The bad Prop 13 on your March ballot. It’s NOT related to the original Prop. 13. It is a proposal to add $15 billion in new debt when Sacramento already spends wildly with no accountability or restraint. Vote NO. https://t.co/a0LkQSJ26C— HJTA.org (@HJTA) February 7, 2020
As a result of Sacramento’s unrestrained spending spree we are already billions in debt with no realistic plans to balance the budget. Vote NO on Prop. 13 this March to stop them from putting us another $15 billion in debt. https://t.co/fv7dnvb4bU— HJTA.org (@HJTA) January 29, 2020
More bad news re: CA's jobs climate. More than 800 good-paying CA jobs are being moved to other states. Keep in mind that the $12 billion property tax hike on the Nov ballot would make this problem much worse. https://t.co/Ri2JxvbmfK— CalTax (@CalTax) February 4, 2020
While SF newspapers write story after story about the exodus of employers and workers due to high costs, the SF Bd of Supes on 1/28 will consider endorsing an initiative to increase the cost of living by hiking property taxes on CA businesses, repealing their Prop 13 protections.— CalTax (@CalTax) January 24, 2020
🚨🚨🚨IMPORTANT🚨🚨🚨— HJTA.org (@HJTA) January 24, 2020
At HJTA, we support the original Prop. 13 California voters approved over 40 years ago.
This March, a DIFFERENT PROP. 13 will be on your ballot. This one increases debt at a time politicians already spend too much. We urge a NO.https://t.co/0XBlb9VYMY
Why we’re against it: The “Proposition 13” on the March 3, 2020, ballot has nothing to do with the 1978 Proposition 13. This measure is a $15 billion school construction bond that will cost taxpayers $27 billion when interest charges are added, (The state borrows money by selling bonds to investors and then repaying it, with interest, over decades.)
This measure would cost the state $740 million per year, money that comes from the General Fund. It’s an expense, like all bond debt, that must be paid ahead of any other priorities, even law enforcement. If there is a recession, too much debt puts us at risk of a reduction in services or demands for emergency tax increases at the worst possible time.
Not only would this “Proposition 13” increase the state’s debt and interest costs, it would also cause an increase in local property taxes. The measure raises the debt caps for local school district borrowing, meaning districts could sell more bonds than they’re currently allowed to issue under the caps. Local bonds are repaid by local property owners. The charges for school bonds show up on property tax bills under “Voted Indebtedness.”
Additionally, this “Proposition 13” needlessly raises the cost of school construction projects by giving priority for funding to districts that agree to use a Project Labor Agreement, or PLA. These agreements limit competitive bidding and require districts to pay the very highest labor costs in the area. This is an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.
We recommend a NO vote on this “Proposition 13.”
A $15 billion bond measure that also raises local debt caps and provides favors for unions and developers is unnecessary and unwise. https://t.co/FqgY7R1WeZ— HJTA.org (@HJTA) February 19, 2020
Need help with California ballot choices? HJTA has an Endorsements and Ballot-Measure Recommendations guide. https://t.co/fhC1VVS8Gn— Corruptifornia (@Corruptifornia1) February 7, 2020