Sponsored by: Political Trade-offs – CalMatters

from SponsorCalMatters

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

We’ve all seen those inspiring images of California’s future: cities filled with greenery under blue skies, families walking together, looking safe, happy and healthy. But making that vision a reality often requires making tough choices that aren’t always obvious when we talk about our shared goals. For example, you may want to use a vacant lot for a new park in your community. But if we build a new park there, then we can’t build more housing. Which would you prioritize over the other? The same is happening with our tax dollars. We have so much money, so do we spend it on health or education? Or do we raise taxes to raise more revenue, even if it means that individual households will have less money to spend?

New data from a survey of California voters reveals how people think about these trade-offs, highlighting the kinds of tough decisions politicians and communities must make as they try to improve their everyday lives.

The survey results point to three key areas of tension that can serve as a useful starting point for understanding the trade-offs voters face when pursuing political outcomes.

1. State vs. local control

Californians generally agree on core goals such as the need to build more affordable housing, expand access to good jobs and provide quality education. But questions remain about who should make decisions about how to pursue these outcomes. Should local communities retain control, even if it delays or creates inequities across the country? Or should the state step in with top-down mandates, which may provide faster progress but may override local community input?

In our survey data, voters expressed strong support for government action in some areas. For example, a majority (67%) want to equalize the distribution of property taxes to fund schools, rather than relying on uneven local tax bases. At the same time, 58 percent support local flexibility in school curriculum requirements, demonstrating how support for state versus local control can vary even within a single issue area like education.

1. Fast vs. Fair

How do we balance the need for speed and progress with the desire for fairness and safety? California urgently needs more housing, but should we speed up construction or take time for deeper community engagement and careful environmental review? Should the state reduce licensing requirements for specific health care practitioners to increase access to care? And how about increasing the ratio of carers in childcare and aged care facilities to offer services to more people?

On these issues, while many voters support expanding job responsibilities for certain healthcare workers to increase access, they draw the line at compromising safety. A large majority (79%) want to keep the licensing requirements for child and elder care providers, even if relaxing those rules would create more capacity for children and the elderly who need services now. Similarly, 71% favor keeping minimum staffing ratios for childcare and elderly care rather than increasing worker workloads to serve more people.

1. Public versus private services

Who should provide essential services – private companies or the government? Many essential services in California, from health care to energy markets, are privately run with mixed results. Investor-owned utilities like PG&E have faced criticism for unaffordable rate increases that outpace inflation. Meanwhile, rural hospitals are closing at an accelerated rate as low Medi-Cal reimbursement rates and rising costs make them unprofitable.

Voters in our survey show clear preferences when it comes to public and private service provision on some issues. Two-thirds (67%) support raising taxes to develop state energy infrastructure that could reduce and stabilize costs, rather than relying on for-profit companies with volatile prices. Support for more government involvement in health care is even stronger, with 76 percent of respondents supporting taxpayer funding to keep health care facilities open in underserved communities.

Even when voters support more government involvement in providing essentials, however, they are not enthusiastic about sacrificing their personal comforts. This is clear in the case of transportation: 65% support expanding public transit, but only 43% support charging drivers during rush hour traffic to fund transit. When the rubber meets the road, voters may be reluctant to accept certain approaches to achieve broader goals, especially if it means bearing the costs of change.

Read the report: Navigating Policy Trade-offs

The data suggests that while many voters may want to speed up the supply of essentials like housing, they also want to balance that with a fair and just process to move the state forward. However, these data are only the beginning, and a wide range of questions remain about when and how voters are willing to make difficult trade-offs:

• How can communities and policymakers understand and articulate these trade-offs?
• How can Californians be better informed about what goes into these policy decisions?
• And how can state and local governments be more transparent in their decision-making?

A study like this can’t provide definitive answers, but it can help reveal the issues that deserve further attention.

To learn more, visit the UC Berkeley Possibility Lab’s People-Centered Policymaking site

This article was originally published on CalMatters and is republished under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives license.