California ballot measure brings fairness to school bonds. It deserves your vote in March
In 2016, voters passed $9 billion in school and community college bonds under Proposition 51, but not with the support of The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board.
“The current system allocates money on a first-come, first-served basis, which rewards districts with sophisticated lobby arms, not necessarily districts that have the most need,” the board wrote, opposing the measure.
Prop. 51 funding is mostly committed, and school district applications are “nearly in excess” of remaining funds, according to the state Legislative Analyst’s Office. Districts that didn’t have the resources to apply faster are out of luck.
Prop. 13 – not related to the historic property tax law of the same name passed in the 1970s – would right the balance. It gives top priority to projects that impact health and safety. Next would be applications from districts facing financial hardship. Third priority would go to projects that test for or mitigate lead in school water.
The March ballot measure authorizes $15 billion bonds for preschool through university capital projects.
Of the funding, $9 billion would go to K-12 public school districts and $6 billion would go to public higher education including community colleges and four-year universities. The LAO estimates that, with interest, the total cost would be $26 billion.
It’s worth it to fix persistent inequalities in our public schools, as is a related $650 million bond measure for Los Rios Community College District, intended to match Prop. 13 funds should the state measure pass.
[Editorial continues below background information box.]
BEHIND THE STORY
MOREWhy do we endorse?
An important role of The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board is making endorsements during elections.
Whereas reporters must take a detached stance on political races and ballot initiatives, and show no favor for any side, we share our opinion of what outcome is best for the community. We base this on interviews with candidates and a careful analysis of facts.
Endorsements, like editorials, represent the collective opinion of the board. They do not reflect the individual opinions of board members, or the views of Bee reporters in the news section.
Bee reporters do not participate in editorial board deliberations or weigh in on board decisions. They may observe candidate interviews.
Read more by clicking the arrow in the upper right.
Who decides the endorsements?
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board includes California Opinion Editor Gil Duran, President and Executive Editor Lauren Gustus, Bee Opinion Columnist Marcos Breton, Deputy California Opinion Editor and Editorial Cartoonist Jack Ohman.
Tell us what you think
You may or may not agree with our perspective. We believe disagreement is healthy and necessary for a functioning democracy. If you would like to share your own perspective on events important to the Sacramento region, you may write a letter to the editor (150 words or less) using this form, or email an op-ed (650-750 words) to opinion@sacbee.com. Due to a high volume of submissions, we are not able to publish everything we receive and may require time to respond.
Support The Sacramento Bee
These conversations are important for our community. Keep the conversation going by supporting The Sacramento Bee. Subscribe here.
Under Prop. 13’s formula a project from a school district facing financial hardship, with facilities in need of mold or lead mitigation or seismic retrofitting, would have priority over a district seeking to build a new gymnasium for reasons other than safety concerns.
Applications from K-12 schools would for the first time require districts to submit a five-year plan for maintaining any funded improvements, adding accountability.
The California State University and University of California systems would be required to share five-year plans for expanding students’ access to affordable housing. Boards in charge of distributing bonds to the systems would consider these plans in prioritizing campus projects. Community colleges are exempt from the requirement.
The measure’s provisions also promote the development of more affordable and denser housing.
Under existing law, districts may charge developers fees to help fund school construction projects. Prop. 13 would impose limits, including lowering fees on multifamily residential development, and prohibiting fees on such development near public transportation, until 2026.
Districts are already asking voters to approve the matching local bonds they need to qualify for Prop 13 funds.
Prop. 13 is more than new funding for school capital projects. It reforms how funding is spent and lowers fees for the dense housing development California critically needs.
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board supports Proposition 13 and encourages you to do the same.
This story was originally published February 5, 2020 at 5:00 AM with the headline "California ballot measure brings fairness to school bonds. It deserves your vote in March."