.
By Stephen Frank, California Political News and Views
In an ironic quirk of fate, the March primary ballot will see another Prop. 13. In 1978, that Prop. 13 was meant to save homeowners money and protect their homes. The 2020 version of Prop. 13 is meant to reward failed government education, finance assistance to “illegal aliens, “diversity” and to RAISE your local property taxes. All of this, and more, at a cost of $15 billion for “education” and $11 billion in payments to Wall Street.
Almost All Democrats supports this bond, as do GOP Assembly members Jordan Cunningham and Tyler Diep.
LEADERS LEAD
The bigger question is why didn’t the California Republican Party at the September convention take a stand on this measure. Since then, the CRP Board of Directors have not taken a stand on this, nor has the CRP Executive Committee.
This measure does not fix or solve the problems of our government schools. Where is the outrage that tuition is going up for the next five years in the UC system, while this Prop. 13 will help finance attorneys for illegal aliens, scholarships for them and now money for graduate schools for illegal aliens.
The UC and State College system is spending tens of millions of dollars on “diversity” administrators and discriminatory entrance policies—this Prop. 13 allows them to double the money available for these outrageous policies.
Note that UCLA is the first in the nation being investigated by the Federal government for anti-Semitism. By assured, UC Davis, UC Irvine and other California campuses are in line for the same type of investigation. Our campuses are unsafe for those supporting the Constitution, believers in open and free discussion of issues. Campus after campus has had riots, open bullying—even by administrators and faculty.
This is what you will hear Prop. 13 will give us:
It will authorize $15 billion for school and college facilities in California, including $9 billion for preschool and K-12 schools, $4 billion for universities, and $2 billion for community colleges.
But the scandal is how it forces local school districts to raise property taxes to take advantage of the “free” state money. Free? From Ballotpedia: “The state would use the bond revenue to provide matching funds for school districts that cover between 60 and 65 percent of the costs of modernization projects and 50 and 55 percent of the costs of construction projects.” https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_13,_School_and_College_Facilities_Bond_(March_2020)
To get the State money the local districts, many of which are almost bankrupt and up against their debt limit will need more bond money to get the State money. So how do they do that? This is a Texas two step. First pass Prop. 13 and by doing so, you can DOUBLE your allowed debt.
- Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, stated, “Currently, there are strict limits on how much bond debt local school districts are allowed to carry. But a hidden provision of Prop. 13 (2020) nearly doubles the limits school districts can borrow. This means huge increases in property taxes are a near certainty. Who pays property taxes? We all do, either directly in property tax bills or through higher rents and other costs. Unlike the Prop. 13 from 1978, this Prop. 13 puts all taxpayers at risk of higher taxes.”[, from Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, “Hidden agenda in masquerading big bond measure,” November 24, 2019
Then you have the union backed section of the ballot measure. “Within each of these factors, the Department of General Services would further prioritize projects that include the use of a project labor agreement..
What does that mean? California has only 6% of its workers as members of unions. But this section demands that they are the only ones, under a Project Labor Agreement, be allowed to work. That means 94% PAY for the bond—but 6% are allowed to get the work. Discrimination? Of course. That is why Gov. Newsom is the major endorser of this measure along with most of the Assembly and Senate Democrats. Only two Republicans in the legislature support this anti-worker, anti-family, pro illegal alien effort.
And that brings me to the California Republican Party: LEADERS LEAD
The role of a political Party is to take a stand on issues, show folks where the Party stands on significant measures. While this is a $26 billion statewide measure—local districts will have to pass bonds of over $10 billion to take advantage of the matching funds provisions. So, this is really a $46 billion bond measure—with Wall Street getting $11 billion from Prop. 13 and then getting another $10 billion for the local bond measures. The big winner is Wall Street—not the children.
How should Republicans vote? Should the State CRP give a direction, a reason to support or oppose the measure? The bigger question has to do with voter registration. As voters note that the CRP does not take a stand on the measure, they have to ask, why register with a political Party that has no voter registration program—and does not take a stand on important issues of the day? Could this be part of the reason the California GOP has 23% of the voters registered—and NPP, the Chad Mayes Party—has 26%.
The purpose of a political party is to take a stand, support candidates—and run candidates. If it doesn’t, then why have the Party. There is still time for the Board of Directors to “recommend” voters oppose Prop. 13 and give the reasons why. While this is not an endorsement, it does give direction.
LEADERS LEAD.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Citizens Journal.
Stephen Frank: Is the the publisher and editor of the California Political News and Views. Mr. Frank speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows and is a full time political consultant. http://capoliticalnews.com/
Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE
Not much we can do when the State is totally in control of democrats.
Another reason to not take HJTA seriously.
Yes, there is a statutory debt limit on school districts. What Coupal doesn’t say, or perhaps doesn’t know, is that school districts regularly exceed that limit. Stockton Unified is way over its debt limit, but keeps issuing more bonds. It’s been over it’s debt limit for more than 10 years, yet the bond sales keeps flowing. The California Department of Education under its own interpretation of the law holds the opinion that it can waive any requirement of the Education Code. The less dishonest districts formally ask for a waiver. The real dishonest ones just ignore the law.
Does any one really think that any public officials are policing school districts? Dream on.
OH, but they are “policing” school districts, just not in the way that taxpayers and parents would want them policed.