Traffic Relief Ahead Essay Research Paper Traffic

Traffic Relief Ahead Essay, Research Paper Traffic Relief Ahead, Yes on Proposition 35 Under California constitutional law, services provided by state agencies generally must be performed by state civil service employees. In some cases the state may contract with private firms to obtain services. However, there are limitations as to when such contracting is allowed, for example, if services needed by the state are: (1) of a temporary nature, (2) not available within the civil service, or (3) of a highly specialized or technical nature. According to the argument in favor of Proposition 35, private contracting has been further limited by several lawsuits filed by Caltrans bureaucrats. Proposition 35 would amend the State Constitution by eliminating restrictions on state, local

contracting with private entities for engineering, architectural services; contracts awarded by competitive selection; bidding permitted, not required. In other words, the State Constitution would be amended to provide that in design, development and construction of public works projects, state government may choose to contract with private entities for engineering and architectural services without regard to certain existing legal restrictions, which apply to the procurement of other services. The following are the highlights of the pro and con arguments as well as some of the key supporters. A few of the pro arguments include: giving state and local governments the option of contracting out will speed projects along; will allow California to once again make use of private

sector earthquake experts to ensure the safety of highways and bridges; California’s population is growing, and there is enough work for both public and private engineers and architects. A few of the arguments against include: the purpose of the measure is to benefit private engineering firms, which paid to put it on the ballot; it will take a significant amount of time to develop new regulations for the new contracting process, which will delay projects even further and end up costing the state money; the measure does not adequately detail the new contract selection process, and that could lead to costly litigation. The key supporters of Proposition 35 are Structural Engineers Association of California, California Chamber of Commerce, California Taxpayers Association, and

League of California Cities. The key opponents of Proposition 35 are Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Congress of California Seniors, Professional Engineers in California Government, and California State Employees Association. Proposition 35 simply gives state and local government the flexibility to use private sector engineers and architects to complete long overdue highway, rail transit and other projects sooner, safely, and at $2.5 billion savings to taxpayers. Supporters of Proposition 35 highlight a few important points, including thousands of overdue highway and rail transit projects that must be completed to alleviate traffic and prepare us for the next quake. In order to complete these thousands of projects both Caltrans and private sector engineers and architects are

needed to complete those projects. However, Caltrans bureaucrats stand in the way of accomplishing this by severely restricting government’s ability to contract with the private sector. Proposition 35 is the answer to these problems. Proposition 35 is the common sense initiative to fix the problem and allow public-private partnerships to complete projects sooner, safely, and at a $2.5 billion taxpayer savings. Proposition 35 will also speed up school improvements and other ailing infrastructure needs. Those opposing Proposition 35 say that Proposition 35 changes the State Constitution to benefit one special interest at taxpayer expense. The opposition says that California currently awards engineering contracts based on cost, qualifications, and experience. However, the