We’ve seen this before. Fearful that taxpayers might reject a proposed tax increase or bond, the proponents of the measure will trot out some endorsement
Why we're against it
The “Proposition 13” on the March 3, 2020, ballot has nothing to do with the 1978 Proposition 13. This measure is a $15 billion school construction bond that will cost taxpayers $27 billion when interest charges are added …
No on "Proposition 13"
This measure is a $15 billion school construction bond that will cost taxpayers $27 billion when interest charges are added,
The state borrows money by selling bonds to investors and then repaying it, with interest, over decades.
This measure would cost the state $740 million per year, money that comes from the General Fund. It’s an expense, like all bond debt, that must be paid ahead of any other priorities, even law enforcement.
If there is a recession, too much debt puts us at risk of a reduction in services or demands for emergency tax increases at the worst possible time.
Not only would this “Proposition 13” increase the state’s debt and interest costs, it would also cause an increase in local property taxes.
The measure raises the debt caps for local school district borrowing (from 1.25 percent to 2 percent), meaning districts could sell more bonds than they’re currently allowed to issue under the caps.
Needlessly raises school construction costs
Additionally, this “Proposition 13” needlessly raises the cost of school construction projects by giving priority for funding to districts that agree to use a Project Labor Agreement, or PLA. These agreements limit competitive bidding and require districts to pay the very highest labor costs in the area. This is an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the most influential taxpayer advocacy group in California, today (24) launched a statewide radio ad campaign in opposition to Proposition