California Proposition 16, Veterans Home Bond Measure (March 2000)
| California Proposition 16 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date March 7, 2000 | |
| Topic Bond issues and Veterans | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Bond issue | Origin State Legislature |
California Proposition 16 was on the ballot as a bond issue in California on March 7, 2000. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported authorizing the state to issue $50 million in bonds to fund veterans' homes. |
A "no" vote opposed authorizing the state to issue $50 million in bonds to fund veterans' homes. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 16 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
4,402,818 | 62.29% | ||
| No | 2,665,311 | 37.71% | ||
Overview
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.[1]
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.[1]
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.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 16 was as follows:
| “ | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
• This fifty million dollar ($50,000,000) bond issue will provide funding to the Department of Veterans Affairs for the purpose of designing and constructing veterans’ homes in California and completing a comprehensive renovation of the Veterans’ Home at Yountville. • 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. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
- 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:[2]
| “ |
|
” |
Support
Official arguments
The official arguments submitted to the state's voter guide in support of Proposition 16 were submitted by Gray Davis, former governor of California; Senator John McCain (R); and State Senator Joe Dunn:[2]
| “ |
Not all state problems are measured in the billions. Proposition 16 asks for your support for $50 million in bonds to pay the state’s share of retirement homes for United States military veterans who are California residents. These veterans fought for our country in World War II, Korea, Vietnam and other hotspots around the globe. They put their lives on the line in defense of this country. It is our obligation to make sure they have a place to live if they can no longer care for themselves. Proposition 16 will not raise your taxes. The bonds will be paid from taxes already being collected. No new taxes will be raised or collected to fund this bond act. Proposition 16 will pay the state’s share to build two new veterans’ retirement homes that have been approved for construction by the state of California. Proposition 16 will rehabilitate the 100-year old Veterans Home at Yountville. Proposition 16 will build a special treatment center to treat veterans with dementia problems like Alzheimer’s disease. Proposition 16 is supported by the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and other state veterans’ organizations, as well as AARP and service and civic groups. It passed overwhelmingly in the state Assembly and Senate. We believe that Proposition 16 meets the needs of the U.S. military men and women who served this nation with distinction. Please vote 'yes' for our veterans. Vote 'yes' on Proposition 16. We appreciate your consideration.[3] |
” |
Opposition
Official arguments
The official arguments submitted to the state's voter guide in opposition to Proposition 16 were submitted by Gail K. Lightfoot, past chair of the Libertarian Party of California; Ted Brown, Insurance Adjuster/Investigator; and Larry Hines, U. S. Marine Corps Veteran:[2]
| “ |
In an orgy of spending, California legislators passed an $81 billion budget for Fiscal Year 2000. That’s up from $63 billion just four years ago. There was a $4 billion budget surplus this year. That’s money that should have been refunded to taxpayers. In fact, each family could have received over $330 to spend as they chose. But instead most of our legislators—Democrat and Republican alike—found ways to spend this money on new government programs. What does this have to do with Proposition 16? Well, if the legislators had an extra $4 billion to play around with, why didn’t they spend a relatively paltry $50 million of it (about 1.25% of the surplus) on the proposed veterans homes—and save us more election costs? No, they couldn’t do that. They had to spend it immediately. Now if voters say ‘‘yes’’ on Proposition 16, the veterans homes won’t just cost $50 million. BONDS ALMOST DOUBLE THE COST OF ANY GOVERNMENT PROJECT. Taxpayers will have to pay the interest on these bonds for the next 25 years. So, at the end, we’ll be out about $90 million. So we see that this proposal would have cost a lot less if it was paid for out of the current budget. But let’s ask: do we really need to build these veterans homes at all? The federal government, under the Department of Veterans Affairs, provides generous benefits to our veterans—from medical care, to job training, to college education, to no money down home loans. There’s really no need for the State of California to provide any veterans benefits. There are 1525 veterans currently staying at veterans homes in Yountville and Barstow. This is not a big number. Proposition 16 seeks funds to build even more of these small facilities. It’s highly likely that these veterans receive a pension from the federal government, and perhaps from a career subsequent to their military service. Should California taxpayers be providing them with shelter? It seems as if they and their families could arrange this privately. Even if we concede that California taxpayers should pay to house veterans, the veterans could stay at privately-owned retirement facilities. Whenever the government is involved in a building project, it costs a lot more than a private enterprise project. Governments require an expensive approval process, then require contractors to pay the prevailing union wage for construction, which is more than the low bidder would pay. The losers: the taxpayers. Send a message to legislators. There are alternatives to spending tax money on veterans homes. There also should be some punishment for squandering a hefty budget surplus, instead of refunding it to taxpayers, or even spending it on this relatively small project. Please vote NO on Proposition 16.[3] |
” |
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Chamber | Ayes | Noes |
| Assembly | 76 | 4 |
| Senate | 32 | 0 |
See also
External links
- Official Voter Guide
- 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
Footnotes
