Informed Opinions on Today’s Topics : School Bonds by a Simple Majority Vote?

According to the California Constitution, a two-thirds majority of voters is needed to approve the sale of general-obligation bonds. The provision was adopted as a protection for the state’s property owners, since bonds are paid off with higher property taxes. If passed, Proposition 170 on the Nov. 2 ballot would amend the Constitution to allow a simple majority to approve the sale of school construction bonds. Supporters argue that such action is necessary to accommodate the demand for new and renovated educational facilities in the state.

*

Should a simple majority be required to approve the sale of school construction bonds?

Larry Levine, political campaign manager based in Sherman Oaks:

“(The two-thirds requirement is) an undue hardship on those educators and parents and others interested in the school district who want to keep the schools upgraded and meet the needs of the district. It’s so easy to get one-third of the people to vote against anything. Good schools in a neighborhood mean good property values.”

Joel Fox, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.:

“It really is a property tax issue. Only the property taxpayers have to pay these bonds off. We think it’s important to preserve the protection they have with this two-thirds vote. Homeowners will be important to this election.”

Laura Walker, lobbyist for the California School Boards Assn., which represents 92% of the state’s school districts:

“We believe that a majority vote is democratic. We don’t believe that two (yes votes should be canceled out by a no) vote. It’s just not fair to school districts. When you have local communities voting for school funding, there’s an increased level of accountability for those funds. People who don’t have kids in school don’t know what the real problems are.”

Richard Close, president of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn.:

“(If Proposition 170 passes), it will increase property taxes at a time when people can’t afford the current property taxes. It’s not good for people who either own a home now or hope to in the future. It’s unfair to use property taxes for the building of public schools. (Proposition 170) makes it easier to increase taxes.”

Arthur Pierce, superintendent of the Burbank Unified School District:

“In Burbank, we have a need for major reconstruction of two high schools. (Without Proposition 170), the most we could raise is $40 million in local funds. If it passes, voters could approve as much as $70 million. If you value your property, then you need to have public services (in the neighborhood) that are reasonably up to date.”

Dwight Hansen, lobbyist for the California Building Industry Assn.:

“Our school population is growing astronomically. We need to find a way to build classrooms for those kids. With that two-thirds vote, we’ve created a situation where you can’t do it locally. There’s always been a link between quality of schools and quality of real estate.”

Jack O’Connell, Democratic assemblyman from Carpinteria, whose efforts helped put Proposition 170 on the ballot:

“The passage of Proposition 170 will allow voters at the local level to decide what their needs are, rather than the state, thus giving school boards a higher level of comfort in dealing with the crisis which is now occurring in our schools--the addition of over 200,000 children entering school each year.”