California pushes $10B school bond on taxpayers

California voters will soon decide the fate of a $10 billion school bond measure for K-12 schools and community colleges.

Proposition 2 would authorize borrowing $10 billion “for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K-12 public schools (including charter schools), community colleges, and career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades.”

The listed fiscal impact is “increased state costs of $500 million annually for 35 years to repay the bond.”

Prop 2 is supported by the California Teachers Association (CTA), state school nurse organization and community college group. It is opposed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. 

The campaign in favor of Prop 2 has also received a $1.5 million donation from the CTA and $10,000 from the California Democratic Party.  

However, education policy expert Lance Christensen told The Lion the price tag is way too steep for what is promised. 

“Our state continues to fritter away scarce funds on ineffective programs, like homelessness where legislators cannot account for $24 billion dollars, and billions more are being spent on healthcare for illegal immigrants,” said Christensen, who is vice president of education policy and government affairs at the California Policy Center.  

“There are also estimates that the state lost upwards of $30 billion in fraudulent unemployment payments. And when the state reputedly had a $100 billion surplus, it could have used a portion of that cash flow to fund school construction and … remodeling projects, but it didn’t.”  

Researchers from another think-tank – the Public Policy Institute of California – claim public schools need $100 billion in repair and modernization. It also said the funds for such projects have been depleted since before the pandemic. Voters rejected a $15 billion bond in 2020. 

But Christensen argued there are better ways for the state government to help schools – especially when the interest on the bond would equal the cost of the bond itself.  

“Now that nearly a half million kids have left the public schools, we’ll be closing more schools than we would build with $10 billion in borrowed money plus the other $10 billion in interest costs for that money,” he concluded. “Rather than spend that money, perhaps the Legislature should work on reducing the costs of construction in California and ask school districts to pass their own bonds.”  

Christensen isn’t the only one concerned with the bond’s massive price tag.  

California Assemblyman Bill Essayli, R-Riverside, has also argued against it.  

“With rampant inflation and the highest gas and graduated income taxes in the nation, [California] already has over $109 billion of outstanding and unissued bonds alongside almost $200 billion of unfunded pension liabilities and retiree medical benefits – over a quarter trillion dollars,” he wrote. “Children in school today will be drowning in new debt for decades if Prop. 2 passes.” 

Essayli said Prop 2 would essentially borrow “$10 billion from Wall Street and make Californians pay it back with interest.” 

He concluded that policymakers need to find a way to improve education – not just school buildings. 

“California’s schools are consistently ranked near the lowest in the country. Rather than throwing nearly $20 billion into school construction projects, our state needs a well thought out, long-term solution to achieve a high standard of excellence in reading, writing, and math. Prop. 2 does nothing to improve classroom instruction or help our children succeed.”  

The final day of voting on the school bond will be Nov. 5.