Regrettably, No on Prop. 55

Sometimes children fully deserve something that we can’t afford to give them right away.

That’s how it is with Proposition 55, the $12.3-billion bond to build and repair campuses for students from kindergarten through university. The bond would push the state’s debt beyond the comfort zone just when California’s precarious financial situation has no more room for discomfort. If it fails in March, the bond proposal automatically bounces onto the November ballot. Vote no now; hope to vote yes in eight months, when the state financial picture is clearer.

No question about it, the bond is justified. Many schools still leak during rainstorms and bulge at the seams, running year-round just to stay even with enrollment. Proposition 47, the $13.5-billion school bond that passed in 2002, was never expected to solve decades of deferred maintenance and construction, even though school districts had to raise a 100% match for that bond, as they would with Proposition 55. Already, the state has a backlog of $16.3 billion in approved projects -- more than the new bond would provide.

The issue is one of fiscal prudence. Like it or not, the school bond is inextricably linked to Proposition 57, the governor’s $15-billion deficit bond on the same ballot.

If both bonds pass, the state’s debt ratio will rise to between 6.5% and 7%, according to the legislative analyst’s office. That’s above the 6% generally considered prudent, and it would remain that way for several years. If the state’s budget and economic outlook were even reasonably good, the extra percentage point wouldn’t matter much. It’s hard to imagine what services could be squeezed aside for this bond, which would be paid off from the general fund -- not, as with local bonds, from a property tax assessment.

If the deficit bond fails and the school bond passes, the state will have bigger school problems than leaking roofs. The school bond would pay for more classrooms -- but the state deficit bond, which would shore up the general fund, is the one that would help pay for teachers. So, first things must come first: Before the state sets aside money for more schools and classrooms, it must set aside money for running the state, including the cash needed to put teachers into the classrooms.

An extra eight months wouldn’t undermine the school construction effort. Even school districts with local bond measures on the March ballot, including Los Angeles Unified, could start planning their projects while they waited for a matching state bond in November. Local districts would then be in a better position to apply for the school construction money when it became available.

School bonds have historically met with approval on this editorial page. They still do. It’s unfair and counterproductive to squeeze children and hard-working teachers into depressing, dilapidated conditions and tell them to achieve. However, given the extraordinary turmoil in the state’s finances, a temporary delay is the sad but prudent move.