CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2020, OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“THIS YEAR’S PROP. 13 DESERVES A YES VOTE”
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2020, OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“THIS YEAR’S PROP. 13 DESERVES A YES VOTE”
In an
ideal world, there would be no need for this year’s Proposition 13, the only
statewide measure voters will decide in the ongoing California primary
election, which culminates on the official March 3 Election Day.
But
anyone who has visited a public school or a public charter school in the last
few years knows this proposition is a must. Yes, some of the ballot arguments
against it are correct, but they don’t override the pressing need for the $15
billion this measure would provide for school and college construction and
renovation over the next few years.
Paint
is peeling, plumbing is ancient and roofs are leaking in many, many schools and
most local districts don’t have the budget to bring in the workers who could
make repairs. Other districts use temporary classrooms – call them trailers –
because their real buildings are overcrowded.
For
sure, the ballot argument for a “no” vote is correct in saying this money won’t
by itself “achieve a standard of excellence” in education. But voters can be
certain of this: Children studying in decrepit buildings generally perform
worse than kids in nicer facilities.
The same for students at
colleges and universities, which would also get some of this money.
Give schools and colleges money to build what
they need and there will be fewer excuses available for poor performance.
The
nay-sayers, led by the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. and its
articulate president Jon Coupal, are also correct that in the best of all
worlds, the repairs and buildings to be financed by Proposition 13 would be
paid for as the work is done, using some of the state’s current budget surplus
of $21 billion or $22 billion (both figures appear in the official ballot
pamphlet).
But
school buildings in California are traditionally financed with bonds. While the
“no” argument correctly says the total cost of this bond including interest
will top $27 billion over 35 years, with annual payments of almost $800
million, those payments won’t be nearly as burdensome in 2055 as they seem
today, unless America experiences no inflation in coming decades.
But
Coupal and friends are wrong when they imply that this measure’s backers
deliberately tried to confuse voters by applying the same Proposition 13 tag to
this measure that’s associated with the landmark property tax cutting 1978
initiative bearing the same number.
“Don’t
be confused by the deceptive title of this spending measure,” they warn. But
it’s not deceptive. It’s just counting. Back in the 1990s, when ballot measures
began getting numbers well above 200, state officials decided that each time
the ballot measure count reached 100, it would automatically recyle back to 1.
So it was that when state lawmakers in a bipartisan vote placed this measure on
this ballot, the next number up was 13. Did they know this? Probably. Did they
create the situation? No.
Coupal
& Co. also claim higher levels of debt inevitably lead to higher taxes.
They’re sort-of correct. That’s because the state normally covers about 60
percent of the cost of school projects it funds, with local districts paying
the rest. They get that money by going to their own voters for an OK to levy
higher property taxes. This will no doubt happen if the current Proposition 13
passes and its new money begins to flow. But no local tax increase can happen
without a 55 percent supermajority vote of the locals.
The “no” side also may be
literally correct when it says “not one cent…will be spent for direct
instruction in school classrooms.” But what instruction does occur will
hopefully take place in cleaner, safer, more modern environments where children
are proven to learn better.
But the
money most likely will not go into the “wasteful money pits” the “no” side
predicts, because of a clause limiting administrative costs to 5 percent of the
total pot.
All of
which means this measure deserves to pass, even if it’s not perfect. Voters
should heed the old warning about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the
good.
-30-
Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It" is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net
No comments:
Post a Comment