Temecula High School (Photo: Michelle Mears for California Globe)
Republicans Supporting California’s $10 Billion School Building Bond on Nov. Ballot
California GOP Initiative Committee voted to endorse; delegates are considering now
By Katy Grimes, August 14, 2024 2:55 am
The California Republican Party is considering endorsing Proposition 2, a bond initiative authorizing the state to borrow $10 billion to fund repairs and upgrades to California public schools.
The California Legislature already weighed in and passed legislation to put the measure on the ballot… even as California has a nearly $80 billion budget deficit, and taxpayer fatigue over the thought of additional taxes.Public school enrollment in California has declined by 500,000 students, and is slated to lose 1 million students by 2035. “Proposition 2 commits California to pay an estimated $18 billion, including interest, for school buildings that may not even be necessary,” the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association warns.
Last month the California Legislature voted to pass AB 247, which authorized the $10 billion bond measure for the November ballot as Proposition 2. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 247 into law July 3, 2024.
Some Republicans voted to pass AB 247 to place it on the ballot.
Assembly Republican Leader Leader Gallagher and Assembly Floor Leader Heath Flora voted to pass the bill. Senate Republican Leader Brian Jones did not.
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 28th 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.”
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.
- Ageism: California Gov. Gavin Newsom Now Destroying RV Industry with Clean Air Regs - November 14, 2024
- White Liberal Women are Losing Their Minds over Donald Trump’s Election - November 13, 2024
- Are You Kidding? Berkeley Poll Reports California Voters Want Kamala for Governor - November 13, 2024
RELATED ARTICLES
-
August 27, 2020 -
February 8, 2022 -
November 29, 2023
The Republicans also committed to the destruction of California taxpayers.
As Katy Grimes revealed, the Initiative Committee is made up entirely of Republican Party members (aka RINOs) appointed by CAGOP’s RINO Chairwoman Jessica Patterson. These RINOs are the problem?
NO.
What the heck is going on with these people? Have CA Republican legislators —- with a handful of exceptions including Asm Bill Essayli, Sen Bill Jones, and Sen Kelly Seyarto —- completely lost their MINDS? Never mind the CAGOP, but we’ve known for years how feckless THEY are.
Are these people completely out of touch with what is going on in California? Are they completely unaware that California voters are watching their shenanigans and back room deals and cluelessless and are beyond FED UP with their nonsense? Do they not know the spotlight is on them more than ever now? Are they begging to be fired? Guess so!
It’s not just “disappointing” anymore. It’s infuriating.
P.S. In addition to Asm Bill Essayli, Sen Bill Jones, and Sen Kelly Seyarto, it should be noted the Sen Brian Dahle also voted NO on AB 247 to place it on the ballot.
Showandtell, I wonder if funds will be set aside to construct permanent Drag Queen Story Hour classrooms?
HA HA! Probably.
As long as Dems control CA, this born-and-raised California Republican will do everything he can to thwart any progress on any front, period. CA wanted liberalism and they got it. The whole place can rot for all I care, and I still exist — won’t say “live” — here. We really need to split this place up between those who can see and smell the ocean and the rest of us who are mostly normal.
Just read the first sentence again…”BORROW $10B?” BORROW? From where, exactly, Gavie-poo? Where’s that “surplus” you were preening yourself with just a short time ago? BORROW? $10B? Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
Call this “Early Voting:” NO!
There is no appetite for this type of spending on public education which is failing in California. A similar local bond measure here was voted down.
The list of supporters are union-controlled boards. If we remember back to the 1970’s when California had good schools, unions had a lesser role in the State. Local school boards had more control over how that school district operated and were more accountable to the voters. If we want to see California schools return back to that level of competence, schools have to be decentralized away from Sacramento and the power returned to the localities. Which in turn should empower the voters. This current mess is one of the unintended consequences of Prop 13 (which I support) that called for uniform funding of schools being administered by the State.
Hal, this brings us back to the debate of the sixties and seventies of property taxes supporting local schools – rich districts vs poor districts. The main problem in having a reasonable debate on school funding has been the influence of the teachers union and schemes like the lottery. Serious discussion has never taken place, to my knowledge. It has just deteriorated into a battle over public versus private, school vouchers and so forth. I think that the debate has to be separated into a discussion of capital costs (facilities and maintenance) apart from teaching and curriculum where the teachers union gets involved. If we discuss just facilities and maintenance, for example, why not include both public and private schools – they both need upkeep and the state could fund both, imo. As students move up through the education system, at some point they move between public and private schools. Early grades public and later grade levels private, or vice versa. The choice is not static and decisions are dynamic depending on the student’s needs. We need to revisit this whole debate.
Raymond, my contention is that the large, centralized bureaucracy in Sacramento is not the most efficient way to run schools. There has to be local control. I see this bond measure as power grab by the CTA which some of it will be spread around to the uniparty. We have all complained about where money has gone to at the EDD, Homeless low-income housing, high-speed rail, and water storage. Throwing more money at Sacramento will only create more opportunities for corruption.
I agree Hal. Donald Trump has said that, if elected, he will abolish the federal department of education and send education back to the states. States have always had the responsibility for education, and the feds’ involvement just mucks it up even more. If Sacramento suddenly loses federal funding for education, what would the Sacramento bureaucracy do? No more Head Start, etc.? Come to think of it, this might be a good idea.
Does anyone doubt that California is run by the uniparty? The two parties are just for show.
The Kool Aid drinkers abound.
We outspend so many States and the quality of Education is seriously lacking, more construction $$$? One thing here I’d like to add, being born in 1954 I attended grade school and since the mid 70s Mar Vista Elementary has sat vacant, some of it is used for a Day Care Center but the rest sits. The High School my first ex-wife attended was the newest in the district, Monte Vista HS, it was sold to the LA Sheriffs for a Training Center by 1980. I got no clue as to what some of these Republicans are up to by I am thrilled at the work my Assemblyman is doing, Bill Essayli.
CAGOP is a joke. Can we please get some real Republicans running CAGOP?
I’ve seen what the administrators spend 30 year school bonds on.
Paint – lasts about five years
CCTV – lasts about five years
Computers – lasts about three years
Image taking out a 30 year loan to pay for these things, because that’s what a 30 year bond is. These bond measures are fiscally irresponsible. Take the money out of the General Fund, which has quadrupled in the last 20 years. They have the money.
No to all bonds measures.
YES! That’s what a general fund is FOR. To manage responsibly and fund this stuff when needed. But no….
I’ve seen how they handle the borrowed bond money too in my school district. And if the darn bond passes they always gloat and act like they personally each won a million dollars playing the lottery, which tells you right away they are up to no good and that the hundreds of millions of dollars is NOT going to be handled responsibly or as described.
I NEVER vote “yes” for school bonds. Every election features a bond for schools! These bonds are an endless money pit. Vote NO on every one!