2024 California Proposition 2: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
HistorianL (talk | contribs) Undid revision 1245887394 by 141.154.49.21 (talk) Undid good faith edit. Skewed the wording away from the Non POV rule |
Undid revision 1245889324 by HistorianL (talk) This is literally the official language on the California secretary of state voter guide. Additionally, that doesn't warrant the undoing of everything else. |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
== Supporters == |
== Supporters == |
||
The official support statement of the proposition argues that "many schools and community colleges are outdated and need basic health and safety repairs and upgrades to prepare students for college and careers and to retain and attract quality teachers. Prop. 2 meets those needs and requires strict taxpayer accountability so funds are spent as promised with local control." |
|||
{{Endorsements box|title=Supporters|width=50em|list=;State assemblymembers |
{{Endorsements box|title=Supporters|width=50em|list=;State assemblymembers |
||
*[[Al Muratsuchi]], Member of the California State Assembly from the 66th district (2016–present; 2012-2014)<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-08-29 |title=California Proposition 2, Public Education Facilities Bond Measure (2024)|url=https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_2,_Public_Education_Facilities_Bond_Measure_(2024) |access-date=2024-08-29 |website=Ballotpedia |language=en-US}}</ref>}} |
*[[Al Muratsuchi]], Member of the California State Assembly from the 66th district (2016–present; 2012-2014)<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-08-29 |title=California Proposition 2, Public Education Facilities Bond Measure (2024)|url=https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_2,_Public_Education_Facilities_Bond_Measure_(2024) |access-date=2024-08-29 |website=Ballotpedia |language=en-US}}</ref>}} |
||
==Opponents== |
|||
The official oppositional statement of the proposition argues that "Proposition 2 will increase our bond obligations by $10 billion, which will cost taxpayers an estimated $18 billion when repaid with interest. A bond works like a government credit card—paying off that credit card requires the government to spend more of your tax dollars! Vote NO on Prop. 2." |
|||
{{Endorsements box|title=Opponents|width=50em|list=;State assemblymembers |
|||
*[[Bill Essayli]], Member of the California State Assembly from the 63rd district (2022–present)<ref>{{cite web |title=California General Election November 5, 2024 Official Voter Information Guide |url=https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/2/ |website=California Secretary of State |access-date=15 September 2024}}</ref> |
|||
;Newspapers |
|||
*''[[Daily Breeze]]''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Editorial Board |title=Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond. |url=https://www.dailybreeze.com/2024/09/08/endorsement-no-on-proposition-2-yet-another-flawed-very-expensive-school-bond/ |website=Daily Breeze |publisher=SCNG |access-date=15 September 2024}}</ref> |
|||
*''[[Inland Valley Daily Bulletin]]''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Editorial Board |title=Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond. |url=https://www.dailybulletin.com/2024/09/08/endorsement-no-on-proposition-2-yet-another-flawed-very-expensive-school-bond/ |website=Inland Valley Daily Bulletin |publisher=SCNG |access-date=15 September 2024}}</ref> |
|||
*''[[Long Beach Press-Telegram]]''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Editorial Board |title=Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond. |url=https://www.presstelegram.com/2024/09/08/endorsement-no-on-proposition-2-yet-another-flawed-very-expensive-school-bond/ |website=Press-Telegram |publisher=SCNG |access-date=15 September 2024}}</ref> |
|||
*''[[Los Angeles Daily News]]''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Editorial Board |title=Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond. |url=https://www.dailynews.com/2024/09/08/endorsement-no-on-proposition-2-yet-another-flawed-very-expensive-school-bond/ |website=Los Angeles Daily News |publisher=SCNG |access-date=15 September 2024}}</ref> |
|||
*''[[Orange County Register]]''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Editorial Board |title=Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond.|url=https://www.ocregister.com/2024/09/08/endorsement-no-on-proposition-2-yet-another-flawed-very-expensive-school-bond/ |website=OC Register |publisher=SCNG |access-date=15 September 2024}}</ref> |
|||
*''[[Pasadena Star-News]]''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Editorial Board |title=Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond. |url=https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2024/09/08/endorsement-no-on-proposition-2-yet-another-flawed-very-expensive-school-bond/ |website=Pasadena Star-News |publisher=SCNG |access-date=15 September 2024}}</ref> |
|||
*''[[Redlands Daily Facts]]''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Editorial Board |title=Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond.|url=https://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/2024/09/08/endorsement-no-on-proposition-2-yet-another-flawed-very-expensive-school-bond/|website=Redlands Daily Facts |publisher=SCNG |access-date=15 September 2024}}</ref> |
|||
*''[[The Press-Enterprise]]''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Editorial Board |title=Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond.|url=https://www.pressenterprise.com/2024/09/08/endorsement-no-on-proposition-2-yet-another-flawed-very-expensive-school-bond/|website=Press-Enterprise |publisher=SCNG |access-date=15 September 2024}}</ref> |
|||
*''[[The San Bernardino Sun]]''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Editorial Board |title=Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond.|url=https://www.sbsun.com/2024/09/08/endorsement-no-on-proposition-2-yet-another-flawed-very-expensive-school-bond/|website=San Bernardino Sun |publisher=SCNG |access-date=15 September 2024}}</ref> |
|||
*''[[San Gabriel Valley Tribune]]''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Editorial Board |title=Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond.|url=https://www.sgvtribune.com/2024/09/08/endorsement-no-on-proposition-2-yet-another-flawed-very-expensive-school-bond/|website=San Gabriel Valley Tribune |publisher=SCNG |access-date=15 September 2024}}</ref> |
|||
*''[[Whittier Daily News]]''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Editorial Board |title=Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond.|url=https://www.whittierdailynews.com/2024/09/08/endorsement-no-on-proposition-2-yet-another-flawed-very-expensive-school-bond/|website=Whittier Daily News |publisher=SCNG |access-date=15 September 2024}}</ref> |
|||
}} |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Revision as of 19:13, 15 September 2024
 | ||
| ||
Bonds for Public Schools and Community College Facilities | ||
| Elections in California |
|---|
 |
Proposition 2, titled Authorizing Bonds for Public Schools and Community College Facilities, is a California ballot proposition and legislative statutes that will be voted on in the 2024 general election on November 5. The proposition, if passed, will authorize the issuance of $10 billion in state general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K–12 public schools and community colleges; this will also include charter schools throughout the state of California.[1]
The proposition will also allow for the authorization of the following:[1]
- Provides funding for new facilities, to improve school health and safety conditions at existing facilities, and for classroom upgrades (e.g., science, engineering, transitional kindergarten, and vocational classrooms).
- Expands eligibility for financial hardship grants for small and disadvantaged school districts.
- Provides higher percentage of state matching funds to schools demonstrating greatest need.
- Requires public hearings and performance audits.
- Appropriates money from General Fund to repay bonds.
Supporters
The official support statement of the proposition argues that "many schools and community colleges are outdated and need basic health and safety repairs and upgrades to prepare students for college and careers and to retain and attract quality teachers. Prop. 2 meets those needs and requires strict taxpayer accountability so funds are spent as promised with local control."
Supporters
- State assemblymembers
- Al Muratsuchi, Member of the California State Assembly from the 66th district (2016–present; 2012-2014)[2]
Opponents
The official oppositional statement of the proposition argues that "Proposition 2 will increase our bond obligations by $10 billion, which will cost taxpayers an estimated $18 billion when repaid with interest. A bond works like a government credit card—paying off that credit card requires the government to spend more of your tax dollars! Vote NO on Prop. 2."
Opponents
- State assemblymembers
- Bill Essayli, Member of the California State Assembly from the 63rd district (2022–present)[3]
- Newspapers
References
- ^ a b Weber, Shirley (August 29, 2024). "2024 California Proposition 2" (PDF). Office of the Secretary of State of California.
- ^ "California Proposition 2, Public Education Facilities Bond Measure (2024)". Ballotpedia. 2024-08-29. Retrieved 2024-08-29.
- ^ "California General Election November 5, 2024 Official Voter Information Guide". California Secretary of State. Retrieved 15 September 2024.
- ^ Editorial Board. "Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond". Daily Breeze. SCNG. Retrieved 15 September 2024.
- ^ Editorial Board. "Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond". Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. SCNG. Retrieved 15 September 2024.
- ^ Editorial Board. "Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond". Press-Telegram. SCNG. Retrieved 15 September 2024.
- ^ Editorial Board. "Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond". Los Angeles Daily News. SCNG. Retrieved 15 September 2024.
- ^ Editorial Board. "Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond". OC Register. SCNG. Retrieved 15 September 2024.
- ^ Editorial Board. "Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond". Pasadena Star-News. SCNG. Retrieved 15 September 2024.
- ^ Editorial Board. "Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond". Redlands Daily Facts. SCNG. Retrieved 15 September 2024.
- ^ Editorial Board. "Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond". Press-Enterprise. SCNG. Retrieved 15 September 2024.
- ^ Editorial Board. "Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond". San Bernardino Sun. SCNG. Retrieved 15 September 2024.
- ^ Editorial Board. "Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond". San Gabriel Valley Tribune. SCNG. Retrieved 15 September 2024.
- ^ Editorial Board. "Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond". Whittier Daily News. SCNG. Retrieved 15 September 2024.