Is a badly written law better than no law at all if the need for remedy is clear?
Occasionally, a qualified yes. California Proposition 1D, part of the Rebuild California Plan, is intended primarily to upgrade existing school facilities to the latest seizmic standards while aiding the effort to build new schools where they are needed. There is also a provision to modernize existing facilities to bring them technologically up to date, such as school science labs.
The qualifications to which I alluded above? Opponents of the proposal make some good points about how the benefits of this initiative won't be equally distributed due to a matching-fund requirement. Such a requirement ensures that the wealthier districts will receive the bulk of the available aid money, while districts which are far more in need will, despite some "emergency assistance" grants, end up doing without and falling further behind than they are now. For example, of schools now designated as seriously overcrowded, only 20% will qualify for such emergency aid.
There are also a few questionable line items within the proposed law, not the least of which is a grant of $200 million for "capital improvements that expand and enhance medical education programs with an emphasis on telemedicine aimed at developing high-tech approaches to health care" which benefit only two state educational entities - the University of California and the Hastings College of the Law.
One wonders why fledgling lawyers would need such a telemedical system. Practice for future malpractice claims, perhaps?
Such illogic isn't exclusively the domain of the proponents, however. Thomas N. Hudson, Executive Director of the California Taxpayer Protection Committee, opposes Prop 1d, claiming that "there are more important things to spend money on than new vocational education facilities, energy efficiency, and seismic safety upgrades".
If I'm reading the California Taxpayer Protection Committee literature correctly, it is much more important to cut taxes than it is to pay the necessary cost to make school facilities more earthquake resistant, purchase classroom air-conditioning equipment and insulation, increase school security and playground safety, conduct hazardous materials abatement, or repair school roofs. I guess payments of about $680 million per year are far too expensive, and it would be better to risk the lives of California's 6,050,895 students [2000-1 figures].
Article comments
1 - scout
pess, I am voting a negative on this prop. NO MORE BONDS. It's that simple.
Year around schools don't work; if we want to improve education, make laws backing up teachers. For kids learn when they respect their teachers; just as adults.
2 - khang
why are we teaching our kid to be assembly workers or low wage workers? don't they need to learn the fundamental to compete and advance further in career or be more inventive? this is some stupid bond thought out by someone that trying to make lot of money, ripping off tax payer. california future is not gonna be take over by china.
3 - Tom Hudson
I never made the comment that is attributed to me. What is your source for this bizarre statement?
"Thomas N. Hudson, Executive Director of the California Taxpayer Protection Committee, opposes Prop 1d, claiming that "there are more important things to spend money on than new vocational education facilities, energy efficiency, and seismic safety upgrades"."
The debate over Prop 1D is NOT about whether schools should be funded by government. The debate is about HOW to pay for it? And is it fair to tax people in Placer County to upgrade wealthier schools in San Diego?