#aca8

During this years budget negotiations the Assembly considered Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 8, which lowers the vote threshold required to pass bonds at the local level from two-thirds to fifty-five percent.

The passage of this measure would mean cities, counties and special districts only need fifty-five percent of the vote to approve the issuance of General Obligation Bonds for public works improvement projects such as transportation infrastructure, streets and roads, sidewalks, and transit systems, to name a few.

ACA 8’s passage in the Assembly, with the SUPPORT of Assemblyman Ken Cooley, comes despite the fact that the majority of Californians are opposed to lowering the two-thirds majority vote threshold established by the passage of Proposition 13. The bill is also opposed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the National Federation of Independent Business.

Not only is this measure unnecessary, but it decreases the protections for taxpayers, both today and tomorrow. In November of 2012, 54% of local bond and tax measures passed using the two-thirds vote threshold proving, that when these bonds and taxes are necessary, voters are willing to approve them.

Given the long-term nature of General Obligation bond debt, 30-40 years, it is critical that the two-thirds majority vote threshold remain in place. Bond debt is very expensive to the taxpayers of this state, and given the still recovering California economy, taking on additional bond debt should not be taken lightly.

California may yet flirt with insolvency if we continue on this path. Assemblyman Ken Cooley also doesn't seem to realize the debt risk he is now passing on to our children where the only solution to paying off that debt will be to increase taxes.

With still high unemployment and underemployment among our recent college graduates, mountains of student loan debt, and little hope on the horizon for good paying jobs, this states' future population of taxpayers is looking bleak. He appears to either not understand this or support the tenants of Proposition 13. Instead, he seems to be more concerned with helping the democrat super majority use its power than protecting his constituents from insolvency.

Not to worry though...like most important or controversial measures that come before this Legislature, they would rather have us, the voters, decide what to do so they can bandwagon off of our leadership...shouldn't it be the other way around?