Voters blew it on Measure E this election. The loss is Fresno State’s to bear | Opinion
The voters have spoken: There will be no pot of $1.6 billion for needed maintenance and new facilities at Fresno State.
That is what Measure E would have provided the university, thanks to a quarter of a cent retail sales and use tax (0.25%) that was to run for 25 years throughout Fresno County. It would have generated $63 million annually and $1.575 billion in total.
But Measure E got trounced in the primary election earlier this month.
Fresno State has $500 million in deferred maintenance, and facilities that badly need replacing. The nursing program would have been a prime beneficiary. It does not have enough space in its labs to accommodate more students. Twice as many qualified students apply than can be accepted. Yet the need for nurses in San Joaquin Valley hospitals is great. Witness how the use of traveling nurses — and their hefty hourly wages — was a factor in the financial pressures that led to the closure of Madera Community Hospital.
Measure E’s revenues would have provided $60 million for a new nursing building.
Measure E, officially called the Fresno State Improvement Zone Measure on the ballot, needed 50% plus one to pass. Instead, 57% voted no to 42% yes.
It was a worse outcome than in 2022, when the first iteration of Measure E failed in a 53% to 46% contest.
University President Saúl Jiménez-Sandoval said he was surprised at the larger margin of defeat. He chalks it up to many voters not understanding how the campus gets funded from the California State University system.
The University of California, community colleges and the state’s kindergarten-through-high school districts have funding formulas locked into state policies. But the CSU’s annual budget is at the discretion of the Legislature and governor.
As a result, Jiménez-Sandoval said it is nearly impossible for him to predict how much money he will get for maintenance five years from now.
And, let’s face it, replacing air conditioning systems at Fresno State is not as sexy to a legislator as fighting crime, combating climate change or improving health care.
Why Measure E failed
Tim Orman, the political consultant on the Yes on Measure E campaign, had some other ideas why it failed.
The stresses of the economy in general, like high prices at the grocery store and gas pump, were factors for some voters.
He also senses that locals take Fresno State for granted. It opened in 1911, and people assume it will always be here, he told me.
Some people saw the measure as double taxation — the “we already pay taxes” argument. That does not hold much validity because county residents already double tax themselves in things like Measure Z, which supports Fresno Chaffee Zoo.
The critical analysis probably comes down to the voters themselves. Turnout was dismal — about 29% of eligible voters took part in deciding the fate of Measure E. Typically, in low turnout elections, it is older, conservative voters who take part. Orman thought that occurred in this case. Such voters are not fans of raising taxes.
“It is kind of astonishing that 360,000 people who received ballots in Fresno County threw them in the trash,” Orman said.
The Yes on E campaign organizers debated whether to aim the measure for the March primary or the November presidential election, when turnout will be greater. Orman said the Yes on E campaign began in May 2023, and to try to hold its various groups together until November might not have worked.
Despite the outcome, Orman said he has no regrets, “We did a much better job in this campaign” than in 2022. “The measure was better and the campaign was better. It just did not work with this pool of voters.”
Voters were shortsighted
For Jiménez-Sandoval, the maintenance realities remain. I asked whether he would ramp up overtures to donors.
Prospective donors typically want to see that the university has other forms of financing, he explained. So one area he has already been looking to is industry. He would like Silicon Valley tech firms to support new facilities for engineering students. Local medical providers would benefit from nurses that graduate from Fresno State, so those entities should step up to help get new nursing labs built.
Ninety percent of Fresno State’s nursing graduates get jobs in the Valley, Jiménez Sandoval noted.
Whether voters recognize it or not, Fresno State is integral to the region’s identity and success. More than 60% of its students are the first in their families to attend college. And 80% of graduates remain in the Valley to apply their knowledge and skills to making the region better.
“We are part of the positive, moving-forward energy that distinguishes this region,” Jimenez-Sandoval said. He added that his job is to better educate local residents about the value of Fresno State.
It was pennywise, but pound foolish, for voters to turn down Measure E. Put another way, it was shortsighted. If Fresno is to get ahead as a community, the educational level of the work force must increase. Only then can the city attract better-paying industries — like high tech. Fresno State is the key part of that equation.
One of the things Measure E would have funded is a true concert hall, with outstanding acoustics, on campus. That does not exist today. The cultural enrichment of musical performances would have benefited both student musicians and the community at large. The price for such a hall: $45 million.
But for that to happen now, the university’s project has to get on a wish list with the other 22 CSUs. It won’t happen soon, if at all.
Without guaranteed funding like the UCs enjoy, the CSU — and Fresno State — will forever be at the whims of the Legislature. That is not a great place to be.
The voters made Jiménez-Sandoval’s job more difficult, but he is nothing if not optimistic. He will need all he can muster for the challenges ahead.
