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.
Tax hikes are one more burden on struggling Californians, on top of higher electricity bills, higher insurance costs and higher grocery bills. That’s another reason we must look very closely at proposals for new debt to see if the money will be well spent.
Unfortunately, Proposition 2 does little or nothing to ensure that high priorities such as student safety are really funded this time, or if we’ll just go deeper into debt and then hear the same story about leaky roofs and asbestos next time.
According to the Legislative Analyst, “For new construction and renovation projects, school districts would apply for and be awarded funding mainly on a first-come, first-served basis,” while the state would award “the career technical education and charter school funds through a competitive application process.” This favors wealthier school districts that can afford to pay consultants and attorneys to quickly submit their applications. Schools in low-income areas will continue to struggle.
Debt is not the only way to build or upgrade schools. In the 2022-23 budget, the legislature appropriated more than $4 billion for new construction and modernization of school facilities. Not long ago, California had a $100 billion budget surplus. Everything in Proposition 2 could have been paid for without incurring 35 years of interest charges, if the legislature had chosen to prioritize the safety and well-being of students.
While Proposition 2 commits billions of dollars from future state budgets for school facilities, enrollment is declining in California. According to the Department of Finance, K-12 enrollment was 6.2 million in 2016, down to 5.85 million in 2022-23 and projected to be 5.19 million by 2032. Community colleges, which would receive $1.5 billion from Proposition 2 bonds, also have seen enrollment drop.
Tell the legislature you want more accountability, not more debt. Vote no on Proposition 2.
Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones represents Senate District 40, encompassing the cities of Escondido, Poway, San Marcos, Santee and many communities in the city and county of San Diego. Scott Kaufman is the legislative director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. He was formerly an editorial writer and opinion editor at the Orange County Register.
