California's school construction funding program is unsustainable and favors districts that have already got funds over those who don’t.
A $10 billion statewide bond issue on the ballot Nov. 5 would perpetuate inequality and proceed to depart the state vulnerable to lawsuits. Voters should reject Proposition 2.
The measure would authorize the state to borrow to finance $8.5 billion in local school construction and $1.5 billion in community college construction.
Due to similar measures previously passed by California voters, the state already has $39 billion in outstanding school bonds. State debt payments on these totaled $2.9 billion within the last fiscal 12 months.
The $10 billion in Proposition 2 would increase bond payments by an estimated $500 million annually for 35 years. If the cash were spent properly, Proposition 2 can be price considering. But that isn’t the case.
The state plays a small role in funding school construction. About 85% of the cash comes from local bonds that voters approve for the varsity districts where they live, based on figures from the nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Analyst and calculations of the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools.
The debt from these bonds is paid for by local property taxes. Districts with higher property values - places where property values are higher or there are strong industrial centers – can generally allocate more bond funds for college construction.
The state program was designed to shut this gap and initially help the so-called poorer districts, where the general property tax per student is lower. Examples of those are the consolidated school districts of San Lorenzo, Castro Valley, Antioch, Oakley and Pittsburg.
Instead, the state does exactly the alternative: it distributes the funds largely on a first-come, first-served basis in the shape of matching funds that cover half the prices for brand new buildings and 60 percent for renovation projects.
This advantages districts that have already got construction funds and drawbacks financially weak districts, based on the state auditor in a report for 2022As a result, districts in California's wealthiest communities received $4,000 to $5,000 more per student in state funds to upgrade their facilities than districts within the poorest communities, based on a study from the UC Berkeley Center.
While the state is trying to offer additional operating funds to varsities with poor children, there is no such thing as a comparable effort to equalize financial resources for college construction. In fact, the state is doing just the alternative: it helps the districts that need it the least first. This isn’t only bad policy, but in addition legally questionable.
Public advocatesa nonprofit law firm that represents low-income communities, warned state lawmakers that the present system constitutes wealth-based discrimination that violates the equal protection principle of the California Constitution. In a February memo, the nonprofit firm said it was prepared to sue if state authorities didn’t fix this system's distribution system.
When state lawmakers later drafted Proposition 2, they made some small changes to the present system that barely improved funding for poorer districts. For example, the grant might be increased by as much as 55% for brand new construction and as much as 65% for renovation projects. And more very small school districts could apply for added state funding.
But the basic problems weren’t addressed in a meaningful way.
This was a missed opportunity. As a result, Proposition 2 will perpetuate a flawed funding system for college construction. Voters should reject it.
Originally published:
image credit : www.mercurynews.com