Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

S 804MBS

Authors

S 804MBS

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_804MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1482107" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(101605) "PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY AUGUST 2004 Public Policy Institute of California Special Survey on Californians and the Future ○○○○○ 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, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. 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 parties or candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Preface 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. Started in April 1998, the survey series has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 98,000 Californians. The current survey is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey series, conducted as part of the PPIC California 2025 project, with funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. This institute-wide project consists of a detailed study of California’s future, including public opinion, population and economic projections, infrastructure needs, public finance and governance challenges, and social equity issues in planning for growth and change. The major goals of the California 2025 project include (1) getting the public and policy leaders “on the same page” about what California will look like in 2025, (2) identifying the big political challenges to the public's acceptance of change, and (3) making California’s future a policy focus of the 2006 statewide election. The State of California faces unprecedented growth-related challenges that could seriously erode quality of life over the next two decades. Between now and 2025, California’s population is expected to grow by 10 million residents, with a shift in the regional balance and racial/ethnic groups. Yet previous studies indicate that the public is largely unaware of the dimensions of this population growth and its potential implications for roads, school facilities, and other infrastructure projects. At the same time, political paralysis over more immediate problems, such as the state’s persistent budget gap between spending and revenues, is leading policymakers to postpone critical discussions about California's future. This public opinion survey seeks to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussions about current conditions in California, future projections concerning growth and its effects on the state, and the governance and policy options possible in response to the expected growth and change. This report presents the responses of 2,506 adult residents on a wide range of issues: • The near term, including the most important issue facing people in California; overall direction of the state and its economy; perceptions of regional conditions such as traffic, housing, air pollution, employment opportunities, and the quality of public education; perceptions of local conditions; and general perceptions of roads and other infrastructure. • The state’s future conditions, including awareness of current population and population projections for 2025; most important state issue in 2025; state outlook and priorities for 2025; and perceptions of specific and overall regional conditions in 2025. • Governance and policy options, including infrastructure and transportation priorities; confidence in state government; approval of the state’s elected officials; and willingness to consider tradeoffs, increase taxes, consider equity issues, and increase civic participation. • The extent to which Californians may differ with regard to near- term and future perceptions and governance and policy options across the five major regions of the state (Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, Orange/San Diego, Inland Empire), and differences by race/ethnicity (Asian, black, Latino, white), political party affiliation, and demographics. This is the 48th in the PPIC Statewide Survey series, which has included a number of special surveys on the Central Valley, Orange County, Los Angeles County, San Diego County, Population Growth, Land Use, Environment, and the State Budget. 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. -i- - ii - Contents Preface Press Release The Near Term The Future Governance and Policy Options Survey Methodology Survey Questions and Results i v 1 7 13 23 25 - iii - Press Release Para ver este comunicado de prensa en español, por favor visite nuestra página de internet: http://www.ppic.org/main/pressreleaseindex.asp SPECIAL SURVEY ON CALIFORNIANS AND THE FUTURE LITTLE KNOWLEDGE, BIG WORRIES ABOUT STATE’S FUTURE Californians Pessimistic About Growth and Its Consequences, Seek Greater Role in Planning SAN FRANCISCO, California, August 5, 2004 — When Californians start thinking about tomorrow, it leaves them wishing yesterday wasn’t gone. Although few have a grasp of the numbers, residents are still deeply concerned about the effects of future growth – from gridlock to environmental degradation – on the quality of life in the Golden State, according to a survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). Distrustful of state and local government, they seek a greater role for themselves – at the ballot box and through other forms of civic participation – in planning for California’s future. In this large-scale survey about California’s future, 2,506 Californians were interviewed in five languages (English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese). Between now and 2025, the state’s population is expected to grow from 35 million to between 43 and 48 million. However, few Californians are aware of the dimensions of the population growth facing the state – perhaps because they have a difficult time putting it in perspective: Only 16 percent place the state’s current population in the 30 to 39 million range and a mere 13 percent put the population at 40 to 49 million in twenty years. How do they feel about this population increase when told about it? Fifty-nine percent say it will be a bad thing for them and their families, and only 14 percent think it will be a good thing. Pluralities across all political and demographic groups see this growth as a negative, but whites (66%) are the most likely and Latinos (46%) the least likely to see the increase as a bad thing. “As a state, we are pretty clueless about our future prospects, and this lack of knowledge breeds pessimism,” says PPIC Statewide Survey Director Mark Baldassare. Nearly half of all residents (49%) think it will be a worse place to live two decades from now, and only 25 percent say it will be a better place. However, whites (57%) and blacks (49%) are far more likely than Latinos (39%) and Asians (34%) to think the state will be a worse place to live in the future. Residents’ expectations about future quality of life in their regions are also decidedly gloomy. Nearly half think their part of the state will be a worse place to live in 2025 than it is today, and only 18 percent say it will be a better place. Central Valley residents are the most pessimistic and residents of the Inland Empire (Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) the most optimistic about the future of their regions. From Bad to Worse? Residents See Current Problems, Future Crises Without more information to go on, today’s greatest concerns and problems seem to influence Californians’ thinking about the future. The economy, jobs, and unemployment top their list of most important issues today – and their list of most important issues in 2025. Across the state, 29 percent of residents say these issues are the most important facing the state today; 24 percent believe they will still be a top priority twenty years from now. On a regional level, state residents also expect that a number of existing, growth-related problems will be exacerbated in the future. Sixty-three percent of Californians call traffic congestion a big problem in their part of the state, and 81 percent expect it to worsen by 2025. Similarly, two-thirds of state residents (67%) view housing affordability as a big problem, and 78 percent think it will get worse over the years. And although -v- Press Release fewer residents (39%) see air pollution as a big issue in their region today, 69 percent believe the problem will grow in the next two decades. Residents of the Inland Empire are more optimistic than residents of other regions that the availability of affordable housing will improve, and San Francisco Bay Area residents are the least likely to believe that traffic conditions will worsen. Currently, about four in 10 Californians rate the quality of K-12 public schools (44%) and the lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs (42%) as big problems in their part of the state. As for the future, residents are evenly split on whether the public education system in their region will improve or get worse (45% improve; 46% get worse) and about the outlook for job opportunities and economic conditions (44%; 47%). Latinos (55%) are more likely than Asians (36%), blacks (38%), and whites (43%) to say that the public education system will improve. Blacks (59%) and Latinos (52%) are more concerned than Asians (34%) and whites (45%) that opportunities for well-paying jobs will worsen. Road to Future Not Paved with Good Planning, So Californians Seek a Role The general negativity about the future is also accompanied – and perhaps influenced – by a profound lack of confidence in government. Only 12 percent of Californians have a great deal of confidence that state government can plan effectively for future growth, and 46 percent have only some confidence. The exception? A majority (55%) approve of the way that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling plans and policies for the future. The state legislature doesn’t fare as well: Only 35 percent of Californians support how the lawmakers are handling planning for the future. Ratings are also low at the local level, with only 15 percent of state residents expressing a great deal of confidence in the ability of local governments to plan for the future. This distrust leads residents to an apparent conflict: Although 77 percent believe that local governments should work together to develop a common regional plan to accommodate growth, 73 percent of residents also believe that local voters – as opposed to local elected officials – should be making important decisions about growth issues. “The fact that local residents feel that they need to take planning into their own hands through the ballot box reflects the depth of their distrust – and of their concern,” says Baldassare. And while only 12 percent of Californians say they have been involved a lot in planning for their region’s future, 25 percent express interest in becoming actively involved. Blacks (35%) are the most interested and Asians (16%) the least interested in being involved a lot in discussions of the future. Concern about funding for infrastructure projects does trump distrust at the local level: 60 percent of Californians think local government does not have adequate funding for the roads, school facilities, and other projects that are needed to prepare for future growth. One solution? Residents (68%) overwhelmingly support the idea of a local ballot measure to raise the sales tax by one-half cent for 20 years in order to finance roads and public transit projects. At the state level, Californians are divided on the issue of spending for roads and infrastructure projects: Half say they would pay higher taxes and have the state government spend more; 43 percent say they prefer to pay lower taxes and see less spending. Is the Era of Big Infrastructure Projects Over? Californians name school facilities (40%), surface transportation (24%), and water systems (21%) as their top priorities for public works projects. However, residents are of less than one mind when it comes to which type of surface transportation should receive first priority for funding as their region plans for future population growth. Forty-nine percent opt for road-oriented projects, including freeways (32%), local streets and roads (10%), and carpool lanes (7%). Forty-four percent choose transit-oriented solutions, including light rail systems (31%) and public bus systems (13%). Whites (39%) are more likely than other groups to prefer light rail, while 21 percent of blacks would like to see public dollars fund bus systems. Californians’ top infrastructure priorities all require that the state make choices about how to spend money on new construction and how to manage current systems to accommodate population growth. Here, state residents - vi - Press Release are in general agreement, preferring in many cases to manage existing systems more efficiently rather than undertaking costly new projects: • Schools: A majority (55%) say their region should focus on using existing public education facilities more efficiently – through repairs and renovations, year-round schools, and other strategies – instead of building more public schools and universities (42%). • Transportation: Two in three residents (67%) prefer to focus on making more efficient use of freeways and highways and expanding mass transit instead of building new freeways (30%). • Water: A majority (55%) prefer demand management strategies – including conservation, user allocation, and pricing – rather than the construction of new water storage systems (41%). “The public will simply isn’t there for undertaking massive new infrastructure projects,” says Baldassare. “Realistic or not, the public wants to see more efficient and effective use of current systems.” Equity Is Seen as a Problem Most Californians think that low-income and minority neighborhoods in their regions are more likely than other communities to have poor public facilities: Majorities believe these neighborhoods are more likely to have schools (72%) and roads and other transportation infrastructure (61%) in need of repair and replacement. When it comes to addressing these inequities, however, a smaller majority (56%) say that school districts in poorer and minority communities should receive more public funding for facilities – even if it means less funding for other school districts. Residents are more divided when it comes to transportation: 49 percent would support disproportionate funding for roads and other transportation infrastructure in these neighborhoods, and 44 percent would not. In both cases, whites are less likely than other racial/ethnic groups to support higher funding for these neighborhoods at the expense of others. About the Survey This Special Survey on Californians and the Future was conducted as part of PPIC’s California 2025 project with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. This project seeks to raise awareness and encourage discussion about the growth-related challenges facing the state over the next two decades. Findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,506 California adult residents interviewed between May 24 and June 8, 2004. Interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2%. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. For more information on methodology, see page 23. 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. His recent book, A California State of Mind: The Conflicted Voter in a Changing World, is available at www.ppic.org. 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. This report will appear on PPIC’s website (www.ppic.org) on August 5. ### - vii - What do you think CA's population is today? 16 What do you think CA's population will be in 2025? 13 CA's population is expected to increase from 35 to 45 million by 2025. Is this a ____? 4 14 23 Percent all adults 84 87 30-39 million Other Percent all adults 40-49 million Other Percent who say the following problems will get worse in the future 100 90 81 78 80 69 70 60 50 47 46 40 30 20 10 0 Traffic Housing Air pollution Jobs K-12 schools Percent all adults 59 Good thing Bad thing No difference Don't know Which infrastructure project should have top priority for public funding to prepare for 2025? 15 40 21 Percent all adults 24 School facilities Surface transportation Water systems Other/ don't know Do local govts have adequate funding for infrastructure needs? 7 33 What should the state's role be in providing funding for infrastructure? 8 49 43 60 Yes, do No, do not Don't know Higher taxes, more spending Lower taxes, less spending Don't know Should local governments have a ____? 3 20 77 Common regional plan Each its own local plan Don't know Who should make the important decisions? 4 23 73 Local voters Local elected officials Don't know The Near Term Most Important State Issue For Californians, the economy, jobs, and unemployment constitute the most important issue today. Three in 10 residents put this issue at the top of the list. Statewide, about one in 10 gives second place to gasoline prices (11%)—which are at nominal record highs in California and across the nation—the state budget and taxes (10%), and education and schools (8%). Five or fewer percent rank other issues as their top concern, including legal and illegal immigration (5%), crime and gangs (4%), housing (4%), and health care (4%). Opinion about the most important issue varies across regions and racial/ethnic and political groups. In every region, the economy is the most important issue, but concern is significantly higher in the San Francisco Bay Area (38%) than elsewhere. Second place goes to gasoline prices in the Los Angeles (13%), Orange/San Diego (15%), and Inland Empire (13%) areas,∗ to the state budget and taxes in the Central Valley (17%), and to education and schools in the San Francisco Bay Area (13%). “What do you think is the most important issue facing people in California today?” (top five mentions) Economy, jobs, unemployment Gasoline prices State budget, deficit, taxes Education, schools Immigration, illegal immigration All Adults 29% 11 10 8 5 Central Valley 27% 9 17 8 4 SF Bay Area 38% 7 11 13 3 Region Los Orange/ Angeles San Diego 30% 13 23% 15 6 10 69 68 Inland Empire 27% 13 10 8 8 Although the economy, jobs, and unemployment top the issue list among all racial/ethnic and political groups, the degree of concern varies among blacks (41%), Asians (35%), Latinos (32%), and whites (26%). It also varies for political groups: Thirty-three percent of Democrats, 27 percent of independents, and 24 percent of Republicans rank these issues highest. Both lower-income and higherincome Californians see jobs and the economy as the most important issue. Economy, jobs, unemployment Gasoline prices State budget, deficit, taxes Education, schools Immigration, illegal immigration All Adults 29% 11 10 8 5 Asians 35% 14 7 10 2 Race/ Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 41% 32% 13 13 83 66 25 Whites 26% 10 15 9 6 ∗ In this survey report, the region “Other Southern California” has been divided into “Inland Empire” and “Orange/San Diego.” For more information, see the Survey Methodology, page 23. -1- The Near Term State’s Overall Direction Is the state headed in the right or wrong direction? Californians are evenly divided on that question: Forty-four percent say things are generally going in the right direction; 44 percent say they are going wrong. However, perceptions about the state’s direction differ across the major regions and among population groups. Pluralities of residents in the Central Valley (46%), Orange/San Diego (50%), and Inland Empire (50%) say the state is going in the right direction, but pluralities in San Francisco (48%) and Los Angeles (46%) believe the state is headed the wrong way. “Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction?” Right direction Wrong direction Don’t know All Adults 44% 44 12 Central Valley 46% 41 13 SF Bay Area 39% 48 13 Region Los Angeles 40% 46 14 Orange/ San Diego 50% 41 9 Inland Empire 50% 38 12 Whites are more optimistic about the state’s direction (49% right direction) than are Asians (40%), Latinos (39%), and blacks (27%). Homeowners are more optimistic (47% right direction; 40% wrong direction) than renters (38% right direction; 49% wrong direction). Forty-eight percent of men say the state is headed in the right direction compared to 39 percent of women. There is also a sharp partisan divide, with Republicans (59%) expressing more confidence than Democrats (36%). “Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction?” Right direction Wrong direction Don’t know All Adults 44% 44 12 Asians 40% 39 21 Race/ Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 27% 39% 59 51 14 10 Whites 49% 39 12 Looking at only the economic outlook for the state in the coming year, 46 percent think the state will have bad times and 41 percent think the state will have good times financially. Inland Empire residents are the most optimistic: Nearly half (49%) say the state will see good times financially. Residents in the rest of the state are less confident: Pluralities of residents in the Central Valley (49%), San Francisco Bay Area (48%), and Los Angeles (46%) think we will have bad times financially in the next year, while Orange/San Diego residents are almost evenly divided (45% good times; 44% bad times). -2- The Near Term Regional Conditions When asked to rate the seriousness of certain conditions in their own regions of the state, two in three Californians, overall, say that affordable housing (67%) and traffic congestion on freeways and major roads (63%) are big problems. About four in 10 residents think that the quality of education in K-12 public schools (44%), the lack of well-paying jobs (42%), and air pollution (39%) are big problems in their regions. On the matter of affordable housing, attitudes vary widely across regions. Three in four residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (76%) and Orange/San Diego (75%) say affordable housing is a big problem, as do 68 percent of Los Angeles residents. Somewhat smaller majorities of Inland Empire (60%) and Central Valley (51%) residents share that concern. Regional attitudes about traffic congestion also vary. Traffic congestion is considered a big problem by a far greater percentage of residents in Los Angeles (78%) than in the Central Valley (43%). Perception of the problem is high in the Orange/San Diego (70%), Inland Empire (64%), and San Francisco Bay Area (63%) but falls between those extremes. A majority of San Francisco Bay Area residents (53%) think the quality of K-12 public education in their region is a big problem. Although less than a majority hold this view elsewhere, K-12 education is ranked a big problem by pluralities in Los Angeles (46%), the Central Valley (41%), Orange/San Diego (39%), and the Inland Empire (38%). Across regions, significant percentages rate the lack of well-paying job opportunities as a big problem. Central Valley and Los Angeles residents (both 44%) are the most likely to have this perception, and Orange/San Diego residents (32%) are the least likely. Regional assessments of air pollution vary widely. Fifty-four percent of Central Valley residents, 53 percent of Los Angeles residents, and 47 percent of Inland Empire residents say that air pollution in their parts of the state is a big problem, compared to only 29 percent of Orange/San Diego and 23 percent of San Francisco Bay Area residents. How big a problem is _______ in your part of California? (percent saying “a big problem”) the availability of housing that you can afford traffic congestion on freeways and major roads the quality of education in K-12 public schools the lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs air pollution All Adults 67% 63 44 42 39 Central Valley 51% 43 41 44 54 SF Bay Area Region Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire 76% 68% 75% 60% 63 78 70 64 53 46 39 38 41 44 23 53 32 38 29 47 - 3 - August 2004 The Near Term While there is general consensus about regional conditions across racial/ethnic groups and demographic categories, there is also significant variation in the extent to which specific problems are rated as more serious in nature. For example, 77 percent of blacks think affordable housing is a big problem, compared to 67 percent of whites and Latinos and 62 percent of Asians. Renters are significantly more likely than homeowners to see this as a big problem (75% to 61%), but assessments of it are not related to income or age. There is only moderate variation across racial/ethnic groups on assessments of regional traffic. Majorities of whites (65%), blacks (64%), Latinos (59%), and Asians (57%) think that traffic congestion on freeways and major roads in their parts of California is a big problem. Older, more-educated, and higher-income Californians are more likely than younger, less-educated, and lower-income residents to have this level of concern. Attitudes about the quality of education in K-12 public schools vary sharply across racial/ethnic lines. A sizeable majority of blacks (61%) think that quality is a big problem in their regions, but the percentage is much lower among whites (45%), Asians (42%), and Latinos (36%). Residents with public school children at home are somewhat less likely than those without (38% to 47%) to perceive the quality as a big problem. Residents’ impressions of K-12 public education as a big problem increases with education and is unrelated to age and income. There are substantial differences in perceptions of well-paying job opportunities. Majorities of blacks (58%) and Latinos (54%) report that the lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs is a big problem in their parts of the state, but the concern is lower among Asians (42%) and whites (33%). While there is only modest variation by age, there are large variations related to education and income. Fifty-two percent of residents with at most a high school diploma think lack of well-paying job opportunities is a big problem, compared to 32 percent of those with a college degree or more. Similarly, 55 percent of residents with annual household incomes under $40,000 think this is a big regional problem, compared to 25 percent with household incomes over $80,000. Perceptions of air pollution also vary by race/ethnicity and demographic factors. Nearly half of Latinos (49%) and 46 percent of blacks see air pollution as a big problem in their parts of the state, compared to 33 percent of whites and 31 percent of Asians. Residents with children at home are slightly more likely than those without to have this level of concern (42% to 36%). Across most of the state, those with incomes under $40,000 are significantly more likely than those with incomes of $80,000 and higher to see air pollution as a big problem, while in the Inland Empire, residents with higher and lower incomes are equally likely to rate air quality as a big problem. How big a problem is_________ in your part of California? (Percent saying “a big problem”) the availability of housing that you can afford traffic congestion on freeways and major roads the quality of education in K-12 public schools the lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs air pollution All Adults 67% 63 44 42 39 Asians 62% 57 42 42 31 Race/ Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 77% 67% Whites 67% 64 59 65 61 36 45 58 54 33 46 49 33 -4- The Near Term Local Conditions Most Californians think that low-income and minority neighborhoods in their regions are more likely than other neighborhoods to have poor public facilities. For instance, 72 percent of all adults say lowincome and minority neighborhoods are more likely to have school facilities in need of repair and replacement; only 21 percent disagree. While majorities across demographic groups and regions agree with that perception, it is stronger in some groups and places than others. For example, blacks (90%) are much more likely than Asians (77%), Latinos (72%), and whites (69%) to think this is true. Across regions, Los Angeles residents (80%) are the most likely to say this type of inequity exists, followed by residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (75%), Orange/San Diego (71%), the Central Valley (67%), and the Inland Empire (63%). Residents under age 35 are more likely than those age 55 or older to note disparities in school facilities (76% to 66%). There are no significant differences across income groups or residents with or without children. “Are low-income and minority neighborhoods more likely than other neighborhoods in your region to have school facilities that are in need of repair and replacement?” Yes No Don’t know All Adults 72% 21 7 Asians 77% 12 11 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos Whites 90% 72% 69% 9 20 24 187 Sixty-one percent of residents also say that low-income and minority neighborhoods in their regions are more likely than other neighborhoods to have roads and other infrastructure in need of repair and replacement, while 32 percent disagree. As with disparities in school facilities, a higher percentage of blacks (86%) than of Latinos (64%), Asians (63%), and whites (56%) believe poor, minority neighborhoods have bad roads and other transportation infrastructure. Sixty-seven percent of Los Angeles residents say these inequities exist, as do majorities in the San Francisco Bay Area (64%), Orange/San Diego (60%), Inland Empire (60%), and Central Valley (59%) regions. Residents under 35 years old are also more likely than those age 55 or older to note this inequity in infrastructure resources in their region (68% to 56%). There are no significant differences across income groups. “Do you think that low-income and minority neighborhoods are more likely than other neighborhoods in your region to have roads and other transportation infrastructure that are in need of repair and replacement?” Yes No Don’t know All Adults 61% 32 7 Asians 63% 24 13 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 86% 64% 13 31 15 Whites 56% 37 7 - 5 - August 2004 The Near Term Roads and Infrastructure Projects Californians are divided on the issue of state spending on roads and infrastructure projects: Half say they would rather pay higher taxes and have the state government spend more money for roads and other infrastructure projects; 43 percent say they would rather pay lower taxes and have the state government spend less money on these projects; and 8 percent are undecided. Among California adults who are most likely to vote in elections, 54 percent say they would rather pay higher taxes and have the state spend more money on infrastructure, and 39 percent would rather pay lower taxes and spend less on these projects. There is a clear partisan difference on the question of taxes and the state government’s role in infrastructure spending: A majority of Democrats (60%) and independents (52%) say they would rather pay higher taxes and spend more on infrastructure projects, while half of Republicans (50%) say they would rather pay lower taxes and have less money for roads and other infrastructure projects. Which of the following statements do you agree with more: I’d rather pay higher taxes and have the state government spend more money for roads and other infrastructure projects I’d rather pay lower taxes and have the state government spend less money for roads and other infrastructure projects Don't know All Adults 49% 43 8 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind Likely Voters 60% 42% 52% 54% 35 50 42 39 5 8 67 While majorities in the San Francisco Bay Area (53%), Los Angeles (51%), and the Inland Empire (54%) say they would rather pay higher taxes and have the state spend more on roads and infrastructure, fewer than half in the Central Valley (47%) and Orange/San Diego (44%) have this fiscal preference. Residents 55 years or older are somewhat more likely than residents under age 55 to prefer paying higher taxes and having the state government spend more on infrastructure (54% to 48%). Residents with household incomes of $40,000 and higher are more likely than those with lower incomes to say they would be willing to pay higher taxes (54% to 46%). The percentage who would make that choice also increases with education. A majority of whites (54%) say they would be willing to pay higher taxes for infrastructure, while majorities or pluralities of Asians (51%), blacks (49%), and Latinos (48%) say they would rather pay lower taxes and have the state spend less on roads and other infrastructure projects. Which of the following statements do you agree with more: I’d rather pay higher taxes and have the state government spend more money for roads and other infrastructure projects I’d rather pay lower taxes and have the state government spend less money for roads and other infrastructure projects Don't know All Adults 49% 43 8 Asians 40% 51 9 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 46% 46% 49 48 56 Whites 54% 39 7 Likely Voters 54% 39 7 -6- The Future Population Today and in 2025 Few Californians know the size of the state’s current population or how much it is likely to grow by the year 2025. There are currently about 35 million Californians. Yet only 5 percent of the state’s residents are aware of that, and only 16 percent think the current population is in the 30-to-39 million range. At the ends of the spectrum, 42 percent think the current population is less than 30 million, and 15 percent think it is higher than 40 million. Twenty-seven percent decline to hazard a guess. According to PPIC’s demographic projections, the state will have between 43 and 48 million residents by 2025. When asked how large they thought it would be, only 13 percent of residents put the population at 40-to-49 million in 2025. Nearly a third think it will be less than 30 million and 27 percent think it will be higher than 50 million. Twenty-six percent say they don’t know. “What do you think the state of California’s population is today—in millions?” and “Could you please tell me what you think the state of California’s population will be about 20 years from now—in millions?” Under 10 million 10-19 million 20-29 million 30-39 million 40-49 million Over 50 million Don't know California Population Today 16% 13 13 16 4 11 27 California Population 2025 8% 9 9 8 13 27 26 When told that the state will add 10 million residents between now and 2025, few Californians are positive about the implications: 59 percent say it will be a bad thing for them and their families; 23 percent say it won’t make any difference; and only 14 percent think it will be a good thing. Whites (66%) are the most likely and Latinos (46%) are the least likely to see the increase as a bad thing. However, pluralities across all political and demographic groups see it as bad. “Between now and 2025, California’s population is estimated to increase by 10 million people from 35 to 45 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?” Good thing Bad thing No difference Don’t know All Adults 14% 59 23 4 Asians 18% 54 23 5 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 11% 20% 58 46 26 30 54 Whites 12% 66 19 3 -7- The Future Most Important State Issue in 2025 Today’s greatest concerns seem to influence residents’ thinking about the future. The economy, jobs, and unemployment top their list of most important issues today—and their list of most important issues in 2025. Across the state, 24 percent of residents say this set of issues will be the most important in 2025; 10 percent or fewer mention other issues, including housing (10%), environment and pollution (8%), population growth and development (8%), water quality and availability (7%), and education (5%). Regions vary more in their concerns about issues other than the economy for 2025. Concern about the environment and pollution is higher in the San Francisco Bay Area (12%) than in other regions. Residents in Orange/San Diego (12%), the San Francisco Bay Area (11%), and Los Angeles (11%) are nearly twice as likely as Central Valley (6%) or Inland Empire (6%) residents to name housing costs and availability as the most important issue in 2025. Orange/San Diego residents (8%) are the most concerned about immigration in the future. On issues such as water quality and availability, education, traffic and crime, residents across regions express similar levels of concern. “What do you think will be the most important issue facing people in California in the year 2025?” (top six mentions) Economy, jobs, unemployment Housing costs, housing availability Environment, pollution Population growth and development Water quality and availability Education, schools All Adults 24% 10 8 8 7 5 Central Valley 24% 6 8 9 8 4 SF Bay Area 24% 11 12 8 7 7 Region Los Angeles 27% 11 6 8 5 5 Orange/ San Diego 24% 12 6 8 8 5 Inland Empire 22% 6 10 9 7 4 About one in three Asians (32%), blacks (33%), and Latinos (33%) say the economy, jobs, and unemployment will be the biggest issue facing California in 2025, compared to only 18 percent of whites. Asians (12%) and blacks (15%) are slightly more concerned than whites (10%) or Latinos (8%) about future housing costs and availability. Whites (11%) are much more likely than Asians (3%), blacks (3%) or Latinos (2%) to name water quality and availability as the most important issue in 2025. “What do you think will be the most important issue facing people in California in the year 2025?” (top six mentions) Economy, jobs, unemployment Housing costs, housing availability Environment, pollution Population growth and development Water quality and availability Education, schools All Adults 24% 10 8 8 7 5 Asians 32% 12 6 8 3 5 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 33% 33% 15 8 34 88 32 75 Whites 18% 10 11 8 11 5 -8- The Future State Outlook and Priorities for 2025 Overall, Californians are not greatly optimistic about the kind of place the state will be in 2025. Nearly half of all residents (49%) think the state will be a worse place to live in 2025 than now, 25 percent say it will be a better place, and 20 percent say there will be no change. These assessments are similar across the state’s regions—but not across population groups. Whites (57%) and blacks (49%) are much more likely than Latinos (39%) and Asians (34%) to think the state will be a worse place in 2025 than it is today. Residents with and without children at home are equally pessimistic, but negativity about the future increases slightly with education and income. Californians who now think the state is going in the wrong direction are more likely than those who think it is going in the right direction to say the state will be a worse place to live in 2025 (59% to 40%). Belief that the state will be worse in 2025 is higher among residents who think population growth and development (61%), water quality and availability (58%), and traffic (68%) will be the most important problems facing California in 2025 than among all adults (49%). “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 Worse place No change Don’t know All Adults 25% 49 20 6 Asians 31% 34 24 11 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 25% 31% 49 39 18 24 86 Whites 21% 57 17 5 When asked about the state’s most important priority in planning for growth between now and 2025, nearly two-thirds of residents choose jobs and the economy (34%) or the provision of roads, schools, and water systems (30%). Far fewer choose protecting the environment (16%) and creating a more equal society (9%). Those who volunteered other answers suggested priorities such as immigration, affordable housing, and education. As the table shows, planning priorities differ significantly across racial/ethnic groups. Whites are the least likely to mention improving jobs and the economy and creating a more equal society, and they are the most likely to mention roads and other infrastructure projects. The top priority for Asians, blacks, and Latinos is improving jobs and the economy. “In planning for the expected population growth between now and 2025, what do you think should be the state’s most important priority?” Improving jobs and the economy Providing roads, schools, water systems Protecting the environment Creating a more equal society Something else Don’t know All Adults 34% 30 16 9 9 2 Asians 47% 24 10 10 6 3 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 41% 37% 19 26 9 16 15 12 16 7 02 Whites 30% 35 17 6 10 2 - 9 - August 2004 The Future Overall Regional Outlook for 2025 Residents’ expectations about future quality of life in their regions are also relatively pessimistic. Nearly half think their region will be a worse place to live in 2025 than it is today, 18 percent think it will be a better place, and 33 percent think there will be no change. Across the state’s regions, pluralities say their part of California will be a worse place to live in 2025, but there are some differences on the other two dimensions. Orange/San Diego residents (38%) are the most likely and Inland Empire residents (24%) are the least likely to say their region will not change. Inland Empire residents are the most optimistic (24% better place) about the future of their region. “Do you think that in 2025 your part of 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 Worse place No change Don't know All Adults 18 46 33 3 Central Valley 20 50 28 2 SF Bay Area 16 45 34 5 Region Los Orange/ Angeles San Diego 17 15 46 44 33 38 43 Inland Empire 24 50 24 2 Once again, there are significant racial/ethnic differences. Whites are more pessimistic than other racial/ethnic groups: Fifty-two percent of whites say their part of California will be a worse place to live in 2025, compared to 30 percent of Asians, 45 percent of blacks, and 41 percent of Latinos. Asians (38%) are the most likely to say there will be no change in their area and also the most likely to say it will be a better place to live (25%) in 2025 than now. “Do you think that in 2025 your part of 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 Worse place No change Don’t know All Adults 18% 46 33 3 Asians 25% 30 38 7 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 21% 22% 45 41 33 32 15 Whites 14% 52 32 2 There are no significant differences in outlook across age categories, between residents with and without children at home, or between those who have lived in their current homes five years or more and those who have lived there for less time. All these groups are nearly evenly divided on the future outlook of their region, with about half saying it will be a worse place to live in 2025, a quarter saying it will be a better place, and about a third saying there will be no change. - 10 - The Future Regional Conditions in 2025: The Economy and Education California residents are evenly split on whether the public education system in their region will improve or get worse (45% improve; 46% get worse) and about the outlook for job opportunities and economic conditions (44% improve; 47% get worse) in 2025. Across regions, residents of the Inland Empire are the most optimistic about the future of the public education system in their region (52% improve). San Francisco Bay Area residents are the most pessimistic (51% get worse). Inland Empire residents are also the most optimistic when it comes to the future of job opportunities and economic conditions (53% improve). In other regions, except Los Angeles, residents split fairly evenly on this question. There, 51 percent believe the economy will get worse; 40 percent think it will improve. Please tell me which is more likely to happen in your part of California The public education system will … Job opportunities and economic conditions will … Improve Get worse Improve Get worse All Adults 45% 46 44 47 Central Valley 46% 46 46 48 SF Bay Area 39% 51 46 44 Region Los Orange/ Inland Angeles San Diego Empire 47% 45 43% 48 52% 40 40 43 53 51 47 41 There are significant differences across racial/ethnic groups. Only among Latinos does a majority (55%) believe that public education in their part of California will improve. In contrast, a majority of blacks (56%) and whites (51%) and a plurality of Asians (44%) say it will get worse. As for future job opportunities and economic conditions, majorities of blacks (59%) and Latinos (52%) believe things will get worse, while pluralities of whites (47%) and Asians (45%) say they will get better. Please tell me which is more likely to happen in your part of California The public education system will … Improve Get worse Job opportunities and Improve economic conditions will … Get worse All Adults 45% 46 44 47 Asians 36% 44 45 34 Race/Ethnicity Blacks 38% 56 38 59 Latinos 55% 34 41 52 Whites 43% 51 47 45 Non-citizens in the state have a more positive outlook than U.S.-born residents when it comes to the future of schools in their region. A majority of non-citizens (51%) say public education will improve, while a majority of U.S.-born residents (50%) say schools will get worse. Pessimism about the future of schools also increases with income and education. However, when it comes to the public’s outlook on the economy and jobs, residents with higher income and higher levels of education are more likely to believe conditions will improve in 20 years. Across age groups, those 18 to 34 years old (49%) are the most likely to say the public school system will improve, while Californians of all ages are nearly evenly split on whether the economy and jobs will improve or get worse. - 11 - August 2004 The Future Regional Pessimism About 2025 As for air quality, overall, 69 percent of residents think air quality will be worse by 2025; 23 percent think it will improve. Central Valley residents are the most negative: Seventy-nine percent see worse air quality in the region; only 16 percent expect improvement. Inland Empire residents (74%) are the next most pessimistic, followed by Los Angeles (71%) and San Francisco Bay Area and Orange/San Diego residents (65% each). Large majorities of state residents say the availability of affordable housing (78%) and traffic conditions (81%) will get worse in their part of California between now and the year 2025. This is consistent with the large proportion of residents who rate these two issues as big problems in their part of California today. Perceptions of increasing problems with traffic congestion and housing affordability do not vary much within the state: About eight in 10 hold a pessimistic view across the five major regions. Please tell me which is more likely to happen in your part of California The air quality will … The availability of affordable housing will … Traffic conditions on freeways and major roads will … Improve Get worse Improve Get worse Improve Get worse All Adults 23% 69 18 78 15 81 Central Valley 16% 79 17 80 11 86 SF Bay Area 26% 65 14 80 18 77 Region Los Angeles 24% 71 18 78 14 83 Orange/ San Diego 27% 65 16 79 14 82 Inland Empire 21% 74 23 73 17 82 Large majorities in all racial/ethnic groups think air quality in their part of the state will get worse, but that belief is slightly higher among blacks (75%) and Latinos (74%) than among whites (67%) and Asians (64%). Large majorities are also relatively pessimistic about the future of affordable housing. Eight in ten blacks, Latinos, and whites and seven in ten Asians say the availability of affordable housing will get worse over the next 20 years. All groups are also negative about the future of traffic conditions. About eight in 10 whites and blacks and three in four Latinos and Asians say traffic conditions on freeways and major roads will get worse by 2025. Please tell me which is more likely to happen in your part of California All Adults The air quality will … Improve Get worse 23% 69 The availability of Improve affordable housing will… Get worse Traffic conditions on freeways and major roads will … Improve Get worse 18 78 15 81 Asians 22% 64 19 70 16 74 Race/Ethnicity Blacks 20% 75 20 79 20 79 Latinos 20% 74 18 78 21 75 Whites 25% 67 16 79 11 86 While large majorities of residents in all demographic groups think that air quality will get worse by 2025, there are some significant differences. For example, younger residents (18 to 34 years old) are more likely than older residents to say air quality will get worse (76% to 65%). In the case of affordable housing and traffic conditions, pessimism increases with income and education. - 12 - Governance and Policy Options Infrastructure Priorities Californians can readily identify their top priorities for infrastructure funding as the state prepares for the population growth expected by 2025—even though they are not all that familiar with the term “infrastructure.” When read a list of public works projects, most Californians (85%) name school facilities, surface transportation, and water systems as their top priorities. Overall, 40 percent think school facilities should have top priority, 24 percent pick surface transportation systems, and 21 percent pick water systems. Among racial/ethnic groups, blacks (58%), Latinos (48%), and Asians (41%) are more likely than whites to name school facilities as the top priority. For whites, priority is more evenly divided among schools (35%), surface transportation (29%), and water systems (24%). Across partisan affiliation, Democrats (44%) and independents (43%) are more likely than Republicans (32%) to favor school facilities. In fact, Republican priorities are almost equally split between surface transportation (30%) and school facilities (32%). The preference for school facilities also differs across other groups. Half of those 18 to 34 years old give top priority to school facilities, compared to only a quarter of those age 55 and older. Conversely, residents 55 years old or older are more likely than those under age 35 to think water systems should be the state’s top priority (33% to 16%). About half of Californians with children in the household choose school facilities, while those without children show significantly less support (34%). Among Californians who think that education and schools are the most important problem facing state residents today, 59 percent choose school facilities as their top priority. Among those who think schools and education will be the most important problem in 2025, 58 percent named school facilities as the top infrastructure project in planning for population growth. This readiness to choose priorities is unhindered by Californians lack of familiarity with “infrastructure” as a term. Only 26 percent of all residents say they know a lot about the term; 39 percent claim to know a little about it, and 27 percent say they have never heard of it. Registered voters (30%) and likely voters (35%) are more likely than all residents to claim they know a lot about the term infrastructure. Familiarity with it tends to increase sharply with age, education, and income; and whites (33%) are more likely than blacks (23%), Asians (22%), and Latinos (11%) to claim a high level of knowledge. “Which of the following infrastructure projects do you think should have the top priority for public funding as your part of California gets ready for the population growth that is expected by 2025?” School facilities Surface transportation Water systems Sewer systems Airports Something else Don't know All Adults 40% 24 21 5 2 5 3 Central Valley 41% 21 24 5 3 4 2 SF Bay Area 46% 25 18 3 1 5 2 Region Los Angeles 39% 26 19 6 3 4 3 Orange/ San Diego 38% 24 22 5 3 5 3 Inland Empire 37% 25 24 5 2 5 2 - 13 - Governance and Policy Options Surface Transportation Priorities Californians are not of one mind when it comes to which type of surface transportation should have the top funding priority as their part of the state gets ready for the growth expected by 2025. Forty-nine percent opt for road-oriented projects, including freeways and highways (32%), local streets and roads (10%), and carpool lanes (7%). Forty-four percent choose transit-oriented solutions, including light rail systems (31%) and public bus systems (13%). There are large regional differences in preferences for freeways and highways or a light rail system. Pluralities of Orange/San Diego (38%) and Inland Empire (37%) residents prefer freeways and highways, while pluralities of San Francisco Bay Area (38%) and Central Valley (34%) residents prefer light rail systems. Los Angeles residents are evenly divided between these two projects. Overall, a narrow plurality of Californians who live in urban areas would prefer funding for light rail (32%), while a similarly small plurality of suburban residents prefer spending on highways and roads (34%). “What type of surface transportation project do you think should have the top priority for public funding as your part of California gets ready for the growth that is expected by 2025?” All Adults Freeways and highways Light rail system Public bus system Local streets and roads Carpool lanes Something else Don't know 32% 31 13 10 7 4 3 Central Valley 28% 34 12 12 5 6 3 SF Bay Area 26% 38 16 7 5 6 2 Region Los Angeles 33% 31 12 11 9 3 1 Orange/ San Diego 38% 28 12 6 8 4 4 Inland Empire 37% 23 13 13 6 4 4 Transportation funding preferences also differ across racial/ethnic and political groups. For example, whites (39%) are much more likely than Asians (28%), blacks (24%), and Latinos (16%) to give funding priority to light rail. Twenty-one percent of blacks, 19 percent of Latinos, and 16 percent of Asians think that the public bus system should have the top priority for public funding. Among political groups, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to prefer public funding for freeways and highways (41% to 26%). Conversely, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to prefer funding a light rail system (38% to 30%). All Adults Freeways and highways Light rail system Public bus system Local streets and roads Carpool lanes Something else Don't know 32% 31 13 10 7 4 3 Asians 34% 28 16 4 10 4 4 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 30% 30% 24 16 21 19 12 15 7 12 52 16 Whites 33% 39 9 8 4 5 2 - 14 - Governance and Policy Options Tradeoffs for Transportation and School Facilities Californians’ top infrastructure priorities—whether school facilities, surface transportation, or water systems—require that the state make choices about how to spend money on new construction and how to manage the current systems to accommodate population growth. Therefore, we asked a series of “tradeoff” questions to understand how Californians think about the state’s planning issues. In each question, respondents were asked to choose a preferred strategy to address top priorities for infrastructure projects. There is considerable agreement about whether the state should focus on building more freeways and highways or focus on expanding mass transit and making more efficient use of existing freeways and highways. Two in three residents (67%) choose expanding mass transit and more efficient use. Majorities across the state’s regions think we should focus on expanding mass transit and using existing roads more efficiently, but support for this side of the tradeoff is much higher in the San Francisco Bay Area (75%) than elsewhere. Support for new freeways and highways is highest in the Inland Empire, where 38 percent of residents think new roads are critical in planning for 2025. Preference for transit does not vary significantly across racial/ethnic groups(Asians 65%; blacks 68%; Latinos 61%; whites 70%). Among political groups, however, Democrats (73%) expressed more support than Republicans (59%) for transit. “Which statement is closest to your views about planning for 2025 in your part of California…?” All Adults We should focus on expanding mass transit and more efficient use of freeways and highways We should focus on building more freeways and highways Don't know 67% 30 3 Central SF Bay Valley Area 66% 75% 31 23 32 Region Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego 64% 66% 33 32 32 Inland Empire 59% 38 3 When asked to choose between two policy options for preparing the state’s education system for 2025, a majority of Californians (55%) think we should focus on strategies to use existing public education facilities more efficiently. Forty-two percent of residents instead think we should focus on building more schools and universities. Whites (36%) and Asians (38%) are less likely than Latinos (52%) and blacks (47%) to support new school construction. Across the state’s major regions, the preference for more building is lowest in the San Francisco Bay Area (34%). Democrats (40%) and Republicans (36%) express similar support for more building. “Which statement is closest to your views about planning for 2025 in your part of California…?” We should focus on repairs and renovation, year-round schools, and other strategies to more efficiently use the existing public education facilities We should focus on building more public schools and universities Don't know All Central Adults Valley 55% 52% 42 45 33 SF Bay Area Region Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire 62% 52% 52% 52% 34 45 43 42 46 62 - 15 - August 2004 Governance and Policy Options Tradeoffs for Water Systems As in the other two infrastructure policy domains, Californians prefer demand management strategies rather than new construction projects for water systems. Fifty-five percent prefer strategies that promote more efficient use of the current water supply, while 41 percent would rather build new water storage systems and increase the water supply. The San Francisco Bay Area is again the region with the highest support for the increased efficiency side of the tradeoff (62%); support for new water storage systems is highest in the Inland Empire (47%). Younger are more likely than older Californians to support efficient-use strategies for water: Sixty percent of 18 to 34 year-olds prefer more efficient use of existing supplies, compared to 50 percent of those 55 and older. Across all racial/ethnic groups, majorities prefer water conservation over new water systems (Asians 61%; blacks 53%; Latinos 58%; whites 53%). On this issue, there are strong partisan differences: Most Democrats (58%) favor water conservation; most Republicans (51%) support building new systems. “Which statement comes closest to your views about planning for 2025 in your part of California…?” We should focus on water conservation, user allocation, pricing, and other strategies to more efficiently use the current water supply We should focus on building new water storage systems and increasing the water supply Don't know All Adults 55% 41 4 Central Valley 53% 43 4 SF Bay Area 62% 33 5 Region Los Orange/ Angeles San Diego 55% 51% 41 45 44 Inland Empire 51% 47 2 Tradeoffs for Land Use Planning When asked about the role of state government in local land use planning, 57 percent of all Californians believe state government should provide guidelines for local land use and development rather than not being involved. As for regional differences, Los Angeles residents are somewhat more likely than those elsewhere to support this role for state government. Political party affiliation also divides public opinion on this issue: Democrats are significantly more likely than Republicans to think state government guidelines are a good idea (62% to 43%). Majorities in all racial/ethnic groups support state government guidelines (Asians 64%; blacks 63%; Latinos 62%; whites 53%). Support for state land use guidelines declines somewhat with age and income. Renters are somewhat more likely than homeowners to favor state growth guidelines (62% to 53%). “Please tell me which statement comes closer to your views…?” The state government should provide guidelines for local land use and development The state government should not be involved in local land use and development Don't know All Adults Central Valley SF Bay Area Region Los Orange/ Angeles San Diego Inland Empire 57% 51% 59% 63% 53% 60% 37 43 36 31 40 37 66 5 6 7 3 - 16 - Governance and Policy Options Tradeoffs for Growth Decisionmaking Californians have strong opinions about whether and how local governments should work together. Nearly eight in 10 (77%) prefer that local governments work together and have a common regional plan, rather than working independently and having individual local plans (20%). Sizeable majorities in each of the state’s major regions opt for collaborative arrangements. Democrats (81%), independents (80%), and Republicans (71%) strongly support collaboration. Public consensus on the importance of regional collaboration among local governments is also uniform across all age, race, and education groups. “Please tell me 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 Central Valley 78% 19 3 SF Bay Area Region Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire 82% 78% 74% 78% 16 20 23 20 22 3 2 When residents are asked who should be making important decisions on growth issues in their parts of California, however, representative government is not the top choice. A large majority of residents (73%) say local voters should be making those decisions at the ballot box. Only 23 percent think that local elected officials should provide leadership and make the most important decisions. Large majorities across the state prefer direct democracy over representative government in making growth policies. However, support for ballot box decisionmaking is higher in Orange/San Diego (77%) and the Inland Empire (74%) than it is in the San Francisco Bay Area (66%). A slightly higher percentage of females (76%) than males (69%) prefer that local voters make the most important decisions. Among racial/ethnic groups, 81 percent of blacks, 73 percent of Asians and whites, and 71 percent of Latinos think that local voters should be making the important decisions at the ballot box. There are no significant differences among Democrats (73%), Republicans (77%), and independents (75%). Preference for ballot box decisionmaking increases somewhat with education and income but is unrelated to age. “Please tell me which statement comes closer to your views…?” All Adults Local voters should make the important decisions at the ballot box Local elected officials should provide leadership and make the most important decisions Don't know 73% 23 4 Central Valley 76% 21 3 SF Bay Area Region Los Orange/ Angeles San Diego Inland Empire 66% 73% 77% 74% 30 22 22 22 45 1 4 - 17 - August 2004 Governance and Policy Options Confidence in State and Local Government A lack of confidence in government is also evident when residents are asked to rate their state and local governments on planning for future growth. Only 12 percent have a great deal of confidence that the state government can plan effectively, 46 percent only some confidence, and 40 percent have very little or no confidence at all. Across the state, Inland Empire residents are the most likely (18%) and San Francisco Bay Area residents are the least likely (7%) to express a great deal of confidence in state government planning. The percentage of residents having a great deal of confidence is similar in the Los Angeles (14%), Central Valley (12%), and Orange/San Diego (12%) regions. There are no differences by age in views of state government’s planning ability, but confidence is higher among those with at least some college education and higher income. Those who approve of the governor’s and the legislature’s job performance are more likely than those who don’t to say they have a great deal of confidence in the state government’s ability to plan for the future. “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 None at all Don't know All Adults 12% 46 31 9 2 Central Valley 12% 48 30 8 2 SF Bay Area 7% 45 36 11 1 Region Los Angeles 14% 46 30 8 2 Orange/ San Diego 12% 47 31 9 1 Inland Empire 18% 42 29 8 3 Californians’ confidence in their local governments’ ability to plan for the future in their region is similar to their confidence in state government on that dimension. Fifteen percent of Californians say they have a great deal of confidence in their local governments to plan for the future. Residents of Los Angeles (17%), the Inland Empire (16%), and the Central Valley (16%) are more likely than residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (12%) and Orange/San Diego (11%) regions to express a great deal of confidence in local government. The percentage who have a great deal of confidence in local governments’ ability is higher among Latinos (19%) than among whites, blacks, and Asians (all 13%). Across other demographic groups, fewer than one in five adults have a high degree of confidence in their local governments’ ability to plan for growth. “How much confidence do you have in your local governments’ abilities to plan for growth and the future in your region?” A great deal Only some Very little None at all Don't know All Adults 15% 47 28 8 2 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 13% 15% 10% 53 49 44 25 26 31 7 9 14 211 Likely Voters 13% 52 27 8 0 - 18 - Governance and Policy Options Governor’s and Legislature’s Approval Ratings Californians’ lack of confidence in the state’s ability to plan for the future is less consistent with their ratings of the governor than of the legislature on this issue. Fifty-five percent approve of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling plans and policies for California’s future, while three in 10 disapprove. Among political groups, 82 percent of Republicans, 56 percent of independents, and 46 percent of Democrats approve of Schwarzenegger’s plans for the future. The San Francisco Bay Area is the only region in which fewer than half (48%) of the residents approve of his plans. There are sizeable racial/ethnic differences. Whites (65%) and Asians (58%) are much more likely than blacks (44%) and Latinos (38%) to approve of the plans. The governor’s approval ratings on this dimension increase with age, education, and income. “Do you approve of disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling plans and policies for California’s future?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 55% 30 15 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 46% 82% 56% 39 8 31 15 10 13 Likely Voters 61% 26 13 Californians are much less likely to approve of how the state legislature is handling plans and policies for California’s future. Overall, 35 percent of state residents approve and 47 percent disapprove. A majority of likely voters disapprove (54%). As with the governor, the legislature’s overall job performance ratings are higher than its ratings on planning for the future (40% approve and 44% disapprove). Partisan differences in the legislature’s approval ratings on this issue are insignificant: Thirty-four percent of Democrats, 32 percent Republicans, and 30 percent of independents express their support for the legislature’s plans. Also as with the governor, San Francisco Bay Area residents give the legislature lower approval ratings (30%) than do residents of Orange/San Diego (38%), the Inland Empire (38%), Los Angeles (36%), and the Central Valley (35%). Among Latinos, 46 percent approve of the legislature’s plans, compared to 31 percent, each, of Asians, blacks, and whites. Overall, approval of the legislature’s plans and policies for the future decreases with age, education, and income. “Do you approve or disapprove of the way the California legislature is handling plans and policies for California’s future?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 35% 47 18 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 34% 32% 30% 48 52 53 18 16 17 Likely Voters 30% 54 16 - 19 - August 2004 Governance and Policy Options Local Tax increases A majority of Californians (60%) and California likely voters (67%) think local government does not have adequate funding for roads, school facilities, and other infrastructure projects. Democrats (70%) are somewhat more likely than Republicans (62%) to have this perception. Majorities across regions agree, but San Francisco Bay Area residents (66%) are most likely and Los Angeles residents are least likely (56%) to say that local government does not have adequate funding. Whites (67%) and people with incomes over $40,000 (66%) and college education (68%) are more likely than members of other racial/ethnic groups and people with lower incomes and less education to see local funding as inadequate. “Do you think local government does or does not have adequate funding for the roads, school facilities, and other infrastructure projects that are needed to prepare for future growth in your part of California?” Does have adequate funding Does not have adequate funding Don't know All Adults 33% 60 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 25% 32% 33% 70 62 61 566 Likely Voters 28% 67 5 Among likely voters, 66 percent would vote yes on a measure to increase the local sales tax for roads and public transit projects by one half-cent for 20 years; 31 percent would vote no. In California, such local special taxes require a two-thirds vote to pass. Republicans (58%) would be less likely than Democrats (73%) and independents (70%) to vote yes. Latinos (76%) would be more likely than whites (66%) or Asians and blacks (both 59%) to approve it. Across regions, 66 percent or more of all adults and at least six in 10 likely voters would support this local sales tax increase. There are no significant differences across gender, age, or education groups or across regions on this issue. However, support declines at higher income levels. What is the relationship between public support for a local sales tax and public opinion about the roles and functioning of state and local government? In general, 84 percent of those respondents who say they would rather pay higher taxes and have the state government spend more money on roads and other infrastructure projects would vote yes on this measure. Among those who say local governments do not have adequate funding for roads, school facilities, and other infrastructure projects for future growth, 74 percent would vote yes on a measure to increase the local sales tax for roads and public transit projects, compared to 58 percent of those who say local governments have adequate funding. “What if there were a measure on your local ballot to increase the local sales tax for roads and public transit projects by one-half cent for 20 years—Would you vote yes or no?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 68% 29 3 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 73% 58% 70% 24 40 29 321 Likely Voters 66% 31 3 - 20 - Governance and Policy Options Resource Equity We reported above that 72 percent of Californians across the state agree that low-income and minority neighborhoods are more likely than other neighborhoods to have school facilities in need of replacement. However, residents are much more divided when asked whether they would support disproportionate funding for these neighborhoods to alleviate these deficiencies. Overall, 56 percent of California adults think that low-income and minority neighborhoods should receive more public funding for school facilities even if it means less funding for other school districts, but there are strong differences across racial/ethnic groups: Sixty-seven percent of both Latinos and blacks and 59 percent of Asians think that low-income and minority neighborhoods should receive more public funding for school facilities, but only 48 percent of whites agree. There are also major divisions along party lines: Sixty-two percent of Democrats are for the idea, compared to only 37 percent of Republicans. Majorities of residents in Los Angeles (64%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (60%) approve, but the percentages are lower in other regions. Among those who think low-income and minority neighborhoods are more likely than other neighborhoods in their region to have school facilities in need of repair, 67 percent think that these neighborhoods should receive more public funding even at the expense of other neighborhoods. “Should school districts in low-income and minority neighborhoods receive more public funding for school facilities even if it means less funding for other school districts?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 56% 38 6 Asians 59% 30 11 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 67% 28 5 67% 27 6 Whites 48% 46 6 When asked about roads and other transportation infrastructure, just under half (49%) of residents say disadvantaged neighborhoods should receive more public funding for roads and other transportation projects. Support for weighted funding is much higher among blacks (66%), Latinos (62%), and Asians (50%) than among whites (39%) and much higher among Democrats (55%) than among Republicans (33%). Los Angeles (57%) is the only region where more than half of residents think low-income neighborhoods should receive more funding. Among the 61 percent of residents who think low-income and minority neighborhoods are more likely than other neighborhoods in their region to have this problem, 65 percent agree that these neighborhoods should receive higher public funding even at the expense of others. “Should low-income and minority neighborhoods receive more public funding for roads and other transportation infrastructure even if it means less funding for projects in other neighborhoods?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 49% 44 7 Asians 50% 36 14 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 66% 62% 30 31 47 Whites 39% 54 7 - 21 - August 2004 Governance and Policy Options Civic Participation How engaged are Californians in planning for the future? One in eight say they have been involved a lot in discussions about the issues in planning for their part of California. However, 58 percent of Californians have been involved very little or not at all. There are significant participation differences across racial/ethnic groups. Seventeen percent of blacks and 14 percent of whites say they have discussed issues for the future, compared to 9 percent of Latinos and 3 percent of Asians. Californians with a college education, those with incomes over $40,000, and those who have lived in their current residence for more than five years are more likely than those with less education, income, and tenure to say they have been involved in such discussions. There are no significant differences among age groups, across regions, or between households with and without children. “How much have you been involved in discussions about the issues in planning for the future in your part of California?” A lot Only some Very little Not at all All Adults 12% 30 32 26 Asians 3% 31 34 32 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 17% 28 9% 22 33 33 22 36 Whites 14% 34 31 21 But how involved would Californians like to be in discussions about the future? In general, more than they are today. Overall, 25 percent would like to be involved a lot. However, 41 percent would like only some involvement; and 32 percent say they would like to be involved very little or not at all. Of those who have been involved very little or not at all, only 13 percent say they would like to be involved a lot. Among racial/ethnic groups, blacks (35%) are the most interested and Asians (16%) are the least interested in being involved a lot in discussions of the future. Male residents, Californians with college education, under 55 years of age, and with children at home are more likely than females, those with less than a college degree, those age 55 or older, and those with no children at home to say they would like to be involved a lot. Those respondents who have little or no confidence in their local governments’ ability to plan for the future and who think the state is going in the wrong direction are more likely to say they want to be more involved in discussions about the future. There are no significant variations across regions or partisan differences. “How much would you like to be involved in discussions about the issues in planning for the future in your part of California?” A lot Only some Very little Not at all Don't know All Adults 25% 41 20 12 2 Asians 16% 45 27 11 1 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 35% 27% 40 35 16 22 8 16 10 Whites 23% 45 20 11 1 - 22 - Survey Methodology The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, research director at the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance in research and writing from Jon Cohen, associate survey director, Eliana Kaimowitz and Renatta DeFever, survey research associates, and Kimberly Curry, survey summer intern. The survey was conducted with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and it benefited from discussions with Hewlett staff and grantees and PPIC’s research staff involved in the California 2025 project; however, the survey methods, questions, and content of the report were solely determined by Mark Baldassare. The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,506 California adult residents interviewed between May 24 and June 8, 2004. 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 telephone numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in California were eligible for calling. 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 by using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender. Each interview took an average of 19 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese. The languages other than English were selected because Spanish is the dominant non-English language in the state, and the three Asian languages account for most of the nonEnglish speaking Asian adults in California. Casa Hispana translated the survey into Spanish. Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. translated the survey into Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese and 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 2,506 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. The sampling error for the 1,868 registered voters is +/- 2.3 percent. The sampling error for the 1,284 likely voters 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 refer to five geographic regions. “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, “Inland Empire” includes Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, and “Orange/San Diego” refers to Orange and San Diego Counties. These five regions were chosen for analysis because they are the major population centers of the state, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. We present specific results for respondents in the four self-identified racial/ethnic groups of Asian, black, Latino, and white. We also compare the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The “independents” category includes only those who are registered to vote as “decline to state.” We also analyze the responses of “likely” voters who are the most likely to participate in the state’s elections. - 23 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: CALIFORNIA 2025 MAY 24—JUNE 8, 2004 2,506 CALIFORNIA ADULT RESIDENTS: ENGLISH, SPANISH, CHINESE, KOREAN, AND VIETNAMESE MARGIN OF ERROR +/- 2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. First, what is the most important issue facing people in California today? [open-ended list] 29% economy, jobs, unemployment 11 gasoline prices 10 state budget, deficit, taxes 8 education, schools 5 immigration, illegal immigration 4 health care, health costs 4 crime, gangs 4 housing costs, housing availability 3 war in Iraq, security, terrorism 15 other (specify) 7 don’t know 2. Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 44% right direction 44 wrong direction 12 don’t know 3. Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 41% good times 46 bad times 13 don’t know 4. On another topic, what do you think the state of California’s population is today—in millions? [open-ended list] 16% under 10 million 13 10-19 million 13 20-29 million 16 30-39 million 4 40-49 million 11 50 million or more 27 don’t know 5. 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? [open-ended list] 8% under 10 million 9 10-19 million 9 20-29 million 8 30-39 million 13 40-49 million 27 50 million or more 26 don’t know 6. Between now and 2025, California’s population is estimated to increase by 10 million people from 35 to 45 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 59 bad thing 23 no difference 4 don’t know 7. Thinking about the future, what do you think will be the most important issue facing people in California in the year 2025? [open-ended list] 24% economy, jobs, unemployment 10 housing costs, housing availability 8 environment, pollution 8 population growth and development 7 water quality and availability 5 education, schools 4 health care, health costs 4 immigration, illegal immigration 3 crime, gangs 2 state budget, deficit, taxes 16 other (specify) 9 don’t know - 25 - 8. 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 30 providing roads, schools, and water systems 16 protecting the environment 9 creating a more equal society 9 something else [specify] 2 don’t know 9. 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? 25% better place 49 worse place 20 no change 6 don’t know Next, we are interested in the region or broader geographic area of California that you live in. I am going to read you a list of problems that other people have told us about. For each one, please tell me if it is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your part of California today. [rotate questions 10 to 14] 10. How about traffic congestion on freeways and major roads? 63% big problem 26 somewhat of a problem 11 not a problem 11. How about the lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs? 42% big problem 37 somewhat of a problem 19 not a problem 2 don’t know 12. How about air pollution? 39% big problem 35 somewhat of a problem 26 not a problem 13. How about the availability of housing that you can afford? 67% big problem 21 somewhat of a problem 11 not a problem 1 don’t know 14. How about the quality of education in K through 12 public schools? 44% big problem 30 somewhat of a problem 22 not a problem 4 don’t know 15. Thinking about your part of California, do you think the population in the next 20 years will grow rapidly, grow slowly, stay about the same, or decline? 65% grow rapidly 22 grow slowly 9 stay about the same 2 decline 2 don’t know Looking ahead again to the year 2025, as I read each of the following pairs of statements, please tell me which is more likely to happen in your part of California. [rotate questions 16 to 20 and rotate statements]. 16. The public education system will improve. The public education system will get worse. 45% improve 46 get worse 4 neither, no change (volunteered) 5 don’t know 17. The air quality will improve. The air quality will get worse. 23% improve 69 get worse 6 neither, no change (volunteered) 2 don’t know 18. Job opportunities and economic conditions will improve. Job opportunities and economic conditions will get worse. 44% improve 47 get worse 4 neither, no change (volunteered) 5 don’t know 19. Traffic conditions on freeways and major roads will improve. Traffic conditions on freeways and major roads will get worse. 15% improve 81 get worse 2 neither, no change (volunteered) 1 don’t know - 26 - 20. The availability of affordable housing will improve. The availability of affordable housing will get worse. 18% improve 78 get worse 2 neither, no change (volunteered) 2 don’t know 21. Overall, do you think that in 2025 your part of 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? 18% better place 46 worse place 33 no change 3 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 questions 22 to 24 and rotate statements]. 22. Local governments should work together and have a common regional plan; [or] 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 23. The state government should provide guidelines for local land use and development; [or] The state government should not be involved in local land use and development. 57% state government should provide guidelines 37 state government should not be involved 6 don’t know 24. Local elected officials should provide leadership and make the most important decisions; [or] Local voters should make the important decisions at the ballot box. 73% local voters make decisions 23 local officials make decisions 4 don’t know 25. Next, I am going to ask you about a term that not everyone will have heard of. Have you heard about “infrastructure?” (if yes: “Do you know a lot or a little about the term infrastructure?”) 26% yes, a lot 39 yes, a little 6 yes, don’t know how much (volunteered) 27 no 2 don’t know 26. 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 your part of California gets ready for the population growth that is expected by 2025? [read rotated list, then ask: “or something else?”] 40% school facilities 24 surface transportation 21 water systems 5 sewer systems 2 airports 5 something else [specify] 3 don’t know 27. What type of surface transportation project do you think should have the top priority for public funding as your part of California gets ready for the growth that is expected by 2025? [read rotated list, then ask: “or something else?”] 32% freeways and highways 31 light rail system 13 public bus system 10 local streets and roads 7 carpool lanes 4 something else [specify] 3 don’t know 28. In general, how important is the condition of the roads and infrastructure to the quality of life and economic vitality in your region— very important, somewhat important, or not important? 68% very important 29 somewhat important 2 not important 1 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 29 to 31 and rotate statements] 29. We should focus on building more freeways and highways; [or] We should focus on expanding mass transit and using carpool lanes, pricing, and other strategies to more efficiently use the existing freeways and highways. 67% expanding mass transit and more efficient use of freeways and highways 30 building more freeways and roads 3 don’t know - 27 - August 2004 30. We should focus on building new water storage systems and increasing the water supply; [or] We should focus on water conservation, user allocation, pricing, and other strategies to more efficiently use the current water supply. 55% more efficiently use the current water supply 41 building new water storage systems 4 don’t know 31. We should focus on building more public schools and universities; [or] We should focus on repairs and renovation, year-round schools, and other strategies to more efficiently use the existing public education facilities. 55% focus on more efficient use 42 focus on building more public schools and universities 3 don’t know 32. Changing topics, which level of government should have the primary responsibility for planning for 2025, such as roads and other infrastructure in your part of California? [read rotated list] 34% state government 20 a regional governing body 19 county government 13 city government 9 federal government 1 other (specify) 4 don’t know [rotate questions 33 and 34] 33. In general, which of the following statements do you agree with more—[rotate] I’d rather pay higher taxes and have the state government spend more money on roads and other infrastructure projects; [or] I’d rather pay lower taxes and have the state government spend less money on roads and other infrastructure projects? 49% higher taxes and more money for roads and other infrastructure 43 lower taxes and less money for roads and other infrastructure 8 don’t know 34. Overall, do you think local government does or does not have adequate funding for the roads, school facilities, and other infrastructure projects that are needed to prepare for future growth in your part of California? 33% have adequate funding 60 does not have adequate funding 7 don’t know [rotate questions 35 and 36] 35. What if there were a measure on your local ballot to increase the local sales tax for roads and public transit projects by one-half cent for 20 years? Would you vote yes or no? 68% yes 29 no 3 don’t know 36. Suppose your local school district had a 20-year bond measure on your local ballot to pay for school construction and renovation projects. Would you vote yes or no? 72% yes 23 no 5 don’t know [rotate questions 37/37a and 38/38a as pairs] 37. Are low-income and minority neighborhoods more likely than other neighborhoods in your region to have school facilities that are in need of repair and replacement? 72% yes 21 no 7 don’t know 37a.Should school districts in low-income and minority neighborhoods receive more public funding for school facilities even if it means less funding for other school districts? 56% yes 38 no 6 don’t know 38. Do you think that low-income and minority neighborhoods are more likely than other neighborhoods in your region to have roads and other transportation infrastructure that are in need of repair and replacement? 61% yes 32 no 7 don’t know 38a.Should low-income and minority neighborhoods receive more public funding for roads and other transportation infrastructure even if it means less funding for projects in other neighborhoods? 49% yes 44 no 7 don’t know - 28 - [rotate questions 39 and 40] 39. 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% a great deal 46 only some 31 very little 9 none at all 2 don’t know 40. How much confidence do you have in your local governments’ abilities to plan for growth and the future in your region—a great deal, only some, very little, or none at all? 15% a great deal 47 only some 28 very little 8 none at all 2 don’t know 41. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 60% approve 29 disapprove 11 don’t know 42. Overall, from what you know, do you approve of disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling plans and policies for California’s future? 55% approve 30 disapprove 15 don’t know 43. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the job the California legislature is doing at this time? 40% approve 44 disapprove 6 don’t know 44. Overall, from what you know, do you approve of disapprove of the way the California legislature is handling plans and policies for California’s future? 35% approve 47 disapprove 18 don’t know 45. How much have you been involved in discussions about the issues in planning for the future in your part of California —a lot, only some, very little, or not at all? 12% a lot 30 only some 32 very little 26 not at all - 29 - 46. And how much would you like to be involved in discussions about the issues in planning for the future in your part of California—a lot, only some, very little, or not at all? 25% a lot 41 only some 20 very little 12 not at all 2 don’t know 47. On another topic, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? 75% yes [ask q47a] 25 no [skip to 48a] 47a.Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 43% Democrat [ask q48b] 34 Republican [ask q48c] 5 another party [specify] [skip to q49] 18 independent [ask q48a] 48a.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 26% Republican party 38 Democratic party 25 neither 11 don’t know [go to q49] 48b.Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 57% strong 41 not very strong 2 don’t know [go to q49] 48c.Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 59% strong 38 not very strong 3 don’t know 49. On another topic, would you consider yourself to be politically: [rotate order] 11% very liberal 21 somewhat liberal 28 middle-of-the-road 24 somewhat conservative 12 very conservative 4 don’t know August 2004 50. Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics—a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or none? 26% great deal 38 fair amount 27 only a little 1 none 51. How often would you say you vote—always, nearly always, part of the time, seldom, or never? 48% always 19 nearly always 9 part of the time 5 seldom 18 never 1 don’t know [52-62: demographic questions] - 30 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY Advisory Committee Mitchel Benson Director of Communications California Treasurer Phil Angelides Angela Blackwell President 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 Matt Fong Chairman Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Advisory Committee 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 CEO The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Monica Lozano Publisher and CEO La Opinión Donna Lucas Deputy Chief of Staff Office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Max Neiman Professor Political Science Department University of California, Riverside 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 - 31 - PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company 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 David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Vilma S. Martinez Partner Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Thomas C. Sutton Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Advisory Council Mary C. Daly Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Clifford W. Graves General Manager Department of Community Development City of Los Angeles 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 Norman R. King Executive Director San Bernardino Associated Governments Daniel A. Mazmanian C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California 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 info@ppic.org" } ["___content":protected]=> string(102) "

S 804MBS

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(122) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-special-survey-on-californians-and-the-future-august-2004/s_804mbs/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8422) ["ID"]=> int(8422) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:37:30" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3622) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(8) "S 804MBS" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(8) "s_804mbs" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "S_804MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1482107" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(101605) "PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY AUGUST 2004 Public Policy Institute of California Special Survey on Californians and the Future ○○○○○ 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, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. 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 parties or candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Preface 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. Started in April 1998, the survey series has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 98,000 Californians. The current survey is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey series, conducted as part of the PPIC California 2025 project, with funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. This institute-wide project consists of a detailed study of California’s future, including public opinion, population and economic projections, infrastructure needs, public finance and governance challenges, and social equity issues in planning for growth and change. The major goals of the California 2025 project include (1) getting the public and policy leaders “on the same page” about what California will look like in 2025, (2) identifying the big political challenges to the public's acceptance of change, and (3) making California’s future a policy focus of the 2006 statewide election. The State of California faces unprecedented growth-related challenges that could seriously erode quality of life over the next two decades. Between now and 2025, California’s population is expected to grow by 10 million residents, with a shift in the regional balance and racial/ethnic groups. Yet previous studies indicate that the public is largely unaware of the dimensions of this population growth and its potential implications for roads, school facilities, and other infrastructure projects. At the same time, political paralysis over more immediate problems, such as the state’s persistent budget gap between spending and revenues, is leading policymakers to postpone critical discussions about California's future. This public opinion survey seeks to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussions about current conditions in California, future projections concerning growth and its effects on the state, and the governance and policy options possible in response to the expected growth and change. This report presents the responses of 2,506 adult residents on a wide range of issues: • The near term, including the most important issue facing people in California; overall direction of the state and its economy; perceptions of regional conditions such as traffic, housing, air pollution, employment opportunities, and the quality of public education; perceptions of local conditions; and general perceptions of roads and other infrastructure. • The state’s future conditions, including awareness of current population and population projections for 2025; most important state issue in 2025; state outlook and priorities for 2025; and perceptions of specific and overall regional conditions in 2025. • Governance and policy options, including infrastructure and transportation priorities; confidence in state government; approval of the state’s elected officials; and willingness to consider tradeoffs, increase taxes, consider equity issues, and increase civic participation. • The extent to which Californians may differ with regard to near- term and future perceptions and governance and policy options across the five major regions of the state (Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, Orange/San Diego, Inland Empire), and differences by race/ethnicity (Asian, black, Latino, white), political party affiliation, and demographics. This is the 48th in the PPIC Statewide Survey series, which has included a number of special surveys on the Central Valley, Orange County, Los Angeles County, San Diego County, Population Growth, Land Use, Environment, and the State Budget. 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. -i- - ii - Contents Preface Press Release The Near Term The Future Governance and Policy Options Survey Methodology Survey Questions and Results i v 1 7 13 23 25 - iii - Press Release Para ver este comunicado de prensa en español, por favor visite nuestra página de internet: http://www.ppic.org/main/pressreleaseindex.asp SPECIAL SURVEY ON CALIFORNIANS AND THE FUTURE LITTLE KNOWLEDGE, BIG WORRIES ABOUT STATE’S FUTURE Californians Pessimistic About Growth and Its Consequences, Seek Greater Role in Planning SAN FRANCISCO, California, August 5, 2004 — When Californians start thinking about tomorrow, it leaves them wishing yesterday wasn’t gone. Although few have a grasp of the numbers, residents are still deeply concerned about the effects of future growth – from gridlock to environmental degradation – on the quality of life in the Golden State, according to a survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). Distrustful of state and local government, they seek a greater role for themselves – at the ballot box and through other forms of civic participation – in planning for California’s future. In this large-scale survey about California’s future, 2,506 Californians were interviewed in five languages (English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese). Between now and 2025, the state’s population is expected to grow from 35 million to between 43 and 48 million. However, few Californians are aware of the dimensions of the population growth facing the state – perhaps because they have a difficult time putting it in perspective: Only 16 percent place the state’s current population in the 30 to 39 million range and a mere 13 percent put the population at 40 to 49 million in twenty years. How do they feel about this population increase when told about it? Fifty-nine percent say it will be a bad thing for them and their families, and only 14 percent think it will be a good thing. Pluralities across all political and demographic groups see this growth as a negative, but whites (66%) are the most likely and Latinos (46%) the least likely to see the increase as a bad thing. “As a state, we are pretty clueless about our future prospects, and this lack of knowledge breeds pessimism,” says PPIC Statewide Survey Director Mark Baldassare. Nearly half of all residents (49%) think it will be a worse place to live two decades from now, and only 25 percent say it will be a better place. However, whites (57%) and blacks (49%) are far more likely than Latinos (39%) and Asians (34%) to think the state will be a worse place to live in the future. Residents’ expectations about future quality of life in their regions are also decidedly gloomy. Nearly half think their part of the state will be a worse place to live in 2025 than it is today, and only 18 percent say it will be a better place. Central Valley residents are the most pessimistic and residents of the Inland Empire (Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) the most optimistic about the future of their regions. From Bad to Worse? Residents See Current Problems, Future Crises Without more information to go on, today’s greatest concerns and problems seem to influence Californians’ thinking about the future. The economy, jobs, and unemployment top their list of most important issues today – and their list of most important issues in 2025. Across the state, 29 percent of residents say these issues are the most important facing the state today; 24 percent believe they will still be a top priority twenty years from now. On a regional level, state residents also expect that a number of existing, growth-related problems will be exacerbated in the future. Sixty-three percent of Californians call traffic congestion a big problem in their part of the state, and 81 percent expect it to worsen by 2025. Similarly, two-thirds of state residents (67%) view housing affordability as a big problem, and 78 percent think it will get worse over the years. And although -v- Press Release fewer residents (39%) see air pollution as a big issue in their region today, 69 percent believe the problem will grow in the next two decades. Residents of the Inland Empire are more optimistic than residents of other regions that the availability of affordable housing will improve, and San Francisco Bay Area residents are the least likely to believe that traffic conditions will worsen. Currently, about four in 10 Californians rate the quality of K-12 public schools (44%) and the lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs (42%) as big problems in their part of the state. As for the future, residents are evenly split on whether the public education system in their region will improve or get worse (45% improve; 46% get worse) and about the outlook for job opportunities and economic conditions (44%; 47%). Latinos (55%) are more likely than Asians (36%), blacks (38%), and whites (43%) to say that the public education system will improve. Blacks (59%) and Latinos (52%) are more concerned than Asians (34%) and whites (45%) that opportunities for well-paying jobs will worsen. Road to Future Not Paved with Good Planning, So Californians Seek a Role The general negativity about the future is also accompanied – and perhaps influenced – by a profound lack of confidence in government. Only 12 percent of Californians have a great deal of confidence that state government can plan effectively for future growth, and 46 percent have only some confidence. The exception? A majority (55%) approve of the way that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling plans and policies for the future. The state legislature doesn’t fare as well: Only 35 percent of Californians support how the lawmakers are handling planning for the future. Ratings are also low at the local level, with only 15 percent of state residents expressing a great deal of confidence in the ability of local governments to plan for the future. This distrust leads residents to an apparent conflict: Although 77 percent believe that local governments should work together to develop a common regional plan to accommodate growth, 73 percent of residents also believe that local voters – as opposed to local elected officials – should be making important decisions about growth issues. “The fact that local residents feel that they need to take planning into their own hands through the ballot box reflects the depth of their distrust – and of their concern,” says Baldassare. And while only 12 percent of Californians say they have been involved a lot in planning for their region’s future, 25 percent express interest in becoming actively involved. Blacks (35%) are the most interested and Asians (16%) the least interested in being involved a lot in discussions of the future. Concern about funding for infrastructure projects does trump distrust at the local level: 60 percent of Californians think local government does not have adequate funding for the roads, school facilities, and other projects that are needed to prepare for future growth. One solution? Residents (68%) overwhelmingly support the idea of a local ballot measure to raise the sales tax by one-half cent for 20 years in order to finance roads and public transit projects. At the state level, Californians are divided on the issue of spending for roads and infrastructure projects: Half say they would pay higher taxes and have the state government spend more; 43 percent say they prefer to pay lower taxes and see less spending. Is the Era of Big Infrastructure Projects Over? Californians name school facilities (40%), surface transportation (24%), and water systems (21%) as their top priorities for public works projects. However, residents are of less than one mind when it comes to which type of surface transportation should receive first priority for funding as their region plans for future population growth. Forty-nine percent opt for road-oriented projects, including freeways (32%), local streets and roads (10%), and carpool lanes (7%). Forty-four percent choose transit-oriented solutions, including light rail systems (31%) and public bus systems (13%). Whites (39%) are more likely than other groups to prefer light rail, while 21 percent of blacks would like to see public dollars fund bus systems. Californians’ top infrastructure priorities all require that the state make choices about how to spend money on new construction and how to manage current systems to accommodate population growth. Here, state residents - vi - Press Release are in general agreement, preferring in many cases to manage existing systems more efficiently rather than undertaking costly new projects: • Schools: A majority (55%) say their region should focus on using existing public education facilities more efficiently – through repairs and renovations, year-round schools, and other strategies – instead of building more public schools and universities (42%). • Transportation: Two in three residents (67%) prefer to focus on making more efficient use of freeways and highways and expanding mass transit instead of building new freeways (30%). • Water: A majority (55%) prefer demand management strategies – including conservation, user allocation, and pricing – rather than the construction of new water storage systems (41%). “The public will simply isn’t there for undertaking massive new infrastructure projects,” says Baldassare. “Realistic or not, the public wants to see more efficient and effective use of current systems.” Equity Is Seen as a Problem Most Californians think that low-income and minority neighborhoods in their regions are more likely than other communities to have poor public facilities: Majorities believe these neighborhoods are more likely to have schools (72%) and roads and other transportation infrastructure (61%) in need of repair and replacement. When it comes to addressing these inequities, however, a smaller majority (56%) say that school districts in poorer and minority communities should receive more public funding for facilities – even if it means less funding for other school districts. Residents are more divided when it comes to transportation: 49 percent would support disproportionate funding for roads and other transportation infrastructure in these neighborhoods, and 44 percent would not. In both cases, whites are less likely than other racial/ethnic groups to support higher funding for these neighborhoods at the expense of others. About the Survey This Special Survey on Californians and the Future was conducted as part of PPIC’s California 2025 project with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. This project seeks to raise awareness and encourage discussion about the growth-related challenges facing the state over the next two decades. Findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,506 California adult residents interviewed between May 24 and June 8, 2004. Interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2%. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. For more information on methodology, see page 23. 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. His recent book, A California State of Mind: The Conflicted Voter in a Changing World, is available at www.ppic.org. 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. This report will appear on PPIC’s website (www.ppic.org) on August 5. ### - vii - What do you think CA's population is today? 16 What do you think CA's population will be in 2025? 13 CA's population is expected to increase from 35 to 45 million by 2025. Is this a ____? 4 14 23 Percent all adults 84 87 30-39 million Other Percent all adults 40-49 million Other Percent who say the following problems will get worse in the future 100 90 81 78 80 69 70 60 50 47 46 40 30 20 10 0 Traffic Housing Air pollution Jobs K-12 schools Percent all adults 59 Good thing Bad thing No difference Don't know Which infrastructure project should have top priority for public funding to prepare for 2025? 15 40 21 Percent all adults 24 School facilities Surface transportation Water systems Other/ don't know Do local govts have adequate funding for infrastructure needs? 7 33 What should the state's role be in providing funding for infrastructure? 8 49 43 60 Yes, do No, do not Don't know Higher taxes, more spending Lower taxes, less spending Don't know Should local governments have a ____? 3 20 77 Common regional plan Each its own local plan Don't know Who should make the important decisions? 4 23 73 Local voters Local elected officials Don't know The Near Term Most Important State Issue For Californians, the economy, jobs, and unemployment constitute the most important issue today. Three in 10 residents put this issue at the top of the list. Statewide, about one in 10 gives second place to gasoline prices (11%)—which are at nominal record highs in California and across the nation—the state budget and taxes (10%), and education and schools (8%). Five or fewer percent rank other issues as their top concern, including legal and illegal immigration (5%), crime and gangs (4%), housing (4%), and health care (4%). Opinion about the most important issue varies across regions and racial/ethnic and political groups. In every region, the economy is the most important issue, but concern is significantly higher in the San Francisco Bay Area (38%) than elsewhere. Second place goes to gasoline prices in the Los Angeles (13%), Orange/San Diego (15%), and Inland Empire (13%) areas,∗ to the state budget and taxes in the Central Valley (17%), and to education and schools in the San Francisco Bay Area (13%). “What do you think is the most important issue facing people in California today?” (top five mentions) Economy, jobs, unemployment Gasoline prices State budget, deficit, taxes Education, schools Immigration, illegal immigration All Adults 29% 11 10 8 5 Central Valley 27% 9 17 8 4 SF Bay Area 38% 7 11 13 3 Region Los Orange/ Angeles San Diego 30% 13 23% 15 6 10 69 68 Inland Empire 27% 13 10 8 8 Although the economy, jobs, and unemployment top the issue list among all racial/ethnic and political groups, the degree of concern varies among blacks (41%), Asians (35%), Latinos (32%), and whites (26%). It also varies for political groups: Thirty-three percent of Democrats, 27 percent of independents, and 24 percent of Republicans rank these issues highest. Both lower-income and higherincome Californians see jobs and the economy as the most important issue. Economy, jobs, unemployment Gasoline prices State budget, deficit, taxes Education, schools Immigration, illegal immigration All Adults 29% 11 10 8 5 Asians 35% 14 7 10 2 Race/ Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 41% 32% 13 13 83 66 25 Whites 26% 10 15 9 6 ∗ In this survey report, the region “Other Southern California” has been divided into “Inland Empire” and “Orange/San Diego.” For more information, see the Survey Methodology, page 23. -1- The Near Term State’s Overall Direction Is the state headed in the right or wrong direction? Californians are evenly divided on that question: Forty-four percent say things are generally going in the right direction; 44 percent say they are going wrong. However, perceptions about the state’s direction differ across the major regions and among population groups. Pluralities of residents in the Central Valley (46%), Orange/San Diego (50%), and Inland Empire (50%) say the state is going in the right direction, but pluralities in San Francisco (48%) and Los Angeles (46%) believe the state is headed the wrong way. “Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction?” Right direction Wrong direction Don’t know All Adults 44% 44 12 Central Valley 46% 41 13 SF Bay Area 39% 48 13 Region Los Angeles 40% 46 14 Orange/ San Diego 50% 41 9 Inland Empire 50% 38 12 Whites are more optimistic about the state’s direction (49% right direction) than are Asians (40%), Latinos (39%), and blacks (27%). Homeowners are more optimistic (47% right direction; 40% wrong direction) than renters (38% right direction; 49% wrong direction). Forty-eight percent of men say the state is headed in the right direction compared to 39 percent of women. There is also a sharp partisan divide, with Republicans (59%) expressing more confidence than Democrats (36%). “Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction?” Right direction Wrong direction Don’t know All Adults 44% 44 12 Asians 40% 39 21 Race/ Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 27% 39% 59 51 14 10 Whites 49% 39 12 Looking at only the economic outlook for the state in the coming year, 46 percent think the state will have bad times and 41 percent think the state will have good times financially. Inland Empire residents are the most optimistic: Nearly half (49%) say the state will see good times financially. Residents in the rest of the state are less confident: Pluralities of residents in the Central Valley (49%), San Francisco Bay Area (48%), and Los Angeles (46%) think we will have bad times financially in the next year, while Orange/San Diego residents are almost evenly divided (45% good times; 44% bad times). -2- The Near Term Regional Conditions When asked to rate the seriousness of certain conditions in their own regions of the state, two in three Californians, overall, say that affordable housing (67%) and traffic congestion on freeways and major roads (63%) are big problems. About four in 10 residents think that the quality of education in K-12 public schools (44%), the lack of well-paying jobs (42%), and air pollution (39%) are big problems in their regions. On the matter of affordable housing, attitudes vary widely across regions. Three in four residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (76%) and Orange/San Diego (75%) say affordable housing is a big problem, as do 68 percent of Los Angeles residents. Somewhat smaller majorities of Inland Empire (60%) and Central Valley (51%) residents share that concern. Regional attitudes about traffic congestion also vary. Traffic congestion is considered a big problem by a far greater percentage of residents in Los Angeles (78%) than in the Central Valley (43%). Perception of the problem is high in the Orange/San Diego (70%), Inland Empire (64%), and San Francisco Bay Area (63%) but falls between those extremes. A majority of San Francisco Bay Area residents (53%) think the quality of K-12 public education in their region is a big problem. Although less than a majority hold this view elsewhere, K-12 education is ranked a big problem by pluralities in Los Angeles (46%), the Central Valley (41%), Orange/San Diego (39%), and the Inland Empire (38%). Across regions, significant percentages rate the lack of well-paying job opportunities as a big problem. Central Valley and Los Angeles residents (both 44%) are the most likely to have this perception, and Orange/San Diego residents (32%) are the least likely. Regional assessments of air pollution vary widely. Fifty-four percent of Central Valley residents, 53 percent of Los Angeles residents, and 47 percent of Inland Empire residents say that air pollution in their parts of the state is a big problem, compared to only 29 percent of Orange/San Diego and 23 percent of San Francisco Bay Area residents. How big a problem is _______ in your part of California? (percent saying “a big problem”) the availability of housing that you can afford traffic congestion on freeways and major roads the quality of education in K-12 public schools the lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs air pollution All Adults 67% 63 44 42 39 Central Valley 51% 43 41 44 54 SF Bay Area Region Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire 76% 68% 75% 60% 63 78 70 64 53 46 39 38 41 44 23 53 32 38 29 47 - 3 - August 2004 The Near Term While there is general consensus about regional conditions across racial/ethnic groups and demographic categories, there is also significant variation in the extent to which specific problems are rated as more serious in nature. For example, 77 percent of blacks think affordable housing is a big problem, compared to 67 percent of whites and Latinos and 62 percent of Asians. Renters are significantly more likely than homeowners to see this as a big problem (75% to 61%), but assessments of it are not related to income or age. There is only moderate variation across racial/ethnic groups on assessments of regional traffic. Majorities of whites (65%), blacks (64%), Latinos (59%), and Asians (57%) think that traffic congestion on freeways and major roads in their parts of California is a big problem. Older, more-educated, and higher-income Californians are more likely than younger, less-educated, and lower-income residents to have this level of concern. Attitudes about the quality of education in K-12 public schools vary sharply across racial/ethnic lines. A sizeable majority of blacks (61%) think that quality is a big problem in their regions, but the percentage is much lower among whites (45%), Asians (42%), and Latinos (36%). Residents with public school children at home are somewhat less likely than those without (38% to 47%) to perceive the quality as a big problem. Residents’ impressions of K-12 public education as a big problem increases with education and is unrelated to age and income. There are substantial differences in perceptions of well-paying job opportunities. Majorities of blacks (58%) and Latinos (54%) report that the lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs is a big problem in their parts of the state, but the concern is lower among Asians (42%) and whites (33%). While there is only modest variation by age, there are large variations related to education and income. Fifty-two percent of residents with at most a high school diploma think lack of well-paying job opportunities is a big problem, compared to 32 percent of those with a college degree or more. Similarly, 55 percent of residents with annual household incomes under $40,000 think this is a big regional problem, compared to 25 percent with household incomes over $80,000. Perceptions of air pollution also vary by race/ethnicity and demographic factors. Nearly half of Latinos (49%) and 46 percent of blacks see air pollution as a big problem in their parts of the state, compared to 33 percent of whites and 31 percent of Asians. Residents with children at home are slightly more likely than those without to have this level of concern (42% to 36%). Across most of the state, those with incomes under $40,000 are significantly more likely than those with incomes of $80,000 and higher to see air pollution as a big problem, while in the Inland Empire, residents with higher and lower incomes are equally likely to rate air quality as a big problem. How big a problem is_________ in your part of California? (Percent saying “a big problem”) the availability of housing that you can afford traffic congestion on freeways and major roads the quality of education in K-12 public schools the lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs air pollution All Adults 67% 63 44 42 39 Asians 62% 57 42 42 31 Race/ Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 77% 67% Whites 67% 64 59 65 61 36 45 58 54 33 46 49 33 -4- The Near Term Local Conditions Most Californians think that low-income and minority neighborhoods in their regions are more likely than other neighborhoods to have poor public facilities. For instance, 72 percent of all adults say lowincome and minority neighborhoods are more likely to have school facilities in need of repair and replacement; only 21 percent disagree. While majorities across demographic groups and regions agree with that perception, it is stronger in some groups and places than others. For example, blacks (90%) are much more likely than Asians (77%), Latinos (72%), and whites (69%) to think this is true. Across regions, Los Angeles residents (80%) are the most likely to say this type of inequity exists, followed by residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (75%), Orange/San Diego (71%), the Central Valley (67%), and the Inland Empire (63%). Residents under age 35 are more likely than those age 55 or older to note disparities in school facilities (76% to 66%). There are no significant differences across income groups or residents with or without children. “Are low-income and minority neighborhoods more likely than other neighborhoods in your region to have school facilities that are in need of repair and replacement?” Yes No Don’t know All Adults 72% 21 7 Asians 77% 12 11 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos Whites 90% 72% 69% 9 20 24 187 Sixty-one percent of residents also say that low-income and minority neighborhoods in their regions are more likely than other neighborhoods to have roads and other infrastructure in need of repair and replacement, while 32 percent disagree. As with disparities in school facilities, a higher percentage of blacks (86%) than of Latinos (64%), Asians (63%), and whites (56%) believe poor, minority neighborhoods have bad roads and other transportation infrastructure. Sixty-seven percent of Los Angeles residents say these inequities exist, as do majorities in the San Francisco Bay Area (64%), Orange/San Diego (60%), Inland Empire (60%), and Central Valley (59%) regions. Residents under 35 years old are also more likely than those age 55 or older to note this inequity in infrastructure resources in their region (68% to 56%). There are no significant differences across income groups. “Do you think that low-income and minority neighborhoods are more likely than other neighborhoods in your region to have roads and other transportation infrastructure that are in need of repair and replacement?” Yes No Don’t know All Adults 61% 32 7 Asians 63% 24 13 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 86% 64% 13 31 15 Whites 56% 37 7 - 5 - August 2004 The Near Term Roads and Infrastructure Projects Californians are divided on the issue of state spending on roads and infrastructure projects: Half say they would rather pay higher taxes and have the state government spend more money for roads and other infrastructure projects; 43 percent say they would rather pay lower taxes and have the state government spend less money on these projects; and 8 percent are undecided. Among California adults who are most likely to vote in elections, 54 percent say they would rather pay higher taxes and have the state spend more money on infrastructure, and 39 percent would rather pay lower taxes and spend less on these projects. There is a clear partisan difference on the question of taxes and the state government’s role in infrastructure spending: A majority of Democrats (60%) and independents (52%) say they would rather pay higher taxes and spend more on infrastructure projects, while half of Republicans (50%) say they would rather pay lower taxes and have less money for roads and other infrastructure projects. Which of the following statements do you agree with more: I’d rather pay higher taxes and have the state government spend more money for roads and other infrastructure projects I’d rather pay lower taxes and have the state government spend less money for roads and other infrastructure projects Don't know All Adults 49% 43 8 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind Likely Voters 60% 42% 52% 54% 35 50 42 39 5 8 67 While majorities in the San Francisco Bay Area (53%), Los Angeles (51%), and the Inland Empire (54%) say they would rather pay higher taxes and have the state spend more on roads and infrastructure, fewer than half in the Central Valley (47%) and Orange/San Diego (44%) have this fiscal preference. Residents 55 years or older are somewhat more likely than residents under age 55 to prefer paying higher taxes and having the state government spend more on infrastructure (54% to 48%). Residents with household incomes of $40,000 and higher are more likely than those with lower incomes to say they would be willing to pay higher taxes (54% to 46%). The percentage who would make that choice also increases with education. A majority of whites (54%) say they would be willing to pay higher taxes for infrastructure, while majorities or pluralities of Asians (51%), blacks (49%), and Latinos (48%) say they would rather pay lower taxes and have the state spend less on roads and other infrastructure projects. Which of the following statements do you agree with more: I’d rather pay higher taxes and have the state government spend more money for roads and other infrastructure projects I’d rather pay lower taxes and have the state government spend less money for roads and other infrastructure projects Don't know All Adults 49% 43 8 Asians 40% 51 9 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 46% 46% 49 48 56 Whites 54% 39 7 Likely Voters 54% 39 7 -6- The Future Population Today and in 2025 Few Californians know the size of the state’s current population or how much it is likely to grow by the year 2025. There are currently about 35 million Californians. Yet only 5 percent of the state’s residents are aware of that, and only 16 percent think the current population is in the 30-to-39 million range. At the ends of the spectrum, 42 percent think the current population is less than 30 million, and 15 percent think it is higher than 40 million. Twenty-seven percent decline to hazard a guess. According to PPIC’s demographic projections, the state will have between 43 and 48 million residents by 2025. When asked how large they thought it would be, only 13 percent of residents put the population at 40-to-49 million in 2025. Nearly a third think it will be less than 30 million and 27 percent think it will be higher than 50 million. Twenty-six percent say they don’t know. “What do you think the state of California’s population is today—in millions?” and “Could you please tell me what you think the state of California’s population will be about 20 years from now—in millions?” Under 10 million 10-19 million 20-29 million 30-39 million 40-49 million Over 50 million Don't know California Population Today 16% 13 13 16 4 11 27 California Population 2025 8% 9 9 8 13 27 26 When told that the state will add 10 million residents between now and 2025, few Californians are positive about the implications: 59 percent say it will be a bad thing for them and their families; 23 percent say it won’t make any difference; and only 14 percent think it will be a good thing. Whites (66%) are the most likely and Latinos (46%) are the least likely to see the increase as a bad thing. However, pluralities across all political and demographic groups see it as bad. “Between now and 2025, California’s population is estimated to increase by 10 million people from 35 to 45 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?” Good thing Bad thing No difference Don’t know All Adults 14% 59 23 4 Asians 18% 54 23 5 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 11% 20% 58 46 26 30 54 Whites 12% 66 19 3 -7- The Future Most Important State Issue in 2025 Today’s greatest concerns seem to influence residents’ thinking about the future. The economy, jobs, and unemployment top their list of most important issues today—and their list of most important issues in 2025. Across the state, 24 percent of residents say this set of issues will be the most important in 2025; 10 percent or fewer mention other issues, including housing (10%), environment and pollution (8%), population growth and development (8%), water quality and availability (7%), and education (5%). Regions vary more in their concerns about issues other than the economy for 2025. Concern about the environment and pollution is higher in the San Francisco Bay Area (12%) than in other regions. Residents in Orange/San Diego (12%), the San Francisco Bay Area (11%), and Los Angeles (11%) are nearly twice as likely as Central Valley (6%) or Inland Empire (6%) residents to name housing costs and availability as the most important issue in 2025. Orange/San Diego residents (8%) are the most concerned about immigration in the future. On issues such as water quality and availability, education, traffic and crime, residents across regions express similar levels of concern. “What do you think will be the most important issue facing people in California in the year 2025?” (top six mentions) Economy, jobs, unemployment Housing costs, housing availability Environment, pollution Population growth and development Water quality and availability Education, schools All Adults 24% 10 8 8 7 5 Central Valley 24% 6 8 9 8 4 SF Bay Area 24% 11 12 8 7 7 Region Los Angeles 27% 11 6 8 5 5 Orange/ San Diego 24% 12 6 8 8 5 Inland Empire 22% 6 10 9 7 4 About one in three Asians (32%), blacks (33%), and Latinos (33%) say the economy, jobs, and unemployment will be the biggest issue facing California in 2025, compared to only 18 percent of whites. Asians (12%) and blacks (15%) are slightly more concerned than whites (10%) or Latinos (8%) about future housing costs and availability. Whites (11%) are much more likely than Asians (3%), blacks (3%) or Latinos (2%) to name water quality and availability as the most important issue in 2025. “What do you think will be the most important issue facing people in California in the year 2025?” (top six mentions) Economy, jobs, unemployment Housing costs, housing availability Environment, pollution Population growth and development Water quality and availability Education, schools All Adults 24% 10 8 8 7 5 Asians 32% 12 6 8 3 5 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 33% 33% 15 8 34 88 32 75 Whites 18% 10 11 8 11 5 -8- The Future State Outlook and Priorities for 2025 Overall, Californians are not greatly optimistic about the kind of place the state will be in 2025. Nearly half of all residents (49%) think the state will be a worse place to live in 2025 than now, 25 percent say it will be a better place, and 20 percent say there will be no change. These assessments are similar across the state’s regions—but not across population groups. Whites (57%) and blacks (49%) are much more likely than Latinos (39%) and Asians (34%) to think the state will be a worse place in 2025 than it is today. Residents with and without children at home are equally pessimistic, but negativity about the future increases slightly with education and income. Californians who now think the state is going in the wrong direction are more likely than those who think it is going in the right direction to say the state will be a worse place to live in 2025 (59% to 40%). Belief that the state will be worse in 2025 is higher among residents who think population growth and development (61%), water quality and availability (58%), and traffic (68%) will be the most important problems facing California in 2025 than among all adults (49%). “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 Worse place No change Don’t know All Adults 25% 49 20 6 Asians 31% 34 24 11 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 25% 31% 49 39 18 24 86 Whites 21% 57 17 5 When asked about the state’s most important priority in planning for growth between now and 2025, nearly two-thirds of residents choose jobs and the economy (34%) or the provision of roads, schools, and water systems (30%). Far fewer choose protecting the environment (16%) and creating a more equal society (9%). Those who volunteered other answers suggested priorities such as immigration, affordable housing, and education. As the table shows, planning priorities differ significantly across racial/ethnic groups. Whites are the least likely to mention improving jobs and the economy and creating a more equal society, and they are the most likely to mention roads and other infrastructure projects. The top priority for Asians, blacks, and Latinos is improving jobs and the economy. “In planning for the expected population growth between now and 2025, what do you think should be the state’s most important priority?” Improving jobs and the economy Providing roads, schools, water systems Protecting the environment Creating a more equal society Something else Don’t know All Adults 34% 30 16 9 9 2 Asians 47% 24 10 10 6 3 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 41% 37% 19 26 9 16 15 12 16 7 02 Whites 30% 35 17 6 10 2 - 9 - August 2004 The Future Overall Regional Outlook for 2025 Residents’ expectations about future quality of life in their regions are also relatively pessimistic. Nearly half think their region will be a worse place to live in 2025 than it is today, 18 percent think it will be a better place, and 33 percent think there will be no change. Across the state’s regions, pluralities say their part of California will be a worse place to live in 2025, but there are some differences on the other two dimensions. Orange/San Diego residents (38%) are the most likely and Inland Empire residents (24%) are the least likely to say their region will not change. Inland Empire residents are the most optimistic (24% better place) about the future of their region. “Do you think that in 2025 your part of 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 Worse place No change Don't know All Adults 18 46 33 3 Central Valley 20 50 28 2 SF Bay Area 16 45 34 5 Region Los Orange/ Angeles San Diego 17 15 46 44 33 38 43 Inland Empire 24 50 24 2 Once again, there are significant racial/ethnic differences. Whites are more pessimistic than other racial/ethnic groups: Fifty-two percent of whites say their part of California will be a worse place to live in 2025, compared to 30 percent of Asians, 45 percent of blacks, and 41 percent of Latinos. Asians (38%) are the most likely to say there will be no change in their area and also the most likely to say it will be a better place to live (25%) in 2025 than now. “Do you think that in 2025 your part of 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 Worse place No change Don’t know All Adults 18% 46 33 3 Asians 25% 30 38 7 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 21% 22% 45 41 33 32 15 Whites 14% 52 32 2 There are no significant differences in outlook across age categories, between residents with and without children at home, or between those who have lived in their current homes five years or more and those who have lived there for less time. All these groups are nearly evenly divided on the future outlook of their region, with about half saying it will be a worse place to live in 2025, a quarter saying it will be a better place, and about a third saying there will be no change. - 10 - The Future Regional Conditions in 2025: The Economy and Education California residents are evenly split on whether the public education system in their region will improve or get worse (45% improve; 46% get worse) and about the outlook for job opportunities and economic conditions (44% improve; 47% get worse) in 2025. Across regions, residents of the Inland Empire are the most optimistic about the future of the public education system in their region (52% improve). San Francisco Bay Area residents are the most pessimistic (51% get worse). Inland Empire residents are also the most optimistic when it comes to the future of job opportunities and economic conditions (53% improve). In other regions, except Los Angeles, residents split fairly evenly on this question. There, 51 percent believe the economy will get worse; 40 percent think it will improve. Please tell me which is more likely to happen in your part of California The public education system will … Job opportunities and economic conditions will … Improve Get worse Improve Get worse All Adults 45% 46 44 47 Central Valley 46% 46 46 48 SF Bay Area 39% 51 46 44 Region Los Orange/ Inland Angeles San Diego Empire 47% 45 43% 48 52% 40 40 43 53 51 47 41 There are significant differences across racial/ethnic groups. Only among Latinos does a majority (55%) believe that public education in their part of California will improve. In contrast, a majority of blacks (56%) and whites (51%) and a plurality of Asians (44%) say it will get worse. As for future job opportunities and economic conditions, majorities of blacks (59%) and Latinos (52%) believe things will get worse, while pluralities of whites (47%) and Asians (45%) say they will get better. Please tell me which is more likely to happen in your part of California The public education system will … Improve Get worse Job opportunities and Improve economic conditions will … Get worse All Adults 45% 46 44 47 Asians 36% 44 45 34 Race/Ethnicity Blacks 38% 56 38 59 Latinos 55% 34 41 52 Whites 43% 51 47 45 Non-citizens in the state have a more positive outlook than U.S.-born residents when it comes to the future of schools in their region. A majority of non-citizens (51%) say public education will improve, while a majority of U.S.-born residents (50%) say schools will get worse. Pessimism about the future of schools also increases with income and education. However, when it comes to the public’s outlook on the economy and jobs, residents with higher income and higher levels of education are more likely to believe conditions will improve in 20 years. Across age groups, those 18 to 34 years old (49%) are the most likely to say the public school system will improve, while Californians of all ages are nearly evenly split on whether the economy and jobs will improve or get worse. - 11 - August 2004 The Future Regional Pessimism About 2025 As for air quality, overall, 69 percent of residents think air quality will be worse by 2025; 23 percent think it will improve. Central Valley residents are the most negative: Seventy-nine percent see worse air quality in the region; only 16 percent expect improvement. Inland Empire residents (74%) are the next most pessimistic, followed by Los Angeles (71%) and San Francisco Bay Area and Orange/San Diego residents (65% each). Large majorities of state residents say the availability of affordable housing (78%) and traffic conditions (81%) will get worse in their part of California between now and the year 2025. This is consistent with the large proportion of residents who rate these two issues as big problems in their part of California today. Perceptions of increasing problems with traffic congestion and housing affordability do not vary much within the state: About eight in 10 hold a pessimistic view across the five major regions. Please tell me which is more likely to happen in your part of California The air quality will … The availability of affordable housing will … Traffic conditions on freeways and major roads will … Improve Get worse Improve Get worse Improve Get worse All Adults 23% 69 18 78 15 81 Central Valley 16% 79 17 80 11 86 SF Bay Area 26% 65 14 80 18 77 Region Los Angeles 24% 71 18 78 14 83 Orange/ San Diego 27% 65 16 79 14 82 Inland Empire 21% 74 23 73 17 82 Large majorities in all racial/ethnic groups think air quality in their part of the state will get worse, but that belief is slightly higher among blacks (75%) and Latinos (74%) than among whites (67%) and Asians (64%). Large majorities are also relatively pessimistic about the future of affordable housing. Eight in ten blacks, Latinos, and whites and seven in ten Asians say the availability of affordable housing will get worse over the next 20 years. All groups are also negative about the future of traffic conditions. About eight in 10 whites and blacks and three in four Latinos and Asians say traffic conditions on freeways and major roads will get worse by 2025. Please tell me which is more likely to happen in your part of California All Adults The air quality will … Improve Get worse 23% 69 The availability of Improve affordable housing will… Get worse Traffic conditions on freeways and major roads will … Improve Get worse 18 78 15 81 Asians 22% 64 19 70 16 74 Race/Ethnicity Blacks 20% 75 20 79 20 79 Latinos 20% 74 18 78 21 75 Whites 25% 67 16 79 11 86 While large majorities of residents in all demographic groups think that air quality will get worse by 2025, there are some significant differences. For example, younger residents (18 to 34 years old) are more likely than older residents to say air quality will get worse (76% to 65%). In the case of affordable housing and traffic conditions, pessimism increases with income and education. - 12 - Governance and Policy Options Infrastructure Priorities Californians can readily identify their top priorities for infrastructure funding as the state prepares for the population growth expected by 2025—even though they are not all that familiar with the term “infrastructure.” When read a list of public works projects, most Californians (85%) name school facilities, surface transportation, and water systems as their top priorities. Overall, 40 percent think school facilities should have top priority, 24 percent pick surface transportation systems, and 21 percent pick water systems. Among racial/ethnic groups, blacks (58%), Latinos (48%), and Asians (41%) are more likely than whites to name school facilities as the top priority. For whites, priority is more evenly divided among schools (35%), surface transportation (29%), and water systems (24%). Across partisan affiliation, Democrats (44%) and independents (43%) are more likely than Republicans (32%) to favor school facilities. In fact, Republican priorities are almost equally split between surface transportation (30%) and school facilities (32%). The preference for school facilities also differs across other groups. Half of those 18 to 34 years old give top priority to school facilities, compared to only a quarter of those age 55 and older. Conversely, residents 55 years old or older are more likely than those under age 35 to think water systems should be the state’s top priority (33% to 16%). About half of Californians with children in the household choose school facilities, while those without children show significantly less support (34%). Among Californians who think that education and schools are the most important problem facing state residents today, 59 percent choose school facilities as their top priority. Among those who think schools and education will be the most important problem in 2025, 58 percent named school facilities as the top infrastructure project in planning for population growth. This readiness to choose priorities is unhindered by Californians lack of familiarity with “infrastructure” as a term. Only 26 percent of all residents say they know a lot about the term; 39 percent claim to know a little about it, and 27 percent say they have never heard of it. Registered voters (30%) and likely voters (35%) are more likely than all residents to claim they know a lot about the term infrastructure. Familiarity with it tends to increase sharply with age, education, and income; and whites (33%) are more likely than blacks (23%), Asians (22%), and Latinos (11%) to claim a high level of knowledge. “Which of the following infrastructure projects do you think should have the top priority for public funding as your part of California gets ready for the population growth that is expected by 2025?” School facilities Surface transportation Water systems Sewer systems Airports Something else Don't know All Adults 40% 24 21 5 2 5 3 Central Valley 41% 21 24 5 3 4 2 SF Bay Area 46% 25 18 3 1 5 2 Region Los Angeles 39% 26 19 6 3 4 3 Orange/ San Diego 38% 24 22 5 3 5 3 Inland Empire 37% 25 24 5 2 5 2 - 13 - Governance and Policy Options Surface Transportation Priorities Californians are not of one mind when it comes to which type of surface transportation should have the top funding priority as their part of the state gets ready for the growth expected by 2025. Forty-nine percent opt for road-oriented projects, including freeways and highways (32%), local streets and roads (10%), and carpool lanes (7%). Forty-four percent choose transit-oriented solutions, including light rail systems (31%) and public bus systems (13%). There are large regional differences in preferences for freeways and highways or a light rail system. Pluralities of Orange/San Diego (38%) and Inland Empire (37%) residents prefer freeways and highways, while pluralities of San Francisco Bay Area (38%) and Central Valley (34%) residents prefer light rail systems. Los Angeles residents are evenly divided between these two projects. Overall, a narrow plurality of Californians who live in urban areas would prefer funding for light rail (32%), while a similarly small plurality of suburban residents prefer spending on highways and roads (34%). “What type of surface transportation project do you think should have the top priority for public funding as your part of California gets ready for the growth that is expected by 2025?” All Adults Freeways and highways Light rail system Public bus system Local streets and roads Carpool lanes Something else Don't know 32% 31 13 10 7 4 3 Central Valley 28% 34 12 12 5 6 3 SF Bay Area 26% 38 16 7 5 6 2 Region Los Angeles 33% 31 12 11 9 3 1 Orange/ San Diego 38% 28 12 6 8 4 4 Inland Empire 37% 23 13 13 6 4 4 Transportation funding preferences also differ across racial/ethnic and political groups. For example, whites (39%) are much more likely than Asians (28%), blacks (24%), and Latinos (16%) to give funding priority to light rail. Twenty-one percent of blacks, 19 percent of Latinos, and 16 percent of Asians think that the public bus system should have the top priority for public funding. Among political groups, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to prefer public funding for freeways and highways (41% to 26%). Conversely, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to prefer funding a light rail system (38% to 30%). All Adults Freeways and highways Light rail system Public bus system Local streets and roads Carpool lanes Something else Don't know 32% 31 13 10 7 4 3 Asians 34% 28 16 4 10 4 4 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 30% 30% 24 16 21 19 12 15 7 12 52 16 Whites 33% 39 9 8 4 5 2 - 14 - Governance and Policy Options Tradeoffs for Transportation and School Facilities Californians’ top infrastructure priorities—whether school facilities, surface transportation, or water systems—require that the state make choices about how to spend money on new construction and how to manage the current systems to accommodate population growth. Therefore, we asked a series of “tradeoff” questions to understand how Californians think about the state’s planning issues. In each question, respondents were asked to choose a preferred strategy to address top priorities for infrastructure projects. There is considerable agreement about whether the state should focus on building more freeways and highways or focus on expanding mass transit and making more efficient use of existing freeways and highways. Two in three residents (67%) choose expanding mass transit and more efficient use. Majorities across the state’s regions think we should focus on expanding mass transit and using existing roads more efficiently, but support for this side of the tradeoff is much higher in the San Francisco Bay Area (75%) than elsewhere. Support for new freeways and highways is highest in the Inland Empire, where 38 percent of residents think new roads are critical in planning for 2025. Preference for transit does not vary significantly across racial/ethnic groups(Asians 65%; blacks 68%; Latinos 61%; whites 70%). Among political groups, however, Democrats (73%) expressed more support than Republicans (59%) for transit. “Which statement is closest to your views about planning for 2025 in your part of California…?” All Adults We should focus on expanding mass transit and more efficient use of freeways and highways We should focus on building more freeways and highways Don't know 67% 30 3 Central SF Bay Valley Area 66% 75% 31 23 32 Region Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego 64% 66% 33 32 32 Inland Empire 59% 38 3 When asked to choose between two policy options for preparing the state’s education system for 2025, a majority of Californians (55%) think we should focus on strategies to use existing public education facilities more efficiently. Forty-two percent of residents instead think we should focus on building more schools and universities. Whites (36%) and Asians (38%) are less likely than Latinos (52%) and blacks (47%) to support new school construction. Across the state’s major regions, the preference for more building is lowest in the San Francisco Bay Area (34%). Democrats (40%) and Republicans (36%) express similar support for more building. “Which statement is closest to your views about planning for 2025 in your part of California…?” We should focus on repairs and renovation, year-round schools, and other strategies to more efficiently use the existing public education facilities We should focus on building more public schools and universities Don't know All Central Adults Valley 55% 52% 42 45 33 SF Bay Area Region Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire 62% 52% 52% 52% 34 45 43 42 46 62 - 15 - August 2004 Governance and Policy Options Tradeoffs for Water Systems As in the other two infrastructure policy domains, Californians prefer demand management strategies rather than new construction projects for water systems. Fifty-five percent prefer strategies that promote more efficient use of the current water supply, while 41 percent would rather build new water storage systems and increase the water supply. The San Francisco Bay Area is again the region with the highest support for the increased efficiency side of the tradeoff (62%); support for new water storage systems is highest in the Inland Empire (47%). Younger are more likely than older Californians to support efficient-use strategies for water: Sixty percent of 18 to 34 year-olds prefer more efficient use of existing supplies, compared to 50 percent of those 55 and older. Across all racial/ethnic groups, majorities prefer water conservation over new water systems (Asians 61%; blacks 53%; Latinos 58%; whites 53%). On this issue, there are strong partisan differences: Most Democrats (58%) favor water conservation; most Republicans (51%) support building new systems. “Which statement comes closest to your views about planning for 2025 in your part of California…?” We should focus on water conservation, user allocation, pricing, and other strategies to more efficiently use the current water supply We should focus on building new water storage systems and increasing the water supply Don't know All Adults 55% 41 4 Central Valley 53% 43 4 SF Bay Area 62% 33 5 Region Los Orange/ Angeles San Diego 55% 51% 41 45 44 Inland Empire 51% 47 2 Tradeoffs for Land Use Planning When asked about the role of state government in local land use planning, 57 percent of all Californians believe state government should provide guidelines for local land use and development rather than not being involved. As for regional differences, Los Angeles residents are somewhat more likely than those elsewhere to support this role for state government. Political party affiliation also divides public opinion on this issue: Democrats are significantly more likely than Republicans to think state government guidelines are a good idea (62% to 43%). Majorities in all racial/ethnic groups support state government guidelines (Asians 64%; blacks 63%; Latinos 62%; whites 53%). Support for state land use guidelines declines somewhat with age and income. Renters are somewhat more likely than homeowners to favor state growth guidelines (62% to 53%). “Please tell me which statement comes closer to your views…?” The state government should provide guidelines for local land use and development The state government should not be involved in local land use and development Don't know All Adults Central Valley SF Bay Area Region Los Orange/ Angeles San Diego Inland Empire 57% 51% 59% 63% 53% 60% 37 43 36 31 40 37 66 5 6 7 3 - 16 - Governance and Policy Options Tradeoffs for Growth Decisionmaking Californians have strong opinions about whether and how local governments should work together. Nearly eight in 10 (77%) prefer that local governments work together and have a common regional plan, rather than working independently and having individual local plans (20%). Sizeable majorities in each of the state’s major regions opt for collaborative arrangements. Democrats (81%), independents (80%), and Republicans (71%) strongly support collaboration. Public consensus on the importance of regional collaboration among local governments is also uniform across all age, race, and education groups. “Please tell me 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 Central Valley 78% 19 3 SF Bay Area Region Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire 82% 78% 74% 78% 16 20 23 20 22 3 2 When residents are asked who should be making important decisions on growth issues in their parts of California, however, representative government is not the top choice. A large majority of residents (73%) say local voters should be making those decisions at the ballot box. Only 23 percent think that local elected officials should provide leadership and make the most important decisions. Large majorities across the state prefer direct democracy over representative government in making growth policies. However, support for ballot box decisionmaking is higher in Orange/San Diego (77%) and the Inland Empire (74%) than it is in the San Francisco Bay Area (66%). A slightly higher percentage of females (76%) than males (69%) prefer that local voters make the most important decisions. Among racial/ethnic groups, 81 percent of blacks, 73 percent of Asians and whites, and 71 percent of Latinos think that local voters should be making the important decisions at the ballot box. There are no significant differences among Democrats (73%), Republicans (77%), and independents (75%). Preference for ballot box decisionmaking increases somewhat with education and income but is unrelated to age. “Please tell me which statement comes closer to your views…?” All Adults Local voters should make the important decisions at the ballot box Local elected officials should provide leadership and make the most important decisions Don't know 73% 23 4 Central Valley 76% 21 3 SF Bay Area Region Los Orange/ Angeles San Diego Inland Empire 66% 73% 77% 74% 30 22 22 22 45 1 4 - 17 - August 2004 Governance and Policy Options Confidence in State and Local Government A lack of confidence in government is also evident when residents are asked to rate their state and local governments on planning for future growth. Only 12 percent have a great deal of confidence that the state government can plan effectively, 46 percent only some confidence, and 40 percent have very little or no confidence at all. Across the state, Inland Empire residents are the most likely (18%) and San Francisco Bay Area residents are the least likely (7%) to express a great deal of confidence in state government planning. The percentage of residents having a great deal of confidence is similar in the Los Angeles (14%), Central Valley (12%), and Orange/San Diego (12%) regions. There are no differences by age in views of state government’s planning ability, but confidence is higher among those with at least some college education and higher income. Those who approve of the governor’s and the legislature’s job performance are more likely than those who don’t to say they have a great deal of confidence in the state government’s ability to plan for the future. “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 None at all Don't know All Adults 12% 46 31 9 2 Central Valley 12% 48 30 8 2 SF Bay Area 7% 45 36 11 1 Region Los Angeles 14% 46 30 8 2 Orange/ San Diego 12% 47 31 9 1 Inland Empire 18% 42 29 8 3 Californians’ confidence in their local governments’ ability to plan for the future in their region is similar to their confidence in state government on that dimension. Fifteen percent of Californians say they have a great deal of confidence in their local governments to plan for the future. Residents of Los Angeles (17%), the Inland Empire (16%), and the Central Valley (16%) are more likely than residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (12%) and Orange/San Diego (11%) regions to express a great deal of confidence in local government. The percentage who have a great deal of confidence in local governments’ ability is higher among Latinos (19%) than among whites, blacks, and Asians (all 13%). Across other demographic groups, fewer than one in five adults have a high degree of confidence in their local governments’ ability to plan for growth. “How much confidence do you have in your local governments’ abilities to plan for growth and the future in your region?” A great deal Only some Very little None at all Don't know All Adults 15% 47 28 8 2 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 13% 15% 10% 53 49 44 25 26 31 7 9 14 211 Likely Voters 13% 52 27 8 0 - 18 - Governance and Policy Options Governor’s and Legislature’s Approval Ratings Californians’ lack of confidence in the state’s ability to plan for the future is less consistent with their ratings of the governor than of the legislature on this issue. Fifty-five percent approve of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling plans and policies for California’s future, while three in 10 disapprove. Among political groups, 82 percent of Republicans, 56 percent of independents, and 46 percent of Democrats approve of Schwarzenegger’s plans for the future. The San Francisco Bay Area is the only region in which fewer than half (48%) of the residents approve of his plans. There are sizeable racial/ethnic differences. Whites (65%) and Asians (58%) are much more likely than blacks (44%) and Latinos (38%) to approve of the plans. The governor’s approval ratings on this dimension increase with age, education, and income. “Do you approve of disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling plans and policies for California’s future?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 55% 30 15 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 46% 82% 56% 39 8 31 15 10 13 Likely Voters 61% 26 13 Californians are much less likely to approve of how the state legislature is handling plans and policies for California’s future. Overall, 35 percent of state residents approve and 47 percent disapprove. A majority of likely voters disapprove (54%). As with the governor, the legislature’s overall job performance ratings are higher than its ratings on planning for the future (40% approve and 44% disapprove). Partisan differences in the legislature’s approval ratings on this issue are insignificant: Thirty-four percent of Democrats, 32 percent Republicans, and 30 percent of independents express their support for the legislature’s plans. Also as with the governor, San Francisco Bay Area residents give the legislature lower approval ratings (30%) than do residents of Orange/San Diego (38%), the Inland Empire (38%), Los Angeles (36%), and the Central Valley (35%). Among Latinos, 46 percent approve of the legislature’s plans, compared to 31 percent, each, of Asians, blacks, and whites. Overall, approval of the legislature’s plans and policies for the future decreases with age, education, and income. “Do you approve or disapprove of the way the California legislature is handling plans and policies for California’s future?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 35% 47 18 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 34% 32% 30% 48 52 53 18 16 17 Likely Voters 30% 54 16 - 19 - August 2004 Governance and Policy Options Local Tax increases A majority of Californians (60%) and California likely voters (67%) think local government does not have adequate funding for roads, school facilities, and other infrastructure projects. Democrats (70%) are somewhat more likely than Republicans (62%) to have this perception. Majorities across regions agree, but San Francisco Bay Area residents (66%) are most likely and Los Angeles residents are least likely (56%) to say that local government does not have adequate funding. Whites (67%) and people with incomes over $40,000 (66%) and college education (68%) are more likely than members of other racial/ethnic groups and people with lower incomes and less education to see local funding as inadequate. “Do you think local government does or does not have adequate funding for the roads, school facilities, and other infrastructure projects that are needed to prepare for future growth in your part of California?” Does have adequate funding Does not have adequate funding Don't know All Adults 33% 60 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 25% 32% 33% 70 62 61 566 Likely Voters 28% 67 5 Among likely voters, 66 percent would vote yes on a measure to increase the local sales tax for roads and public transit projects by one half-cent for 20 years; 31 percent would vote no. In California, such local special taxes require a two-thirds vote to pass. Republicans (58%) would be less likely than Democrats (73%) and independents (70%) to vote yes. Latinos (76%) would be more likely than whites (66%) or Asians and blacks (both 59%) to approve it. Across regions, 66 percent or more of all adults and at least six in 10 likely voters would support this local sales tax increase. There are no significant differences across gender, age, or education groups or across regions on this issue. However, support declines at higher income levels. What is the relationship between public support for a local sales tax and public opinion about the roles and functioning of state and local government? In general, 84 percent of those respondents who say they would rather pay higher taxes and have the state government spend more money on roads and other infrastructure projects would vote yes on this measure. Among those who say local governments do not have adequate funding for roads, school facilities, and other infrastructure projects for future growth, 74 percent would vote yes on a measure to increase the local sales tax for roads and public transit projects, compared to 58 percent of those who say local governments have adequate funding. “What if there were a measure on your local ballot to increase the local sales tax for roads and public transit projects by one-half cent for 20 years—Would you vote yes or no?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 68% 29 3 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 73% 58% 70% 24 40 29 321 Likely Voters 66% 31 3 - 20 - Governance and Policy Options Resource Equity We reported above that 72 percent of Californians across the state agree that low-income and minority neighborhoods are more likely than other neighborhoods to have school facilities in need of replacement. However, residents are much more divided when asked whether they would support disproportionate funding for these neighborhoods to alleviate these deficiencies. Overall, 56 percent of California adults think that low-income and minority neighborhoods should receive more public funding for school facilities even if it means less funding for other school districts, but there are strong differences across racial/ethnic groups: Sixty-seven percent of both Latinos and blacks and 59 percent of Asians think that low-income and minority neighborhoods should receive more public funding for school facilities, but only 48 percent of whites agree. There are also major divisions along party lines: Sixty-two percent of Democrats are for the idea, compared to only 37 percent of Republicans. Majorities of residents in Los Angeles (64%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (60%) approve, but the percentages are lower in other regions. Among those who think low-income and minority neighborhoods are more likely than other neighborhoods in their region to have school facilities in need of repair, 67 percent think that these neighborhoods should receive more public funding even at the expense of other neighborhoods. “Should school districts in low-income and minority neighborhoods receive more public funding for school facilities even if it means less funding for other school districts?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 56% 38 6 Asians 59% 30 11 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 67% 28 5 67% 27 6 Whites 48% 46 6 When asked about roads and other transportation infrastructure, just under half (49%) of residents say disadvantaged neighborhoods should receive more public funding for roads and other transportation projects. Support for weighted funding is much higher among blacks (66%), Latinos (62%), and Asians (50%) than among whites (39%) and much higher among Democrats (55%) than among Republicans (33%). Los Angeles (57%) is the only region where more than half of residents think low-income neighborhoods should receive more funding. Among the 61 percent of residents who think low-income and minority neighborhoods are more likely than other neighborhoods in their region to have this problem, 65 percent agree that these neighborhoods should receive higher public funding even at the expense of others. “Should low-income and minority neighborhoods receive more public funding for roads and other transportation infrastructure even if it means less funding for projects in other neighborhoods?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 49% 44 7 Asians 50% 36 14 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 66% 62% 30 31 47 Whites 39% 54 7 - 21 - August 2004 Governance and Policy Options Civic Participation How engaged are Californians in planning for the future? One in eight say they have been involved a lot in discussions about the issues in planning for their part of California. However, 58 percent of Californians have been involved very little or not at all. There are significant participation differences across racial/ethnic groups. Seventeen percent of blacks and 14 percent of whites say they have discussed issues for the future, compared to 9 percent of Latinos and 3 percent of Asians. Californians with a college education, those with incomes over $40,000, and those who have lived in their current residence for more than five years are more likely than those with less education, income, and tenure to say they have been involved in such discussions. There are no significant differences among age groups, across regions, or between households with and without children. “How much have you been involved in discussions about the issues in planning for the future in your part of California?” A lot Only some Very little Not at all All Adults 12% 30 32 26 Asians 3% 31 34 32 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 17% 28 9% 22 33 33 22 36 Whites 14% 34 31 21 But how involved would Californians like to be in discussions about the future? In general, more than they are today. Overall, 25 percent would like to be involved a lot. However, 41 percent would like only some involvement; and 32 percent say they would like to be involved very little or not at all. Of those who have been involved very little or not at all, only 13 percent say they would like to be involved a lot. Among racial/ethnic groups, blacks (35%) are the most interested and Asians (16%) are the least interested in being involved a lot in discussions of the future. Male residents, Californians with college education, under 55 years of age, and with children at home are more likely than females, those with less than a college degree, those age 55 or older, and those with no children at home to say they would like to be involved a lot. Those respondents who have little or no confidence in their local governments’ ability to plan for the future and who think the state is going in the wrong direction are more likely to say they want to be more involved in discussions about the future. There are no significant variations across regions or partisan differences. “How much would you like to be involved in discussions about the issues in planning for the future in your part of California?” A lot Only some Very little Not at all Don't know All Adults 25% 41 20 12 2 Asians 16% 45 27 11 1 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 35% 27% 40 35 16 22 8 16 10 Whites 23% 45 20 11 1 - 22 - Survey Methodology The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, research director at the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance in research and writing from Jon Cohen, associate survey director, Eliana Kaimowitz and Renatta DeFever, survey research associates, and Kimberly Curry, survey summer intern. The survey was conducted with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and it benefited from discussions with Hewlett staff and grantees and PPIC’s research staff involved in the California 2025 project; however, the survey methods, questions, and content of the report were solely determined by Mark Baldassare. The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,506 California adult residents interviewed between May 24 and June 8, 2004. 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 telephone numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in California were eligible for calling. 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 by using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender. Each interview took an average of 19 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese. The languages other than English were selected because Spanish is the dominant non-English language in the state, and the three Asian languages account for most of the nonEnglish speaking Asian adults in California. Casa Hispana translated the survey into Spanish. Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. translated the survey into Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese and 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 2,506 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. The sampling error for the 1,868 registered voters is +/- 2.3 percent. The sampling error for the 1,284 likely voters 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 refer to five geographic regions. “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, “Inland Empire” includes Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, and “Orange/San Diego” refers to Orange and San Diego Counties. These five regions were chosen for analysis because they are the major population centers of the state, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. We present specific results for respondents in the four self-identified racial/ethnic groups of Asian, black, Latino, and white. We also compare the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The “independents” category includes only those who are registered to vote as “decline to state.” We also analyze the responses of “likely” voters who are the most likely to participate in the state’s elections. - 23 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: CALIFORNIA 2025 MAY 24—JUNE 8, 2004 2,506 CALIFORNIA ADULT RESIDENTS: ENGLISH, SPANISH, CHINESE, KOREAN, AND VIETNAMESE MARGIN OF ERROR +/- 2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. First, what is the most important issue facing people in California today? [open-ended list] 29% economy, jobs, unemployment 11 gasoline prices 10 state budget, deficit, taxes 8 education, schools 5 immigration, illegal immigration 4 health care, health costs 4 crime, gangs 4 housing costs, housing availability 3 war in Iraq, security, terrorism 15 other (specify) 7 don’t know 2. Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 44% right direction 44 wrong direction 12 don’t know 3. Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 41% good times 46 bad times 13 don’t know 4. On another topic, what do you think the state of California’s population is today—in millions? [open-ended list] 16% under 10 million 13 10-19 million 13 20-29 million 16 30-39 million 4 40-49 million 11 50 million or more 27 don’t know 5. 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? [open-ended list] 8% under 10 million 9 10-19 million 9 20-29 million 8 30-39 million 13 40-49 million 27 50 million or more 26 don’t know 6. Between now and 2025, California’s population is estimated to increase by 10 million people from 35 to 45 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 59 bad thing 23 no difference 4 don’t know 7. Thinking about the future, what do you think will be the most important issue facing people in California in the year 2025? [open-ended list] 24% economy, jobs, unemployment 10 housing costs, housing availability 8 environment, pollution 8 population growth and development 7 water quality and availability 5 education, schools 4 health care, health costs 4 immigration, illegal immigration 3 crime, gangs 2 state budget, deficit, taxes 16 other (specify) 9 don’t know - 25 - 8. 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 30 providing roads, schools, and water systems 16 protecting the environment 9 creating a more equal society 9 something else [specify] 2 don’t know 9. 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? 25% better place 49 worse place 20 no change 6 don’t know Next, we are interested in the region or broader geographic area of California that you live in. I am going to read you a list of problems that other people have told us about. For each one, please tell me if it is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your part of California today. [rotate questions 10 to 14] 10. How about traffic congestion on freeways and major roads? 63% big problem 26 somewhat of a problem 11 not a problem 11. How about the lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs? 42% big problem 37 somewhat of a problem 19 not a problem 2 don’t know 12. How about air pollution? 39% big problem 35 somewhat of a problem 26 not a problem 13. How about the availability of housing that you can afford? 67% big problem 21 somewhat of a problem 11 not a problem 1 don’t know 14. How about the quality of education in K through 12 public schools? 44% big problem 30 somewhat of a problem 22 not a problem 4 don’t know 15. Thinking about your part of California, do you think the population in the next 20 years will grow rapidly, grow slowly, stay about the same, or decline? 65% grow rapidly 22 grow slowly 9 stay about the same 2 decline 2 don’t know Looking ahead again to the year 2025, as I read each of the following pairs of statements, please tell me which is more likely to happen in your part of California. [rotate questions 16 to 20 and rotate statements]. 16. The public education system will improve. The public education system will get worse. 45% improve 46 get worse 4 neither, no change (volunteered) 5 don’t know 17. The air quality will improve. The air quality will get worse. 23% improve 69 get worse 6 neither, no change (volunteered) 2 don’t know 18. Job opportunities and economic conditions will improve. Job opportunities and economic conditions will get worse. 44% improve 47 get worse 4 neither, no change (volunteered) 5 don’t know 19. Traffic conditions on freeways and major roads will improve. Traffic conditions on freeways and major roads will get worse. 15% improve 81 get worse 2 neither, no change (volunteered) 1 don’t know - 26 - 20. The availability of affordable housing will improve. The availability of affordable housing will get worse. 18% improve 78 get worse 2 neither, no change (volunteered) 2 don’t know 21. Overall, do you think that in 2025 your part of 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? 18% better place 46 worse place 33 no change 3 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 questions 22 to 24 and rotate statements]. 22. Local governments should work together and have a common regional plan; [or] 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 23. The state government should provide guidelines for local land use and development; [or] The state government should not be involved in local land use and development. 57% state government should provide guidelines 37 state government should not be involved 6 don’t know 24. Local elected officials should provide leadership and make the most important decisions; [or] Local voters should make the important decisions at the ballot box. 73% local voters make decisions 23 local officials make decisions 4 don’t know 25. Next, I am going to ask you about a term that not everyone will have heard of. Have you heard about “infrastructure?” (if yes: “Do you know a lot or a little about the term infrastructure?”) 26% yes, a lot 39 yes, a little 6 yes, don’t know how much (volunteered) 27 no 2 don’t know 26. 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 your part of California gets ready for the population growth that is expected by 2025? [read rotated list, then ask: “or something else?”] 40% school facilities 24 surface transportation 21 water systems 5 sewer systems 2 airports 5 something else [specify] 3 don’t know 27. What type of surface transportation project do you think should have the top priority for public funding as your part of California gets ready for the growth that is expected by 2025? [read rotated list, then ask: “or something else?”] 32% freeways and highways 31 light rail system 13 public bus system 10 local streets and roads 7 carpool lanes 4 something else [specify] 3 don’t know 28. In general, how important is the condition of the roads and infrastructure to the quality of life and economic vitality in your region— very important, somewhat important, or not important? 68% very important 29 somewhat important 2 not important 1 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 29 to 31 and rotate statements] 29. We should focus on building more freeways and highways; [or] We should focus on expanding mass transit and using carpool lanes, pricing, and other strategies to more efficiently use the existing freeways and highways. 67% expanding mass transit and more efficient use of freeways and highways 30 building more freeways and roads 3 don’t know - 27 - August 2004 30. We should focus on building new water storage systems and increasing the water supply; [or] We should focus on water conservation, user allocation, pricing, and other strategies to more efficiently use the current water supply. 55% more efficiently use the current water supply 41 building new water storage systems 4 don’t know 31. We should focus on building more public schools and universities; [or] We should focus on repairs and renovation, year-round schools, and other strategies to more efficiently use the existing public education facilities. 55% focus on more efficient use 42 focus on building more public schools and universities 3 don’t know 32. Changing topics, which level of government should have the primary responsibility for planning for 2025, such as roads and other infrastructure in your part of California? [read rotated list] 34% state government 20 a regional governing body 19 county government 13 city government 9 federal government 1 other (specify) 4 don’t know [rotate questions 33 and 34] 33. In general, which of the following statements do you agree with more—[rotate] I’d rather pay higher taxes and have the state government spend more money on roads and other infrastructure projects; [or] I’d rather pay lower taxes and have the state government spend less money on roads and other infrastructure projects? 49% higher taxes and more money for roads and other infrastructure 43 lower taxes and less money for roads and other infrastructure 8 don’t know 34. Overall, do you think local government does or does not have adequate funding for the roads, school facilities, and other infrastructure projects that are needed to prepare for future growth in your part of California? 33% have adequate funding 60 does not have adequate funding 7 don’t know [rotate questions 35 and 36] 35. What if there were a measure on your local ballot to increase the local sales tax for roads and public transit projects by one-half cent for 20 years? Would you vote yes or no? 68% yes 29 no 3 don’t know 36. Suppose your local school district had a 20-year bond measure on your local ballot to pay for school construction and renovation projects. Would you vote yes or no? 72% yes 23 no 5 don’t know [rotate questions 37/37a and 38/38a as pairs] 37. Are low-income and minority neighborhoods more likely than other neighborhoods in your region to have school facilities that are in need of repair and replacement? 72% yes 21 no 7 don’t know 37a.Should school districts in low-income and minority neighborhoods receive more public funding for school facilities even if it means less funding for other school districts? 56% yes 38 no 6 don’t know 38. Do you think that low-income and minority neighborhoods are more likely than other neighborhoods in your region to have roads and other transportation infrastructure that are in need of repair and replacement? 61% yes 32 no 7 don’t know 38a.Should low-income and minority neighborhoods receive more public funding for roads and other transportation infrastructure even if it means less funding for projects in other neighborhoods? 49% yes 44 no 7 don’t know - 28 - [rotate questions 39 and 40] 39. 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% a great deal 46 only some 31 very little 9 none at all 2 don’t know 40. How much confidence do you have in your local governments’ abilities to plan for growth and the future in your region—a great deal, only some, very little, or none at all? 15% a great deal 47 only some 28 very little 8 none at all 2 don’t know 41. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 60% approve 29 disapprove 11 don’t know 42. Overall, from what you know, do you approve of disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling plans and policies for California’s future? 55% approve 30 disapprove 15 don’t know 43. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the job the California legislature is doing at this time? 40% approve 44 disapprove 6 don’t know 44. Overall, from what you know, do you approve of disapprove of the way the California legislature is handling plans and policies for California’s future? 35% approve 47 disapprove 18 don’t know 45. How much have you been involved in discussions about the issues in planning for the future in your part of California —a lot, only some, very little, or not at all? 12% a lot 30 only some 32 very little 26 not at all - 29 - 46. And how much would you like to be involved in discussions about the issues in planning for the future in your part of California—a lot, only some, very little, or not at all? 25% a lot 41 only some 20 very little 12 not at all 2 don’t know 47. On another topic, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? 75% yes [ask q47a] 25 no [skip to 48a] 47a.Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 43% Democrat [ask q48b] 34 Republican [ask q48c] 5 another party [specify] [skip to q49] 18 independent [ask q48a] 48a.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 26% Republican party 38 Democratic party 25 neither 11 don’t know [go to q49] 48b.Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 57% strong 41 not very strong 2 don’t know [go to q49] 48c.Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 59% strong 38 not very strong 3 don’t know 49. On another topic, would you consider yourself to be politically: [rotate order] 11% very liberal 21 somewhat liberal 28 middle-of-the-road 24 somewhat conservative 12 very conservative 4 don’t know August 2004 50. Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics—a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or none? 26% great deal 38 fair amount 27 only a little 1 none 51. How often would you say you vote—always, nearly always, part of the time, seldom, or never? 48% always 19 nearly always 9 part of the time 5 seldom 18 never 1 don’t know [52-62: demographic questions] - 30 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY Advisory Committee Mitchel Benson Director of Communications California Treasurer Phil Angelides Angela Blackwell President 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 Matt Fong Chairman Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Advisory Committee 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 CEO The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Monica Lozano Publisher and CEO La Opinión Donna Lucas Deputy Chief of Staff Office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Max Neiman Professor Political Science Department University of California, Riverside 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 - 31 - PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company 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 David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Vilma S. Martinez Partner Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Thomas C. Sutton Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Advisory Council Mary C. Daly Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Clifford W. Graves General Manager Department of Community Development City of Los Angeles 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 Norman R. King Executive Director San Bernardino Associated Governments Daniel A. Mazmanian C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California 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 info@ppic.org" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:37:30" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(8) "s_804mbs" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:37:30" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:37:30" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(50) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/S_804MBS.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) }