No on Proposition 1D: Schools need better solution to funding

As college students, the members of the Daily Bruin Editorial
Board find it difficult to vote against an act that could greatly
improve California’s public education.

ENDORSEMENTS Click here to
see complete list of Daily Bruin endorsements for the 2006
elections

By throwing in billions of dollars for a statewide face-lift of
California schools, Proposition 1D seems like a high-power solution
to a gargantuan problem.

Proponents are tempted by the $10 billion in funding for
students from kindergarten to college: more charter schools, safer
and more environmentally friendly facilities, and ““
here’s a big one ““ efforts to repair and increase
buildings for public universities to accommodate the growing
student population.

UCLA would receive funds to build its Life Sciences Replacement
Building, which would provide wet labs, offices and vivarium
space.

But one thing the proposition’s supporters gloss over when
advocating the use of this huge sum of money is how we’d get
all of it in the first place.

This proposition relies on general obligation bonds, which would
allow the state to invest in these improvements but would also put
it even further into debt during the middle of the state’s
shaky financial crisis.

According to this year’s California General Election
Official Voter Information Guide, these bonds would gradually
double in price 30 years down the line, forcing taxpayers to shell
out about $20 billion to pay back the debt.

This means the very children we are helping out now will have to
pay for this when they become adults, and the college students who
would feel the impact of this act could pass on the debt to their
grandchildren.

But this is assuming that California’s public school
students will see this money in the first place.

Proposition 1D requires 50 percent in matching funds from local
districts, allowing only those living in wealthy areas who have
this money to actually feel the act’s impact, potentially
leaving many schools in low-income communities who could use it
most without a penny.

There are better ways to fund an overhaul of our education
system. We already spend about half our state’s budget on
education, and that money should be put to better use. Also, the
state does not necessarily have to take on a gigantic debt all at
once, but could instead pay for improvements as they are made.

Ultimately, the problem with this proposition is that it has
good intentions but takes a bad approach.

If we are going to have a grand strategy to repair
California’s education problems, we should do it in a way
that won’t be too bogged down by monetary restrictions to
actually make a difference and leave taxpayers with empty pockets
down the line.

We are all for a bright future for California’s students,
but if it means digging the state even further into debt, currently
at about $100 million, then we question just how bright of a future
it would be.