Proposition 2 would put California $10 billion deeper into debt without reforming its broken system of funding school facilities.
Consider that proponents of Proposition 2 say the state must borrow billions of dollars for “urgent repairs to leaky roofs” and “deteriorating gas, electrical, and sewer lines.” The money is needed, they say, to remove “hazardous mold, asbestos, and lead paint from our schools.”
Since 1998, California voters have approved $54 billion in bonds for K-12 facilities. Most recently, Proposition 51 in 2016 provided for $9 billion, and some of those funds have not yet been spent.
If there is still asbestos and lead in our schools, and if basic safety concerns have not been prioritized, where is the accountability for those failures? Are taxpayers supposed to continue to approve endless borrowing while the most critical needs of students are ignored? Where is all the money going?
We know where the money is coming from. Proposition 2 will cost taxpayers another $500 million per year for 35 years, money that will come out of the state’s General Fund before any current needs can be funded. This is added to the nearly $8 billion in principal and interest payments that the state is already paying annually for previous bonds.
California’s current bond debt is about $79 billion, with another $30 billion authorized but not yet issued. In March, voters approved $6.38 billion more with Proposition 1.
The $500 million per year that Proposition 2 will cost taxpayers is only the beginning. In order to receive any of the Prop. 2 bond funds from the state, local school districts must provide a “local match” of up to 50%. This generally means school districts have to put local school bonds on the ballot. If approved by 55% of voters, these bonds will add new, extra charges to property tax bills. The borrowed money is paid back by raising property taxes.
Higher property taxes raise the cost of housing and the cost of living, and not only for homeowners. Tenants will see higher rents and consumers will see higher prices as property owners deal with higher operating costs due to property tax increases.
To read the entire column, please click here
