Los Angeles Community College District bond proposition, Measure J (November 2008)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A Los Angeles Community College District bond proposition, Measure J ballot question was on the November 4, 2008 for voters in the Los Angeles Community College District in Los Angeles County, where it was approved.

Measure J authorized the district to borrow $3.5 billion.

A 55 percent supermajority vote was required for approval.

Election results

Measure J
Approveda Yes 1,057,738 70.11%
These final, certified, election results are from the Los Angeles County elections office.

Ballot question

The question on the ballot:

MEASURE J: "To prepare students for jobs by improving classrooms, laboratories, equipment; train nurses, police, firefighters, paramedics; increase apprenticeship training opportunities; repair electrical wiring, plumbing, fire alarms; improve earthquake safety, energy efficiency to reduce costs; acquire/improve real property; shall Los Angeles Community College District issue $3.5 billion in bonds at legal interest rates, requiring public review, oversight, audits, no money for administrators’ salaries and no tax rate increase?"[1]

Editorial opinion

In favor

  • The Los Angeles Times praised Measure J as having plans that" unlike those in Measure Q, the new projects ...are detailed and specific." The paper also contends that "the district has managed its debt responsibly in recent years, and there is no reason to think that will change."[2]
  • The Daily Bruin supported the measure, stating, "With current budget cuts, citizens need to offer their support in improving higher education and increased accessibility thereto."[3]
  • The Daily Breeze also supported the measure on economic grounds, quoting economist John Haveman, "that bond spending of this type, especially if it leverages state funding already in the pipeline, can provide a positive cash infusion that keeps the regional economy humming."[4]
  • The Los Angeles Sentinel[5]


  • Daily News Los Angeles argued that the measure is a "good idea with bad timing" citing it as too costly given current economic conditions.[6]
  • Pasadena Star News argued the same.[7]

See also

External links

Suggest a link