The practice of local and state governments using 30- or 40-year borrowing to pay for short-term needs used to be considered irresponsible. In a 2010 interview with editorial writers for The San Diego Union-Tribune, then-California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said long-term borrowing that wasn’t focused on making long-term improvements was an awful idea — because of the huge additional cost it created for governments issuing bonds and because it enabled elected leaders to duck tough spending decisions. But Lockyer’s view — conventional wisdom for most of California’s history — is no longer close to the the norm. In San Diego Unified, for example, former trustee John de Beck for years expressed disbelief that the district used borrowed money to pay for routine maintenance, which by any reckoning is daft. His fellow board ignored him.
Which brings us to state Proposition 4, crafted and placed on the ballot by the Legislature. Its official description: “Authorizes Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Communities and Natural Lands From Climate Risks.” In a state that’s deeply proud of its record as an environmental leader, this $10 billion measure looks likely to easily.
Locally, in the wake of disastrous flooding in January across the county, Proposition 4’s goal of reducing flood risks will sound like a great idea. The argument that spending now to create protections against the climate emergency could save billions in the long run is powerful.
But it is impossible to read the neutral evaluation of the measure by the respected Legislative Analyst’s Office and not immediately recognize that a huge chunk of the spending it authorizes is likely to be on short-term programs and projects, not permanent water- or energy-related infrastructure. “Much of the bond money would be used for loans and grants to local governments, Native American tribes, not-for-profit organizations and businesses. Some bond money also would be available for state agencies to spend on state-run activities,” the LAO notes. It cites “nature education” and for farmers’ markets as planned uses of borrowing that state taxpayers likely would still be paying back in 2064. That is not a typo.
The rule of thumb is that such borrowing normally doubles the long-term cost to taxpayers. So a vote for Proposition 4 is a vote to commit the state to spending about $20 billion at a time when the state faces massive deficits for years to come due to the spending binge that Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature went on before revenue cratered. Yet because of the climate emergency, such a commitment would be a worthy investment — if Proposition 4 was truly tightly focused on preparing the state for what’s ahead. But it’s not remotely a part of a larger, cohesive response to climate threats in California. Instead, it is to a significant degree an unfocused exercise in doling out pork.
An argument can be made that ing a deeply flawed measure responding to the climate crisis is better than rejecting it. But buying that argument requires a degree of trust in state leaders that they have shown they no longer deserve. It is a close call, but we recommend a “no” vote on Proposition 4.
