Governor Puts Off School Measure

Gov. Gray Davis has shelved efforts to place a $4-billion school construction bond on the March ballot.

Davis urged lawmakers last week to return to the Capitol to approve a school bond measure as part of a larger plan to stimulate the economy. But his call received a chilly reception from two powerful foes: Senate Leader John Burton (D-San Francisco) and the California Teachers Assn.

The association, which is expected to foot much of the political bill for the bond campaign and favors a November vote, welcomed news of Davis’ decision to ditch the March proposal.

“Our feeling is that March is going to be a Republican primary . . . and that’s going to bring out a much more conservative vote,” CTA President Wayne Johnson said. “That’s not a good time to run a school bond vote.”

Burton said he doubted that a bond package could be put together in time to meet Wednesday’s deadline to place measures on the March ballot. He added that his proposal for a $2-billion bond to pay for low- and moderate-cost housing is headed for the November ballot.

Davis spokeswoman Hilary McLean said the administration’s focus is now on placing a $10-billion school construction bond on the November ballot. Additional bonds of $10 billion each would wind up on ballots in 2004 and 2006 for a $30-billion total.

McLean said she also does not expect the Legislature to return this month to make a $100-per-week boost in unemployment benefits retroactive to Sept. 11, as Davis had hoped. She said she expects lawmakers to take up the matter in early January.

The delay of the bond vote drew a sharp response from GOP lawmakers who called for a March school construction bond election about a year ago.

“I think the entire effort of the governor over the last week and a half has been nothing but political gamesmanship,” said Senate Republican Leader Jim Brulte of Rancho Cucamonga.

Brulte warned that delaying the vote could lead to higher costs on new-home construction due to a 1998 law that allows developers’ fees to rise when state school construction funds run out. The funds are now scheduled to run out in July or August. Developers, who sometimes split the cost of school construction with the state, would then be required to cover most or all of the expense, which they would pass on to home buyers.

The additional expense would average about $11,000 per home, said Richard Lyon, a lobbyist for the California Building Industry Assn.

Lyon said his association plans to seek legislation authorizing developers to loan school districts money to cover the state’s share of construction costs until November when the bond vote is scheduled to take place. If the bond is approved, the districts could then repay the developers.

“There’s a period of time here that if some corrective action isn’t taken the new home buyer in a new growth area could be picking up the entire cost of financing the construction of schools,” Lyon said.