Q12] 11.In general, do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea for the state government to issue bonds to pay for infrastructure improvements such as schools, roads, and water projects? 59% good idea 31 bad idea 10 don’t know 12.On the November ballot there are five bond measures totaling about $43 billion. Do you think this bond amount is too much, too little, or the right amount? 59% too much 4 too little 21 right amount 16 don’t know Changing topics, 13.Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 44% approve 46 disapprove 10 don’t know 14.Overall, from what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling plans and policies for California’s future? 40% approve 46 disapprove 14 don’t know 15.Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling its job? 31% approve 53 disapprove 16 don’t know 16.Overall, from what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling plans and policies for California’s future? 28% approve 54 disapprove 18 don’t know 17.Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 42% right direction 47 wrong direction 11 don’t know 18.Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 43% good times 46 bad times 11 don’t know 19.On another topic, what do you think the state of California’s population is today— in millions? [code directly to nearest million] 10% under 10 million 9 10-19 million 11 20-29 million 17 30-39 million 7 40-49 million 16 50 million or more 30 don’t know 20.Could you please tell me what you think the state of California’s population will be about 20 years from now—that is, in 2025—in millions? [code directly to nearest million] 5% under 10 million 7 10-19 million 7 20-29 million 6 30-39 million 9 40-49 million 34 50 million or more 32 don’t know Questionnaire and Results 21.Between now and 2025, California’s population is estimated to increase by about 10 million people from 37 million to about 47 million. On balance, do you think this population growth is a good thing or a bad thing or does it make no difference to you and your family? 14% good thing 56 bad thing 25 no difference 5 don’t know 22.In planning for the expected population growth between now and 2025, what do you think should be the state’s most important priority? [read rotated list, then ask, “or something else?”] 34% improving jobs and the economy 23 providing roads, schools, and water systems 15 protecting the environment 10 creating a more equal society 4 closing borders, stopping illegal immigration (volunteered) 11 something else (specify) 3 don’t know 23.As you may know, the term “infrastructure” refers to a variety of public works projects. Which of the following infrastructure projects do you think should have the top priority for public funding as California gets ready for the population growth that is expected by 2025? [read rotated list, then ask, “or something else?”] 32% affordable housing 25 school facilities 21 surface transportation 12 water systems and flood control 7 something else (specify) 3 don’t know August 2006 37 Californians and the Future 24.What type of surface transportation project do you think should have the top priority for public funding as California gets ready for the growth that is expected by 2025? [read rotated list, then ask, “ or something else?”] 36% light rail system 25 freeways and highways 14 public bus system 9 local streets and roads 6 carpool lanes 5 something else (specify) 5 don’t know 25.How much confidence do you have in the state government’s ability to plan for the state’s future and growth—a great deal, only some, very little, or none at all? 12% great deal 49 only some 29 very little 9 none at all 1 don’t know 26.Overall, do you think that in 2025 California will be a better place to live than it is now or a worse place to live than it is now or will there be no change? 24% better place 46 worse place 24 no change 6 don’t know Many people say there are tradeoffs involved in growth and infrastructure issues, meaning that you have to give up some things in order to have other things. For each of the following pairs of statements, which one is closest to your views about planning for 2025 in your part of California? [rotate questions and statements for q27q29] 27.(1) We should focus on building more public schools and universities; [or] (2) We should focus on repairs and renovation, year-round schools, and other strategies to more efficiently use the existing public education facilities. 39% focus on building more public schools and universities 56 focus on more efficient use 5 don’t know 28.(1) We should focus on building more freeways and highways; [or] (2) We should focus on expanding mass transit and using carpool lanes, pricing, and other strategies to more efficiently use the existing freeways and highways. 27% building more freeways and highways 70 expanding mass transit and more efficient use of freeways and highways 3 don’t know 29.(1) We should focus on building new water storage systems and increasing the water supply; [or] (2) We should focus on water conservation, user allocation, pricing, and other strategies to more efficiently use the current water supply. 41% building new water storage systems 54 more efficiently use the current water supply 5 don’t know People have different views about growth issues. Please tell me if the first statement or the second statement comes closer to your views—even if neither is exactly right. [rotate q30 to q32 and statements] 38 PPIC Statewide Survey 30.(1) Local governments should work together and have a common regional plan; [or] (2) Local governments should work independently and each have its own local plan. 77% local governments should work together 20 local governments should work independently 3 don’t know 31.(1) The state government should provide guidelines for local housing and land use planning; [or] (2) The state government should not be involved in local housing and land use planning. 51% state government should provide guidelines 43 state government should not be involved 6 don’t know 32.(1) Local elected officials should provide leadership and make the most important decisions; [or] (2) Local voters should make the important decisions at the ballot box. 26% local officials make decisions 69 local voters make decisions 5 don’t know 33.Next, how much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Sacramento to do what is right? 7% just about always 24 most of the time 63 only some of the time 4 none of the time, not at all 2 don’t know 34.Would you say the state government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, or that it is run for the benefit of all of the people? 66% a few big interests 27 benefit of all of the people 7 don’t know Questionnaire and Results 35.Do you think the people in state government waste a lot of the money we pay in taxes, waste some of it, or don’t waste very much of it? 58% a lot 35 some 4 don’t waste very much 3 don’t know 36.On another topic, in California state government today, which of the following do you think has the most influence over public policy? [rotate] 24% the governor 41 the legislature 24 initiatives on the state ballot 2 other (specify) 9 don’t know California uses the direct initiative process, which enables voters to bypass the legislature and have issues put on the ballot—as state propositions—for voter approval or rejection. 37.In general, do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that a majority of voters can make laws and change public policies by passing initiatives? 71% good thing 22 bad thing 1 other (specify) 6 don’t know 38.Overall, do you think public policy decisions made through the initiative process by California voters are probably better or probably worse than public policy decisions made by the governor and state legislature? 59% probably better 24 probably worse 5 same (volunteered) 12 don’t know August 2006 39 Californians and the Future 39.Generally speaking, would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or not satisfied with the way the initiative process is working in California today? 11% very satisfied 61 somewhat satisfied 25 not satisfied 3 don’t know 40.On another topic, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? 77% yes [ask q41a] 23 no [skip to q42a] 41a.Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 45% Democrat [skip to q43] 34 Republican [skip to q43] 19 independent [ask q42a] 2 another party (specify) [skip to q43] 42a.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 25% Republican Party 49 Democratic Party 19 neither (volunteered) 7 don’t know 43.On another topic, would you consider yourself to be politically: [read list, rotate order top to bottom] 10% very liberal 20 somewhat liberal 32 middle-of-the-road 25 somewhat conservative 11 very conservative 2 don’t know 44.Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics? 22% great deal 43 fair amount 30 only a little 5 none [D1-D12: demographic questions] 40 PPIC Statewide Survey PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Angela Blackwell Founder and Chief Executive Officer PolicyLink Paul Brest President The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mollyann Brodie Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley James E. Canales President The James Irvine Foundation Matthew K. Fong President Strategic Advisory Group William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Dennis A. Hunt Vice President Communications and Public Affairs The California Endowment Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Carol S. Larson President and Chief Executive Officer The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Monica Lozano Publisher and Chief Executive Officer La Opinión Donna Lucas CEO Lucas Public Affairs Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Carol Stogsdill President Stogsdill Consulting Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center The PPIC Statewide Survey Advisory Committee is a diverse group of experts who provide advice on survey issues. However, survey methods, questions, content, and timing are determined solely by PPIC. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Thomas C. Sutton, Chair Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Pacific Life Insurance Company Linda Griego President and Chief Executive Officer Griego Enterprises, Inc. Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Gary K. Hart Founder Institute for Education Reform California State University, Sacramento Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities ADVISORY COUNCIL Stuart A.Gabriel Director and Lusk Chair Lusk Center for Real Estate University of Southern California Clifford W. Graves Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director California Policy Research Center University of California Office of the President David W. Lyon President and Chief Executive Officer Public Policy Institute of California Cheryl White Mason Vice-President Litigation Legal Department Hospital Corporation of America Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Norman R. King Director, University Transportation Center California State University, San Bernardino Dean Misczynski Director California Research Bureau Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND Corporation PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 phone: 415.291.4400 fax: 415.291.4401 www.ppic.org survey@ppic.org" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:38:41" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(8) "s_806mbs" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:38:41" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:38:41" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(50) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/S_806MBS.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }