PROPOSITION 170: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BONDS : We Shouldn’t Need More Than a Majority : Yes: Over the past five years, 102 bond issues, worth $3.5 billion for our beleaguered schools, have been lost.

Whoever said, “It’s not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game” never tried to pass a bond measure to build or expand a public school in California.

In the world of California school-construction financing, playing the game--even playing it very well--often is not enough. Nor is winning, as defined by almost any traditional standard.

Last November, we elected a President with just 43% of the vote. The same day, 10 state school districts were denied funding for construction projects, even though a majority of local voters in each district supported the projects.

It takes approval of two-thirds of the voters to build a school for California’s children. There have been 215 general-obligation bond measures for elementary, junior high and high schools on local ballots throughout California in the last five years. Of those, 97 passed with the required two-thirds majority. Another 102 got more than a simple majority but failed to reach the magic 67%.

It’s the plight of those 102 “winners who lost” that is addressed in Proposition 170 on the state ballot this November. That proposition seeks to lower the requirement to pass a local school bond measure to a simple majority.

The two-thirds requirement has been in the state Constitution for more than 100 years and is not, as often is believed, the product of tax-reform Proposition 13 of 1978. Supporters say it is a way to check the spending habits of the voting majority. Opponents say it is an unfair barrier to achieving important benefits wanted by a majority of a community.

A review of recent political polling and research across the state reveals the practical problems facing a campaign to achieve passage of a school bond by a two-thirds majority. Two groups of voters--young Republican men and senior citizens--form the biggest hurdle in virtually every district in the state. Opposition to school bonds from these groups usually guarantees a “no” vote of between 25% and 30% before the measure is even placed on the ballot.

Strongest support for school bonds consistently comes from African-American and Latino voters and from Democratic women under 45. But for every person voting “no” there must be two people who vote “yes” and more often than not, the numbers don’t add up.

The impact of the “super majority” requirement on school construction has been stifling. The 102 “losing” measures totaled some $3.5 billion. That would build a lot of classrooms, study halls, physical education facilities and computer and science labs.

What is not so easily apparent is the impact on the state’s economy and employment picture.

Financial analysts estimate that each dollar of bond-fund expenditures creates $7 of economic activity in a community. There are wages in construction jobs and related fields. These turn into increased retail sales, which produce sales-tax revenues to support local law enforcement, fire protection, library services, street maintenance and parks. Those wages then are pumped back into the local economy.

By the time the $3.5 billion in defeated bond revenues had worked their way through the cycles, they would produce nearly $25.5 billion in economic activity throughout the state.

The fairness of bonds as a method of paying for school construction has been recognized by the majority of voters over and over. Bonds offer a way to build and expand schools now and spread the payments over 25 or 30 years, so succeeding generations will pay their fair share.

No matter what happens with Proposition 170, local school officials throughout California will wake up the next morning needing money to build and expand educational facilities. Proposition 170 will simply define the rules under which the game is played.