A key selling point for Proposition 5 on the Nov. 5 California ballot is that it defends democracy. By lowering the constitutional threshold to local bond measures from two-thirds to 55 percent, residents can “protect” themselves from the tyranny of the majority. But that presumes that the Golden State has a well-functioning democracy. It doesn’t.
From liberals like George Skelton to moderates like Dan Walters to libertarian-conservatives like Steven Greenhut, commentators of all stripes have documented how this one-party state resists ability. This is reflected in public fury over a lack of progress on housing and homelessness. Guess what the main argument of Proposition 5 advocates is: Approving this change will allow for even more extremely expensive and ineffective housing and homeless programs.
Does this make you want to cheer? Or scream?
And that is only the most obvious of Proposition 5’s flaws. As the respected Legislative Analyst’s Office has noted for years, the claim that bond funds only go for long-term infrastructure is just not true. Routine costs that should not be paid for with 40-year borrowing have included basic maintenance and minor repairs, education programs and many more mundane items.
Since money is fungible, if these initiatives can be paid for with long-term borrowing, who gains from the freed-up funding? In many agencies, the employees whose pay and benefits often strain general fund budgets.
It isn’t anti-government crusaders who note that complex laws allow agencies to justify extremely dubious spending. It’s the LAO and the State Auditor’s Office.
And in 2013, the state Senate oversight committee made the crucial point that it’s almost never local finance officials or bond watchdog committees who bring to light improper spending. It’s idealistic, anonymous whistleblowers.
This shows the system is rigged in favor of entrenched interests. Proposition 5 only rigs it even more. We strongly urge a “no” vote on this attempt to further fund a broken status quo.
