Bone Up for Road Bonds (Editorial)

Here’s what you need to know when deciding whether to vote “yes” on the highway bond proposal on Dec. 13:

• No new taxes will be needed to make the payments on the bonds, nor will any other government service be shorted. The payments will be made with federal highway grants that cannot, by law, be used for anything but construction and maintenance of interstate highways anyway.

• The voters’ decision in 1999 to borrow money for interstate improvements has inarguably produced a better transportation system than the old pay-as-you-go model.

• While the proposal does not ask taxpayers to reach into their pockets, it does ask them to approve a type of indebtedness that is unprecedented in this way: Instead of approving a single bond issue for a specific menu of projects, this proposal would give the Highway Commission what amounts to a credit card with a $575 million limit. As debt is paid down, a majority of the five-member commission would have the authority to issue more bonds — up to the limit — for whatever interstate projects they see fit. This bonding authority would continue into perpetuity, unless rescinded by another popular vote.

• Highway Commissioners are appointed to 10-year terms by the governor, a system adopted in 1951 after voters tired of highway construction scandals. The appointment system means the oversight of the state’s vital highway system is not beholden to voter pressure. It also means that this $575 million credit card would be given to a commission that doesn’t answer to the voters who gave them the credit card.

• Amendment 20 to the Arkansas Constitution requires a statewide vote whenever the state’s faith and credit is pledged against any sort of debt. The voters have never before been asked to approve perpetual bonding authority, but proponents express confidence that the highway bond proposal is constitutional. However, neither the bond lawyers that the state has depended on for this assurance nor the attorney general has issued a written opinion to that effect.

Business-minded voters should consider the pros of a (presumably) well-maintained interstate system and the convenience of not needing an election every time the commission feels the need for long-term financing and balance this against their comfort level with perpetual indebtedness in the hands of political appointees and the difficulty of undoing this decision if it turns out to be a mistake. It is a close call.

We remain inclined toward a yes vote but reserve the right to rethink right up until Dec. 13.