CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS : PROPOSITIONS : Backers of Education Bonds Cite Jobs, Overcrowding

Supporters of Proposition 152--a $1.9-billion school construction bond measure--argued Tuesday that approval is needed to relieve severe overcrowding in public schools and to provide an infusion of new construction jobs to help revive a weakened state economy.

At a Capitol news conference, a broad coalition of business interests, educators and the PTA urged passage of the measure on Tuesday’s ballot, arguing that even with the bonds the state would have difficulty keeping up with a school population growing by 200,000 students a year.

Said Maureen DiMarco, Gov. Pete Wilson’s secretary of child development and education: “Proposition 152 . . . will not only build desperately needed schools but it will also create an estimated 65,000 new jobs at a time when California truly needs economic growth. Given the state’s bleak fiscal situation, it is absolutely critical that Proposition 152 pass.”

The arguments are almost identical to those voiced by supporters of Proposition 153, the only other state bond measure on the primary ballot. Approval of this measure would provide $900 million in bonds for the state’s public higher education system. The bond money would allow construction and remodeling of buildings as well as upgrading of laboratory and classroom equipment on University of California, California State University and community college campuses throughout the state.

Over the next 15 years, the number of students on state-supported college and university campuses is expected to grow by 700,000--an increase of 37%. In a recent radio address, Gov. Pete Wilson, who supports the higher education bond measure, contended that the money would create 13,000 construction jobs and generate as much as $2 billion in new business activity.

Both propositions were placed on the ballot by the Democrat-run Legislature and were signed by Republican Wilson.

Opponents of the two measures appear less organized than supporters.

The authors of the voter pamphlet arguments against Proposition 152 are leaders of Excellence through Choice in Education League, or ExCEL--the group that is trying to qualify a school voucher initiative for the November ballot. Under the voucher proposal, every public school student in the state would be eligible for a state-funded scholarship that could be used at private schools. The amount would be set at half the average per-student cost of the public school system--$2,600 based on the current average spending level of $5,200.

The organization itself has taken no official position on the bond measure.

However, the group’s leaders argue that any decision on construction bonds should be delayed until voters get a chance to decide on the voucher initiative.

“The assumptions made for these bonds and the ones to follow will be made obsolete if the voters should pass this fundamental reform of school finance,” said ExCEL’s treasurer, David Barulich.

Barulich and other backers of the initiative predict that it would mean a large number of transfers from public to private schools--reducing the need for new construction.

Not so, said DiMarco, who predicted that even if the initiative were to pass relatively few students would leave public schools. And population growth would continue to require a sharp increase in the number of classrooms in California.

In fact, DiMarco and other Proposition 152 backers admit that the $1.9 billion--the largest education bond in state history--would not even keep pace with the number of students expected to enroll in the next several years.

The State Allocation Board, which distributes school bond construction money, currently has a $3-billion backlog of approved projects stalled by a lack of funds.

The Libertarian Party of California, which has consistently opposed state issuance of bonds, is the only visible opponent of Proposition 153, the higher education bond measure.

“We are against bonds in general,” said Ted Brown, chairman of the Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County. “They double the cost of any government project and they are committing people 20 years from now to pay, which is taxation without representation.”

Brown said that he has been writing ballot arguments against bond measures based on that view since 1986.

Brown said he is especially critical of the higher education bonds because they come at a time when, because of budget problems, the state universities have been laying off faculty and cutting back on programs.

“If the colleges and universities are laying off teachers and cutting back on programs, why are they putting in these (new) buildings?” he asked.

The higher education bond proposal also comes during a period when critics of the University of California have taken aim at the salaries and benefits paid to top UC administrators--particularly the sizable retirement payments that were secretly approved for outgoing UC President David Gardner.

However, proponents of the bonds argue that the solution is not to punish a state system of colleges and universities widely regarded as among the best in the nation.

And supporters of both propositions contend that this is an ideal time for the state to invest in new buildings, both because of the needed jobs that would be created and because current low interest rates make the bonds a relative bargain.

The bonds authorized by both measures would be paid back over a period of about 20 years out of general tax revenues.

The legislative analyst has estimated that repaying the bonds called for in Proposition 152 would cost $3.3 billion including interest--or about $165 million a year. To pay off Proposition 153 would cost $1.56 billion including interest--or about $78 million a year.

Generally education bonds have won wide support from the California electorate. But all that changed in November, 1990, when voters rejected a $450-million higher education bond.

School Construction Issues

PROPOSITION 152

PROPOSAL: Authorizes sale of $1.9 billion in bonds to build schools and modernize school buildings. At least $1.33 billion would be spent on new construction and up to $570 million would be used for remodeling, obtaining portable classrooms and removing asbestos hazards.

Arguments for: Public schools are gaining 200,000 pupils a year, resulting in classroom crowding statewide. Keeping up with the growth could cost up to $3.4 billion a year, and $3 billion in construction projects have been held up for lack of funds. The bond would give the state’s construction industry a badly needed boost, providing as many as 65,000 jobs. Supporters include school administrators, teachers, the state PTA, labor unions and business interests.

Arguments against: Decisions on new construction should wait until voters get a chance to vote on a school voucher plan for school financing likely to be on the November ballot. The critics also argue that schools ought to look to alternatives--such as using existing commercial space--to deal with the growing school population. The most vocal opponents are the authors of the school voucher initiative.

PROPOSITION 153

PROPOSAL: Authorizes the sale of $900 million in bonds for the University of California, California State University and community colleges to construct and renovate buildings. A measure proposing half as much in bonds was defeated by voters two years ago.

Arguments for: Enrollment in California’s public higher education system is expected to swell by 700,000 over the next 15 years. Many facilities are in need of remodeling. Bonds could be used to update research facilities as well as classrooms. Issuing the bonds now would help the state’s still-floundering economy--creating 13,000 jobs in the construction industry alone. Supporters include leading business and labor groups and faculty and alumni associations.

Arguments against: New construction is not needed at a time when tight state budgets are forcing program cuts and faculty layoffs, particularly on the UC and CSU campuses. Opponents point to waste in a system that attempts to admit all qualified students, who pay fees far below the actual cost of their education. Students ought to shoulder the costs of any new construction, rather than asking taxpayers to repay bonds with interest over the next 20 years. Opponents include several Libertarian Party candidates and officials.