Editorial: No on Proposition 13

This proposition mirrors Proposition 51 in that it limits the ability of school districts to create new developer fees. This proposition takes it a step further and prohibits the collection of fees for multifamily housing developments within a half mile of a major transit stop and reduce by 20% for any other multifamily housing developments any fee.

For anyone versed in school finance, developer fees for schools is a key tool for districts looking to absorb the impact of new construction. With new development comes new facilities needs, and such fees are a way for districts to not dive into their already sparse funding to pay for the impact.

While it is well known that there is an acute need for more housing, especially multifamily housing by transit, there could be a better way to help developers of it rather than limiting a tool needed by local school districts to pay for the impact of such development. Granted, this proposition states it will provide money for school construction and modernization, and one could argue that it makes up for that impact. But history proves that the allocation of this funding has not been adequate or just. Too often, wealthy school districts are able to get more money because they can come up with matching funds. Districts who happen to have construction plans at the ready will likely receive first service rather than those districts that have been focused on more dire needs rather than future planning. If one were to argue that merit should be considered in allocation, meaning districts who plan should be rewarded, than one is not aware of the ongoing and pronounced challenges of districts in need and the concept of true equity.

If California would like to address its challenges with school construction and modernization, it should do so with money from its general fund or with a clean bond measure that simply allocates money to districts in need and offers assistance to those in need of planning. Tacking on a prohibition of fees that districts use to assure they have enough funding for other critical needs is quite simply the wrong approach.

It is difficult to come out against a measure that seeks to ensure proper facilities for this state’s children and teachers but this mechanism is the wrong approach.

Providing incentives for new housing is critical for this state, the Bay Area and this county. However, taking away the ability of school districts to assure they have proper funding to pay for the impact for increased enrollment is the wrong approach.

As we said in 2016: In an area such as San Mateo County, this will provide a hardship because of our population growth. Statewide school bonds help schools. The Legislature should place one on the ballot that does not preclude local development fees.