Under California’s state constitution, local governments may incur bond indebtedness or levy taxes for a specific purpose only with the approval of two-thirds of voters.
The wisdom of this standard is straightforward. First, it’s a guardrail against excessive indebtedness across California’s hundreds of cities, dozens of counties and thousands of special districts. Second, it requires advocates of local bonds and taxes to truly build broad consensus that, yes, new bonds and taxes are worth the burden they impose on taxpayers.
These thresholds have understandably frustrated many proponents of bonds and taxes across the state. The high threshold sometimes means that a majority of voters approve of bonds and taxes, but these measures still fail because they fall short of a two-thirds threshold.
Enter Proposition 5, which was placed on the ballot by order of the California Legislature. Sponsored by the state firefighter union and the state building trades association, the measure asks voters to lower the approval threshold for bonds and therefore related property taxes intended for affordable housing and public infrastructure. Under Prop. 5, the approval threshold would be reduced from two-thirds to 55%.
The arguments in support of this measure are fairly simple. California is facing a shortage of affordable housing and so it would be helpful to make it possible for local governments to subsidize the construction and repair of affordable housing. Likewise, since many local governments are dealing with aging and deteriorating infrastructure, it should be easier for local governments to obtain access to public funds to handle such issues.
These are all superficially plausible. But no self-respecting taxpayer should fall for it.
Public polling consistently shows that most Californians think they are paying more in taxes than they should. That’s because they are. The chief budget problem for state and local governments in California isn’t that they suffer from a lack of money. The problem is how they spend the money.
Consider, for example, Los Angeles’ Proposition HHH bond monies were ostensibly intended for homeless housing. Voters were convinced that if only they agreed to allow the city to issue $1.2 billion in bonds, then the city would be able to take on the homeless crisis.
The results have made national headlines, and for all the wrong reasons. Not only was the city slow in actually putting the money to use, but lavishly spent the money on homeless housing that cost as much as $837,000 per unit. Adding insult to injury, homelessness is higher today than it was when the bond was approved and the housing crisis in Los Angeles is as bad as ever.
Needless to say, the problem of high housing costs won’t be solved by making it easier for local governments to go on a borrow-and-spend spree in an attempt to subsidize high housing costs away.
Likewise, while we can all recognize that infrastructure needs are real and they are expensive, the fact is that when it’s that obvious, two-thirds of voters are indeed likely to approve bonds for legitimate ends.
We must also note that the future Prop. 5 promises is one in which many Californians will pay higher property taxes in the name of improving affordability. This fundamental contradiction is why we urge voters to protect existing taxpayer protections and reject this money grab from local governments and special interests clamoring for more of your money.
Proposition 5 is but the latest attack on you, the taxpayer. Such attacks will only escalate if Prop. 5 is approved.
Vote no on Proposition 5.
