Yes, there’s a Prop. 13 on the ballot — here’s why SLO County voters should support it

There’s only one statewide measure on the March 3 ballot and — as a matter of pure coincidence — it’s been labeled Proposition 13.

This Proposition 13 is a $15 billion bond measure that will provide much-needed revenue to upgrade aging school buildings and fund some new construction.

Anti-taxers are waging a campaign to let voters know this has nothing to do with the other Proposition 13 — the landmark 1978 initiative that capped property taxes

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is even calling it the “2020 imposter.”

There is a lot of misinformation flying around about the “new” Prop. 13.

For one, opponents claim there is a “hidden” provision that increases the amount local school districts are allowed to borrow. There’s nothing “hidden” about it; this has been widely reported.

Some critics are implying Prop. 13 will automatically raise local property taxes. It won’t; it will be repaid through the state General Fund.

It is true that some individual school districts may seek property tax increases to come up with a local match required to receive state dollars. But local school bond measures must be put on the ballot and approved by at least 55% of voters to pass.

Critics complain that money should be going toward students’ education, not toward buildings — ignoring real problems like mold, asbestos and leaky roofs.

And they emphasize how much interest it will cost to repay the loan; all told it will take $26 billion from the General Fund to pay off the bonds over 35 years.

Yes, that’s a lot of money. But every bond comes with interest payments. For example, the four bond measures on the November 2018 ballot totaled $16.4 billion. Interest payments brought the total up to $26 billion.

So why single out Prop. 13 for particular condemnation?

Supported by Jordan Cunningham

The state Legislature put this measure on the ballot with support from Democrats and Republicans, including local Assemblyman Jordan Cunningham, R-Templeton.

“Education facilities funding is a bipartisan issue that I am proud to support, which is why I worked across the aisle to coauthor this school bond,” he told us via email, adding that among other projects, it will fund modern technical training facilities so high school students will be job-ready when they graduate.

“If passed, this bond will also bring more dollars to the Central Coast, as the grants will be based on a needs-based formula for the first time. This means that kids in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties will benefit, not just large urban districts,” Cunningham said.

Polls show the measure slightly ahead, with 51% in favor and 10% undecided.

Other things to know

• Prop. 13 would provide $9 billion to K-12 public schools, and $6 billion to community colleges and four-year universities.
• It would give a break on developer fees for much-needed multifamily housing like apartments and duplexes, and also for homes constructed near transit locations.
• It’s structured to be more equitable than Prop. 51, a similar $9 billion statewide school bond measure in 2016 that favored large and sophisticated school districts by approving grants on a first-come, first-served basis. That left many small districts behind.
• Schools dealing with health issues like mold, asbestos and lead in drinking water would have funding priority.

• It increases the amount of money local school districts can borrow for school building and repair projects. Unified districts would be allowed to borrow up to 4% of the assessed value of property within the district; the current limit is 2.5%. That could translate into higher property taxes, but again, that borrowing can only occur if 55% of voters approve. And just because local school districts can borrow more doesn’t mean they will. School board members are accountable to voters. They aren’t going to put an outlandishly large bond measure on the ballot that has no chance of passing and will come back to bite them when they seek reelection.

Bottom line: Proposition 13 — the 2020 version — is worth supporting for multiple reasons.

It lowers fees for the dense housing development critically lacking in California. It funnels needed school repair and construction funding to the districts that need it most. And it gives local school districts the flexibility to borrow more money for big projects — but only with the approval of voters.

The Tribune strongly urges a yes vote on Proposition 13.

This editorial was updated with polling information.

The Modesto Bee contributed to this editorial.

This story was originally published February 20, 2020 at 5:00 AM.