ELECTIONS ’92 : THE PROPOSITIONS : School Bonds Approved but Tax Deferment Loses

Responding to a rapidly growing student population, voters Tuesday approved two measures providing $2.8 billion in bonds for construction and renovation on the state’s public school, college and university campuses.

But--in the only other proposition vote on the state ballot--the electorate overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to allow certain low-income home buyers to defer payment of part of their property taxes. The aim of the measure was to help renters buy their homes.

Proposition 152, which provides the public schools with $1.9 billion in bond money for construction, won by a comfortable margin, 53% to 47%.

Proposition 153, which authorizes $900 million in construction bonds for the state’s public universities and community colleges, won more narrowly, 51% to 49%.

However, voters were emphatic in rejecting Proposition 154, the property tax deferral measure. It received 40% of the vote, with a decisive 60% against.

Supporters of the public school construction measure--a broad, bipartisan coalition of educators, school boards, businesses and construction industry interests--hailed the passage of Proposition 152 as a victory for schoolchildren and as a badly needed lift for the state’s recession-mired economy.

Charles Binderup, president of the Assn. of California School Administrators, said: “This is an extremely responsible move on the part of the voters of California to deal with the pressing need for adequate school housing.”

Once the bonds are sold, all $1.9 billion authorized by Proposition 152 is likely to be spent very quickly. The State Allocation Board later this month will begin deciding how to divide the money among districts. The board already has applications for $6 billion in construction and remodeling projects.

The State Department of Education estimates that the school-age population will be growing at a rate of 230,000 students a year--fast enough to require construction of one school every day over the next five years. To build those schools could require as much as $2.5 billion annually.

Similarly, the state system of higher education has been counting on $900 million in bonds to build and upgrade classrooms and laboratories for a college and university population expected to expand by 700,000 students over the next 15 years. Proposition 153 requires that the money be divided equally among the University of California, the California State University system and the community colleges.

The funds will be spent on campuses throughout the state, including such projects as expansion of a law library at UCLA, expanding a science building at Cal State Fullerton and planning an art building expansion at Long Beach City College.

While voters were receptive to spending money for school construction, they flatly rejected Proposition 154. The measure would have provided a new exception to Proposition 13, the property tax-slashing initiative approved by voters in 1978.

Under that popular state constitutional provision, property is in most cases reassessed after a sale--and that usually means an increase in taxes.

But under Proposition 154, low-income tenants would have been allowed to postpone paying the increase in taxes if they purchased the house or mobile home they had been renting. The added taxes would have been repaid when the property was resold.

The chief supporter of Proposition 154 was Republican John Seymour, who as a state senator carried the legislation that put it on the ballot. Seymour was later appointed to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Pete Wilson when he became governor in 1991. On Tuesday, Seymour won his party’s nomination to continue in that post for another two years.