School bond faces stiff debate

Though recent polls show an increase in voter support for an
upcoming education bond which would pay for repairs and
construction at education facilities in California, the
initiative’s passage is not certain in the March
election.

Proposition 55 is a $12.3 billion bond that will come up for a
vote on March 2. According to the Legislative Analyst’s
Office, the bond will cost the state about $24.7 billion to pay
off, which includes the principal sum and an additional $12.4
billion in interest.

Proponents of the proposition say the passage of the initiative
will be critical to education in California, especially because
many schools, including UCLA, have already planned renovations with
the bond money.

Out of the $12.3 billion, $690 million would go to repairs and
new buildings for the university. A portion of that amount would go
toward UCLA.

Part of the projected renovations at UCLA will include seismic
corrections at different buildings around campus and the
construction of a new life sciences building.

The projected repairs are estimated at over $17 million.

Opponents say the state cannot afford to take on a bond this
size and that the state needs to build new schools rather than
create more debt for the state.

UC President Robert Dynes strongly advocates the
initiative’s passage.

“Proposition 55 would allow us to continue earthquake and
life-safety improvements in our facilities, and construct new
buildings to meet the demands of growth,” he said.

Many supporters of the proposition point to the initiative as
the only way to accommodate a projected increase of students in
higher education institutions in California.

“The proposition has to pass in March. We have nearly
800,000 students expected to enroll in UCs, CSUs and community
colleges next year, and we don’t have enough facilities for
them,” said Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for the “Yes
on 55″ campaign.

In the University of California, the student body population is
expected to grow by 64,000 new students between 2000 and 2010,
which is an increase of almost 40 percent.

Fairbanks and other Proposition 55 supporters are emphasizing
that the passage of the bond would be essential for better
education in California.

“Education is ranked by voters as a front-burner issue,
and now that they will start to pay more attention, voters will be
inclined more and more to support (the initiative),”
Fairbanks said.

Recent polls show an increase in voter support for the
proposition. A field poll conducted this week shows 51 percent of
those polled support the initiative, up from 49 percent last
week.

But the same poll found that 40 percent of respondents now
oppose the measure, up from 36 percent.

Ron Roach, a spokesman for the California Taxpayer’s
Association, which supports the proposition, said California voters
seem to be confused about the initiative and thus are likely not to
vote for it.

“The four propositions on the March ballot have the public
so confused that they might go negative on all of them,”
Roach said.

Critics of the proposition, such as Mike Spence, president of
the California Republican Assembly, say a “pay as you
go” system is the only tangible way to improve education
facilities in the state.

Such a system would mean that the state Legislature spends money
now on all needed school repairs instead of borrowing the
funds.

“Voters realize that it’s a waste of money to spend
funds on interest rather than actual real school
construction,” Spence said.

“We need to eliminate some state employees, and use that
money on school construction. We need to force the Legislature to
make schools a priority,” he added.

While both opponents and proponents of the initiative say a
“pay as you go” system sounds attractive, in practice
California will not be able to implement that system because the
state already faces an estimated $14 billion deficit next year,
Roach said.

“”˜Pay as you go’ is nice if you have the
money, (but) this state does not have the capacity to implement
this system,” Roach said.

“Paying as you go will drain on the general fund, and
reduce spending and growth of other programs. From about the 1980s,
bonds were the only way to go in California,” he added.