To submit your own opinion about any of these issues or make comments about this site, e-mail heathen@scientist.com.

Proposition 39: School Facilities: 55% Local Vote

Last updated Wednesday, October 04, 2000

Summary: Considered the son of March's Prop 26, this proposition will decrease the local vote needed to pass school bonds from 66% to 55%.

Text of Proposition: www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_bp.htm

More Information: California Voter Foundation Initiative Watch 2000

Pro sites: www.yesonprop39.org, www.betterschoolsforca.org

Con sites: www.saveourhomes.com

Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee: NO

Libertarians also strongly oppose Proposition 39, the so-called "Son of 26," which would lower the threshold for passing school bonds from two-thirds to 55%. "Voters defeated Prop. 26 in March. To qualify a near-identical initiative so soon is the height of arrogance," Hinkle said.

Webmaster: NO

Here they go again! This is basically the same proposition that was rejected by voters last March. It will just make it easier to raise taxes and waste that money. Al Gore, Gray Davis, and other liberals want you to believe that all of these failed government programs will work if they just get a little more money. However this is clearly not true because the U.S. spends more on public education now than it ever did, yet the public schools are worse than ever.

Richard Rider: NO

Jack Hickey, Chair, LPC R41 (San Mateo County): NO

I endorse a NO vote on Prop 39. In addition to my position as posted on www.dnet.org, appended below, I would point out that the measure also provides facilities for Charter schools at property owner expense. Charter schools were established to reduce cost by reduced bureaucracy (aka the EdCode) and freedom form existing teacher union contracts. In return, they were to provide their own facilities. Now, we have what are called "Charter School conversions" which subvert that original intent. 90% of Charter schools today are "trojan horse" conversions.

My position as posted on www.dnet.org:

I am a supporter of the 2/3 vote requirement for bond measures which affect property taxes. Prop. 26 in the March primary would have reduced the requirement to a simple majority. Now, since Prop. 26 was defeated, it has been followed by Prop. 39, which proposes a reduction in the vote requirement to 55%.

Property taxes are paid for by property owners. Those who vote on bond measures include ALL voters.

The recent bond election for the San Mateo County Community College District was barely defeated under the 2/3 vote requirement. Yet, only 10.55% of the adult population voted for the measure.

Under the 55% requirement of Prop. 39, the measure would have passed handily! Is this fair!

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association says NO on Prop. 39, and they have endorsed my candidacy.

I say NO! I say NO on Prop. 39!