Republicans Supporting California’s $10 Billion School Building Bond on Nov. Ballot

In the California Assembly, only Assemblyman Bill Essayli (R-Riverside) voted “no” on AB 247. Some Republicans abstained from the vote or did not cast a vote at all.

In the California Senate, besides Republican Minority Leader Brian Jones,  Republican Senators Brian Dahle and Kelly Seyarto voted no. Others abstained or did not cast a vote.

So, what is going on behind the scenes to get Republicans to support a bond initiative for more school spending and increased property taxes?

Everything is economic.

According to a Republican Party activist, the way this unfolded is the California Teachers Association approached legislative leadership with the bond initiative proposal, and pledged funding as long as the CAGOP approved.

The Globe contacted Leader Gallagher’s office for comment on this bill and initiative. We did not hear back but will update the article when we do.

Another Capitol source said the California Building Industry Association is the primary bill sponsor.

But is the motive funding? Is this a quid pro quo – Legislative leaders receive contributions for their support via independent expenditure committees, which they in turn use for their caucuses to help win elections?

According to the bill author Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), the “School Facility Program” is a partnership between the state, school districts, and developers for “much needed” school funding.

It’s no surprise that the California Teachers Association supports AB 247/Prop. 2 saying, “This important bond represents a significant commitment to K-12 schools by providing $8.5 billion to provide both new construction as well as modernization of California’s schools, including addressing lead in water, extreme heat mitigation, transitional kindergarten facility needs and career technical education facilities. The bond also provides $1.5 billion for essential community college facilities. California’s schools and community colleges need major upgrades to ensure that students are learning in adequate conditions. With previous school bond funds nearly depleted, our schools and community colleges are in need of a new school facilities bond.”

Another source told the Globe that during his argument to the CRP Initiatives Committee, Dan Dunmoyer, President and CEO of the California Building Industry Association said that Assembly Republican Leader Gallagher told him he was urging the committee to vote to endorse Proposition 2. The Globe has not corroborated this.

On the CAGOP website, the CRP doesn’t show this Initiative Committee endorsement on their list of initiatives. The Republican Party activist said that the CAGOP Initiative committee recommended Prop. 2 for approval. The CRP sent out a ballot for the delegates to vote on the measure following the initiative committee’s endorsement, the party activist said.

And under the Party rules, it takes a two-thirds vote to overturn the recommendation.

Why would the California Republican Party not only entertain such a bond/spending initiative, but actually endorse it? The Initiative Committee is made up entirely of Republican Party members appointed by CAGOP Chairwoman Jessica Patterson.

The Globe reached out to the CAGOP Spokesperson Ellie Hockenbury who said, “The CAGOP’s ballot initiative endorsement process is still underway, and we have not yet taken a position on Proposition 2.”

She indicated that the 14-person ballot initiative committee has voted to endorse Proposition 2, ballots have been mailed to all CAGOP delegates, and they have until August 28^th to return them.

Perhaps more importantly, the last school bond, Proposition 13 in 2020, was not passed by California voters. School bonds are not high on voters’ priorities. As the Globe reported, “Voters turned down the measure 56% to 44%, with 2.9 million voters saying ‘No’ and only 2.3 million voters saying ‘Yes.’”

A wide array of groups opposed the 2020 Proposition, ranging from taxpayer associations to the Green Party, many of which celebrated the bonds’ failure at the polls.

Governor Gavin Newsom had to quietly let the loss go with little acknowledgement.

The cost of the $15 billion bond initiative to taxpayers would have been excessive, and interest would have nearly doubled by the time the bond was paid back several decades later. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the interest would have totaled $11 billion.

The Los Angeles Times reports that “after months of closed-door debates, the governor and legislators have lowered the price tag; they hope voters will be in more of a spending mood come November. A simple majority is needed to approve the bond.”

However, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association warns passage of Proposition 2 will result in higher property tax bills. HJTA also notes the declining enrollment in California public schools, and commits California property owners to pay an estimated $18 billion, including interest, for school buildings that may not even be necessary.

HJTA opposes Proposition 2:

Proposition 2 is $10 billion of bonds, new state debt, to pay for school facilities. It is almost certain to result in higher property tax bills, because school districts must provide a “local match” of funds in order to receive money from the Prop. 2 state bonds. That will lead to districts issuing new local school bonds, which are paid for by adding new charges to property tax bills. Enrollment is declining in both K-12 district schools and community colleges and the declines are projected to continue. But Proposition 2 commits California to pay an estimated $18 billion, including interest, for school buildings that may not even be necessary. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 2.

The conclusion is that Proposition 2 is really about business as usual in the State Capitol –  after the lobbyists, building industry, teachers unions, school districts, political parties and lawmakers get their financial cuts of the deal, it will be taxpayers and property owners and school kids who will be fleeced, cheated, suckered, exploited – pick your adjective.

Just seeing the listed registered supporters of the bill tells the rest of the story:

Associated Builders and Contractors of California (see below)

Association of California Construction Managers

Association of California School Administrators

Beaumont Unified School District

California Association of School Business Officials (CASBO)

California Association of Suburban School Districts

California Building Industry Association (CBIA)

California County Superintendents

California School Boards Association

California School Employees Association

Capistrano Unified School District

Castro Valley Unified School District

Central Valley Education Coalition

Citrus College

Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH)

Community College Facility Coalition

Corona-Norco Unified School District

County School Facilities Consortium

Dreiling Terrones Architecture

Fallbrook Union High School District

Huntington Beach City School District

Jurupa Unified School District

Los Angeles Unified School District

Mt. San Antonio College

New Haven USD

North Orange Community College District

Office of The Riverside County Superintendent of Schools

Orange County Department of Education

Placer Union High School District

Riverside County Public K-12 School District Superintendents

Riverside Unified School District

San Benito High School District

San Diego Unified School District

State Building and Construction Trades Council of California

Temecula Valley Unified School District

Torrance Unified School District

Trinity County Office of Education

Windsor Unified School District

Winters Joint Unified School District

UPDATE CORRECTION: The Associated Builders and Contractors California initially supported AB 247, but fully oppose Proposition 2.