“Little bang for five billion bucks…The wrong road toward cleaner vehicles.”
— Sierra Club CA

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Billionaire Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens…really, really wants your money…His natural-gas fueling company has shelled out 3.2 million to further the reprehensible scam known as Proposition 10.”
— Los Angeles Times editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Proposition 10… could increase global warming emissions.”
— Mary Nichols, Chair, CA Air Resources Board

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“The measure (Prop 10) adds to the state’s fiscal problems, lines the pockets of the plan’s billionaire sponsor, and provides taxpayers nothing of lasting value – just a promise of clean air, with no requirements to make sure the promise is fulfilled.”
— California Taxpayers Assn.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Proposition 10 is harmful to California’s financial health.”
— State Treasurer Bill Lockyer

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"...a special interest giveaway…that promises no environmental benefits.”
— Environment California

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Prop 10 is biased towards investments in natural gas technology— over cleaner alternatives such as wind and solar technology—while draining California’s already over-committed general fund."
— California League of Conservation Voters

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“The attempt by California's Prop 10 to legislate into existence a market for natural gas vehicles would unnecessarily add pressure to drill and is a poor investment in times of scarce public dollars."
— Natural Resources Defense Council

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Proposition 10's key flaw is that it is a blatant scam by natural gas investor T. Boone Pickens to help him reap riches from his investment..”
— San Diego Union Tribune editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"We're outrageously in debt. It's lunacy to even consider taking on even more debt. The losers will be state taxpayers with less money for services they value."
— Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“California needs low-polluting alternative fuels in its future. But voters shouldn’t be misled to think this measure is a balanced answer. Vote no on Proposition 10.”
— San Francisco Chronicle editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"Using your general fund tax dollars to subsidize...a fleet of natural gas vehicles...would be irresponsible. Vote no."
— San Jose Mercury News editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"The purposes of this bond are not an appropriate use for state-issued, bond-generated revenues."
— League of Women Voters

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .