A key selling point for Proposition 5 on the Nov. 5 California ballot is that it defends democracy. By lowering the constitutional threshold to pass local bond measures from two-thirds to 55 percent, residents can “protect” themselves from the tyranny of the majority. But that presumes that the Golden State has a well-functioning democracy. It doesn’t.

From liberals like George Skelton to moderates like Dan Walters to libertarian-conservatives like Steven Greenhut, commentators of all stripes have documented how this one-party state resists accountability. This is reflected in public fury over a lack of progress on housing and homelessness. Guess what the main argument of Proposition 5 advocates is: Approving this change will allow for even more extremely expensive and ineffective housing and homeless programs.

Does this make you want to cheer? Or scream?

And that is only the most obvious of Proposition 5’s flaws. As the respected Legislative Analyst’s Office has noted for years, the claim that bond funds only go for long-term infrastructure is just not true. Routine costs that should not be paid for with 40-year borrowing have included basic maintenance and minor repairs, education programs and many more mundane items.

To read the entire column, please click here