California Proposition 16, Bonds for Residential Homes for Veterans (2000)
Proposition 16 authorized the State of California to sell $50 million in general obligation bonds to replace $24 million in previously authorized bonds to provide funding for residential homes for veterans.
At the time that Proposition 16 was on the ballot, California's Department of Veterans Affairs already operated two residential homes for veterans:
- A residential home for veterans at Yountville in Napa County had the capacity to house 1,421 veterans.
- A residential home for veterans at Barstow in San Bernardino County had the capacity to house 400 veterans.
The Yountville and Barstow facilities provide residential services, nursing, and medical care for elderly and disabled California veterans.
The purpose of Proposition 16 was to allow the construction of three new residential homes for veterans in Chula Vista in San Diego County (for 400 residents), in Lancaster in Los Angeles County and in Saticoy in Ventura County, as well as setting aside $26 million for additional residential homes for veterans and/or repair and renovation of the existing facilities in Yountville and Barstow.
The total costs of construction and renovation of residential homes for veterans is split with 35% being paid by the state and 65% being paid by the federal government.
Text of measure
The ballot title was:
- This proposition would allow the state to sell $50 million in general obligation bonds to (1) replace $24 million in currently authorized lease-payment bonds for new veterans' homes and (2) provide $26 million in additional bonds for new or existing veterans' homes. This would result in a net state cost of about $33 million over 25 years, with costs of around $1 million per year.
- Funds from this bond shall be allocated to fund the state's matching requirement to construct or renovate those veterans' homes in Military and Veterans Code section 1011 first, and then fund any additional homes established under this Act.
- Appropriates money from General Fund to pay off bonds.
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 16. That estimate was:
- Net state cost of about $33 million over 25 years to pay off $26 million in additional bonds. The average cost would be around $1 million per year.
$23,138 was spent in favor of the measure, while there was no opposition campaign.
Path to the ballot
Proposition 16 was voted onto the ballot by the California State Legislature via Senate Bill 630 of the 1999-2000 Regular Session (Chapter 728, Statutes of 1999).
|Votes in legislature to refer to ballot|
- Official Voter Guide to Proposition 16
- Full text of Proposition 16
- Official declaration of the March 7, 2000 vote
- Smart Voter on Proposition 16
- Cal Voter on Prop 16
- Top Ten contributors
State of California
|Ballot measures by year||
1910 | 1911 | 1912 | 1914 | 1915 | 1916 | 1919 | 1920 | 1922 | 1924 | 1926 | 1928 | 1930 | 1932 | 1933 | 1934 | 1935 | 1936 | 1938 | 1939 | 1940 | 1942 | 1944 | 1946 | 1948 | 1949 | 1950 | 1952 | 1954 | 1956 | 1958 | 1960 | 1962 | 1964 | 1966 | 1968 | 1970 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1976 | 1978 | 1980 | 1982 | 1984 | 1986 | 1988 | 1990 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1996 | 1998 | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2006 (local) | 2008 | 2008 (local) | 2009 | 2009 (local) | 2010 | 2010 (local) | 2011 (local) | 2012 | 2012 (local) | 2014 | 2016 |
|State executive offices||
Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Controller | Treasurer | State Auditor | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Secretary of Agriculture | Secretary for Natural Resources | Director of Industrial Relations | President of Public Utilities |