Connect with us

California

Column: Bonds on the November ballot are worthwhile, but very, very costly

Published

on

Column: Bonds on the November ballot are worthwhile, but very, very costly


There’s a lot more on the election ballot than Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump, although those two rightfully are drawing extraordinary attention.

The race for the White House is sucking up all the oxygen, to echo an old political cliche. Voters can’t help but focus on the tight presidential contest and scratch their heads when they scan the rest of the California ballot.

It doesn’t help that this year’s collection of state ballot measures is exceptionally boring. Well, maybe not so much the anti-crime Proposition 36. But the rest are pretty much eye-glazers.

Advertisement

Yet, there are three that are indisputably important. They could affect California living and people’s pocketbooks.

Voters are being asked to add $20 billion to the state’s debt to modernize school facilities, dampen wildfires and prevent all sorts of climate-related catastrophes. That’s a huge trade-off: more state debt for much-needed infrastructure upgrades.

It’s what two propositions are about.

The third would make it easier for local governments to issue bonds — borrow — to build affordable housing and public works. Paying off these local bonds would lead to slightly higher property taxes.

Here’s what you’re voting on specifically:

Advertisement

Proposition 2 is a $10-billion bond issue to repair, modernize and construct facilities at K-12 schools and community colleges.

Proposition 4 is another $10-billion bond proposal. It would pay for projects to store water, clean polluted water, reduce wildfire risk, prepare for sea-level rise and protect fish and wildlife.

Proposition 5 is a biggie for local communities. It would reduce from two-thirds to 55% the vote required to pass bonds for affordable housing or public infrastructure such as roads, fire stations and water treatment plants.

All the potential projects in Propositions 2 and 4 seem wonderful. But what makes me wince is the long payoff periods — 35 years at $500 million annually for Proposition 2 and 40 years at $400 million annually for Proposition 4.

My great-grandkid would be helping to pay off those bonds.

Advertisement

People who pitch government bonds like to compare it to taking out a mortgage to buy a house. But no one gets a 40-year home loan. The longer the payoff period, the higher the interest cost.

But Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature wanted to keep the annual payouts as low as possible — while they’re still in office. Let future generations of office holders fret about the annual $900-million hits on the state budget.

Even without Propositions 2 and 4, the state is paying about $6 billion each year on $80 billion in bond debt, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst‘s Office. Plus, voters have approved about $35 billion in bonds that haven’t yet been sold.

The state still is paying off several old school bonds, one dating back 50 years.

“Start with the fact that Californians already are overtaxed. Sacramento is awash in tax revenue. So why are we going more into debt? If something is necessary, why not pay for it [with cash] out of the general fund?” asks Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. He opposes all three ballot measures.

Advertisement

The answer is that the Democratic governor and Legislature have many competing spending priorities to fund out of a dicey budget that’s in danger of operating in the red for the foreseeable future.

So, the only way lots of public works projects will get financed is through voter-approved bonds.

The state is out of school bond money, says Nick Hardeman, the campaign manager for Proposition 2.

“Like in your home, a roof is going to last only so long. If it leaks, it’s not going to stay the same. It’s going to get worse. There’s a $4-billion backlog of school repairs needed in California,” Hardeman says.

The measure would provide $8.5 billion for K-12 schools and $1.5 billion for community colleges. To qualify for state money, local districts would need to put up matching dollars

Advertisement

One especially good expenditure: $600 million for “career tech” — what we used to call “shop.” Too bad there’s not more money for that.

“Not every kid is expected to go to college,” Hardeman notes. “Like future plumbers and electricians. They can get an early start with apprenticeship programs.”

Proposition 4 is a buffet of water and climate-related funding, with minimal pork — unlike some past parks bonds. There’s $3.8 billion for water, $1.5 billion for wildfire prevention, $1.2 billion to protect against sea-level rise, $1.2 billion for fish and wildlife habitat — and other climate-related goodies.

“This bond advances many of the governor’s priorities,” says Alfredo Gonzales, the Proposition 4 campaign chairman. But he adds that Newsom, surprisingly, wasn’t really involved in the measure’s drafting.

Proposition 5 would lower the voter threshold for passage of most local bonds to 55% — the same as for school bonds the last 20 years.

Advertisement

I’ve always thought the majority should rule on most matters.

“One-third of a community shouldn’t make decisions for the other two-thirds,” says Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters), a former city council member who has been pushing majority rule for years. She finally won legislative passage of Proposition 5.

Polling last month by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California showed that likely voters were about evenly split on Proposition 5. That meant it was in trouble.

Voters barely favored Proposition 2 (54%) and were comfortably supporting Proposition 4 (65%). But few probably had much idea what the measures were about.

“One $10-billion bond is a lot of money,” says PPIC pollster Mark Baldassare. “Two are definitely a lot of money.”

Advertisement

Yes, but they add up to worthwhile investments.



Source link

California

California regulators kill charity fireworks for America’s 250th, sparking outrage

Published

on

California regulators kill charity fireworks for America’s 250th, sparking outrage


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

As the nation prepares for its 250th Independence Day celebration, a decades-long California Fourth of July fireworks tradition that has raised millions for local children’s programs is going dark this year after the California Coastal Commission rejected a final effort to keep it alive, citing environmental concerns to protect the bay.

“We’ve raised over the past 14 years $2 million for kids programs here in Long Beach,” event organizer John Morris told Fox News Digital, adding the July 3 event is fully funded by the local community.

“This community pays for everything — everything. City fees, and the city doesn’t give us a break. We pay $20,000 to the city for police and fire, which I’m fine with, because there’s 100,000 people enjoying the fireworks,” said Morris, a Long Beach resident and business owner.

Advertisement

Morris, who owns the Boathouse on the Bay restaurant, had planned a scaled-up fireworks display this year to mark America’s 250th Independence Day.

CALIFORNIA BEACH TOWN BANS THE USE OF BALLOONS

Long Beach residents have enjoyed the fireworks organized by John Morris for over a decade. (Scott Varley/MediaNews Group/Torrance Daily Breeze via Getty Images)

In January, Coastal Commission staff rejected the proposal, and last week commissioners unanimously upheld that decision despite an appeal backed by local, state and federal officials.

Regulators warned Morris last year that 2025 would likely be the final year for fireworks at the event, as they continue pushing organizers to switch to drone shows they say are more environmentally friendly.

Advertisement

The decision stands in contrast to other approvals by the commission, including a permit granted to SeaWorld allowing up to 40 nights of fireworks.

“They get 40 nights in Mission Bay. All I’m asking for is 20 minutes — it doesn’t make any sense,” Morris said.

Morris, 78, also pushed back on the environmental concerns cited by the commission, pointing to years of testing around the event.

CLIMATE EXECUTIVE WARNS CALIFORNIA ‘FUNCTIONALLY BANKRUPT,’ $1T SHORTFALL COULD SHAKE NATION

Due to the lack of fireworks, Morris has decided to cancel the July 3rd celebration.

Advertisement

“We’ve had 10 years of environmental studies,” Morris said. “We test the water before and after the fireworks and send a robotic camera into the bay to check for debris — there’s never been any. It’s been spotless.

“We’ve also had eight years of bird reports to make sure we’re not harming wildlife. We’ve never had an issue. We’ve never been written up one time. So what is it really about?”

Joshua Smith, a spokesman for the California Coastal Commission, told Fox News Digital that permits are determined on a case-by-case basis, citing environmental concerns to “protect the bay.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Organizer John Morris said environmental studies are regularly conducted to measure the impact of the fireworks show on the bay. (Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Smith said Morris was approved for a permit to hold a drone show in lieu of fireworks. Morris told Fox News Digital such a show would cost about $200,000 — roughly four times more than traditional fireworks.

Smith confirmed that SeaWorld received a permit allowing 40 nights of fireworks. When pressed on the discrepancy, he reiterated that decisions are made individually and declined to provide further details.

Morris said the loss of the fireworks show will be felt across the community, from local businesses to families who have made the event an annual tradition.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Billionaire Steyer’s spending binge dwarfs rival campaigns in California governor’s race

Published

on

Billionaire Steyer’s spending binge dwarfs rival campaigns in California governor’s race


LOS ANGELES (AP) — In the wide-open race for California governor, billionaire Tom Steyer is on a spending binge.

The hedge fund manager-turned-liberal activist is using his personal fortune to saturate TV screens and mobile phones with advertising, while his competitors accuse him of trying to use his vast wealth to buy the state’s most powerful job.

Steyer’s ads — in which he promises to bring down household costs or rails against federal immigration raids — appear inescapable at times in heavily Democratic Los Angeles, the state’s largest media market. Data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact show Steyer has spent or booked over $115 million in ads for broadcast TV, cable and radio — nearly 30 times the amount of his nearest Democratic rival.

If he makes it through the June 2 primary election, Steyer could easily eclipse the 2010 record set by Republican Meg Whitman, who spent $178.5 million in a losing bid for governor, much of it her own money. At the time, it was the costliest campaign for statewide office in the nation’s history.

Advertisement

Even when ad buys from all his major competitors are combined, along with ad purchases by independent committees supporting candidates, Steyer is outspending the field by tens of millions of dollars.

“Billionaire money is flooding our state in an attempt to buy this election,” former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, one of Steyer’s chief rivals, warned her supporters this month.

Mail-in ballots are set to go out to voters next month. Steyer is among a crowd of candidates hoping to seize a spotlight after former Democratic U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell’s dramatic departure from the race following sexual assault allegations that he denies.

But while Steyer has ticked up in polling amid his spending splurge, he has not broken away from the field, leaving some wondering if he’s getting value for his dollars.

“If your first round of ads doesn’t move you dramatically (in the polls), the third, fourth, fifth, six, seventh and eighth rounds won’t either,” said veteran Democratic strategist Bill Carrick, who for years advised the late Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. “There is something inherently holding Steyer back.”

Advertisement

In recent prior campaigns for governor, at this stage a leading candidate was taking control of the race. This year, voters appear to be shrugging at a contest that lacks a star candidate among seven leading Democrats and two Republicans.

“Somehow the campaign is frozen,” Carrick added.

History shows that money doesn’t always translate into votes.

Billionaire developer Rick Caruso spent over $100 million in 2022 in his bid to become Los Angeles mayor, much of it his own money, but he was handily defeated by Mayor Karen Bass, who spent a fraction of Caruso’s total. Billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent more than $1 billion of his own money on his 2020 presidential bid before dropping out. And Steyer’s money was unable to lift him into contention in the 2020 presidential contest, when he dropped out early in the year after a poor finish in the South Carolina primary.

Steyer has never held elected office.

Advertisement

In a 2019 interview with The Associated Press, Steyer was asked what he would say to people who think he’s trying to buy the presidency.

“I don’t think that’s possible,” Steyer said at the time, before adding, “I’m never going to apologize for succeeding in business. That’s America, right?”

His campaign did not respond directly when asked about similar criticism facing his run for governor.

“Tom now stands as the only Democrat with the grassroots energy, institutional backing and resources to advance to the general election,” spokesperson Kevin Liao said in a statement.

The governor’s race was recently reordered by two developments: Swalwell, a leading Democrat, abruptly withdrew from the race then resigned from Congress, following sexual assault allegations. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump endorsed conservative commentator Steve Hilton.

Advertisement

Still, there is no clear leader.

Polling in late March and early April by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found a cluster of candidates in close competition: Democrats Steyer and Porter, Republicans Hilton and Chad Bianco, and Swalwell. Other candidates were trailing. The polling was conducted before Swalwell withdrew.

Democrats have feared the party’s large number of candidates could lead to them getting shut out of the general election in November. That’s because California has a primary system in which only the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of party.

Leading Democrats are all claiming to have picked up support since Swalwell’s exit. Steyer nabbed one plum endorsement, when the influential California Teachers Association, which previously backed Swalwell, recommended him.

In his ads, Steyer promises to “abolish” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has been staging raids across California. In another, he laments the state’s punishing cost of housing, “Everybody needs an affordable place to live,” he says.

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

California

Tory Lanez Sues California Prison System for $100 Million Over Stabbing

Published

on

Tory Lanez Sues California Prison System for 0 Million Over Stabbing


Rapper was stabbed 16 times by fellow inmate in May 2025 while 10-year sentence in Megan Thee Stallion shooting case

Tory Lanez has filed a $100 million lawsuit against the California Department of Corrections stemming from a May 2025 incident where the rapper was stabbed in prison.

Advertisement

Lanez — born Daystar Peterson and currently serving a 10-year sentence after being found guilty in the Megan Thee Stallion shooting case — also sued the warden and guards at the California Correctional Institute in Tehachapi, where the rapper was stabbed 16 times in an “unprovoked life-threatening attack” by another inmate, the lawsuit states. 

Peterson was hospitalized following the May 2025 incident, suffering a collapsed lung among stab wounds to his back, torso, and head.

According to the Associated Press, the lawsuit criticized the Department of Corrections for housing Peterson with fellow inmate and alleged attacker Santino Casio, who was serving a life sentence for second-degree murder. “The choice to house Casio with Peterson was known or should have been a known danger,” the lawsuit said, adding that Tory Lanez’ “high-profile celebrity status” made him a target.

The lawsuit also said that prison guards were slow to respond to the shanking, and didn’t employ flash grenades or other measures to halt Casio’s attack.; Casio was not charged for stabbing Peterson, the Associated Press notes.

Trending Stories

Advertisement

Lanez, who following his hospitalization was transferred to San Luis Obispo County’s California Men’s Colony, also alleges in the lawsuit that he never received his possessions from the California Correctional Institute in Tehachapi, including songbooks filled with lyrics to his unreleased music.

Lanez is serving a 10-year prison sentence for shooting Megan Thee Stallion in the foot during a confrontation in the summer of 2020. He was eventually convicted on several firearms charges, including assault with a firearm, in December 2022. In November 2025, his appeal was denied by a three-judge panel, and the 10-year sentence was upheld.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending