PROPOSITION 39 If passed, the initiative would
allow bonds for repair, construction or replacement of school
facilities and classroos to be approved by a 55 percent vote rather
than a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. SOURCE: California
Secretary of State Original Graphic by JACOB LIAO/Daily Bruin Web
Adaptation by AVISHAI SHRAGA/Daily Bruin Senior Staff
By Carol Woon
Daily Bruin Contributor
On Nov. 7, California voters will be asked to consider
Proposition 39, a measure that will change the state constitution
to facilitate the passage of local bonds for the repair and
construction of schools.
Currently, local school bonds require a two-thirds vote for
approval, this proposition would authorize approval of school
construction bonds with 55 percent of the local electorate.
Under Proposition 39, funding for a bond would be drawn from the
property tax revenue of the local community where the bond is
passed. This may mean a significant rise in those taxes.
But supporters of the proposition say restoring school
facilities should be the top priority.
“We’re sending a message to our kids that education
isn’t important by sending them to schools that are falling
apart,” said Sara Brown, spokeswoman for the “Yes on
Proposition 39″ campaign. “This is for the kids and
that’s the bottom line right now.”
Brown added that additional legislation, which would go into
effect with the passage of Proposition 39, will actually provide a
safeguard for homeowners by imposing a strict cap on property tax
increases and mandate the creation of citizen watchdog committees
to prevent the unauthorized spending of funds.
But some argue Proposition 39 would place an undue financial
burden on California homeowners, particularly those residing in
poorer districts, where property values are considerably lower.
“A wealthy community like Beverly Hills can afford to
provide much more expensive school facilities and an excellent,
first-rate education to students,” said Kris Vosburgh,
Executive Director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, one
of the organizations that has gone on record against the
proposition. “But in a city like Compton, you’d have to
have a tax rate 23 times higher to raise the same amount of
money.
Others stress that lowering the two-thirds vote requirement
would remove an important constitutional protection for homeowners,
who do not necessarily constitute a majority of the electorate.
“In any given community, if you add up all the people who
rent rather than own, and all the teachers, administrators, and
people who generally have an interest in passing school bonds,
you’d have a majority of the vote,” said Dean Andal,
chairman of the California Board of Equalization. “This means
that people who don’t pay the property tax increases can
impose it on those who do.”
Andal added that the fiscal accountability provisions and the
cap on property taxes touted as safeguards by supporters of the
proposition, are actually contained in a separate piece of
legislation, they can be changed at any time, and without voter
consent.
“The (Proposition 39) ads are misleading ““ there are
accountability provisions associated with the bill, but not in it.
The legislature can take all of that away with a single vote.
It’s almost meaningless,” he said.
But Proposition 39 advocates point to the unlikelihood of this
occurring.
“I can’t imagine any legislature or governor going
back to their constituents to get re-elected after removing these
provisions,” Brown said.
In the meantime, opponents of the measure say that the need for
additional school funding may be exaggerated.
“We create this illusion that every school is going to be
knocked over by a breath of wind or that kids are going to be
killed by collapsing roofs,” Vosburgh said. “If the
need is really that severe, why didn’t the government
allocate some of the billions of dollars of surplus for the school
budget? “
Ann Desmond, Director of Legislation for the California State
Parent-Teachers’ Association, disagreed.
“California classrooms are the most overcrowded in the
country. And if you look at the enrollment projections for the next
five years, which estimate the arrival of 300,000 new students,
you’ll see that there’s a critical need for new school
construction and modernization of school facilities,” she
said.
“Most of our school buildings are at least 30 years
old,” Desmond added. “Any homeowner would agree that
any building that’s more than 30 years old needs to have some
work done on it. I don’t think the need for this funding is
at all exaggerated.”
Proposition 39’s predecessor was an initiative which would
have allowed passage of a local school bond with a simple majority
of a jurisdiction’s voters. Proposition 26 was defeated in
the March election by a narrow margin.