CA voters likely to decide $20 billion in bonds for climate and schools

There was no rest for the weary over the weekend, as lawmakers advanced two bonds that will likely appear on the November ballot. In five months, voters could decide whether the state can borrow $20 billion to fight climate change and repair schools.

Climate change bond: Democratic leaders on Sunday said they reached an agreement to place a $10 billion bond on the ballot to pay for climate change impacts following cuts to state climate programs in recent years, CalMatters climate reporter Alejandro Lazo explains.

If approved by the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom, the bond measure would include $3.8 billion for drinking water and groundwater upgrades, $1.5 billion for wildfire and forest programs and $1.2 billion to address rising sea levels.

• Sen. Ben Allen, an El Segundo Democrat and the measure’s author, in a statement: “We are already seeing the devastating effects of climate change — more extreme heat waves, catastrophic fires and floods, coastal erosion, and severe droughts.” 

School facilities bond: The Legislature reached an agreement on another bond, this one to pay for school facility repairs, writes CalMatters K-12 education reporter Carolyn Jones. The $10 billion bond would set aside $8.5 billion for new construction and modernization of K-12 schools and $1.5 billion for community colleges. Experts say even that amount isn’t enough, especially for districts in poorer communities.

More money for school repairs is no sure thing: Voters rejected a $15 billion school facilities bond in 2020, which included billions of dollars for public universities.

The agreement follows months of negotiating among lawmakers over a competing school facilities bill, which would have also included public universities. But Assembly Bill 247 won out because it asked to borrow less money and because public universities have other means of raising funds.

Read more about the school bond in Carolyn’s story.

Besides the bond issues, there were other key developments on the November ballot over the weekend.

Democrats’ crime measure: Sunday night, legislative Democrats unveiled their anti-crime proposal for the November ballot, calling for a new felony to punish drug suppliers who sell fentanyl-tainted products to unwitting consumers and increased penalties for repeat thieves, explains CalMatters justice reporter Nigel Duara. 

It’s meant to out-compete a measure already on the November ballot that would roll back Proposition 47, which voters approved in 2014 and which reduced certain property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.

Read more on the differences between the two measures in Nigel’s story.

Health insurance tax measure: And voters will decide whether to permanently dedicate money collected from a special tax health insurance companies pay to Medi-Cal, the ​​state’s health insurance program for low-income residents.

As CalMatters health reporter Kristen Hwang explains, a tax known as the Managed Care Organization tax is projected to generate as much as $35 billion over the next four years.

Doctors have argued that the money should be used to increase payments to health care providers who see Medi-Cal patients, encouraging them to accept more low-income patients. In the new state budget, however, most of that money was put in the general spending account to plug the deficit instead. The initiative, backed by nearly the entire health care industry, seeks to secure that tax money for health care, rather than allow future lawmakers to use it to offset cuts to other services.

Learn more about the MCO tax measure in Kristen’s story.

While the vast majority of new laws in California take effect with the new year (here’s a reminder of key ones that started on Jan. 1), some start on July 1. Here are a few:

• Drink spiking: Bars and nightclubs must post signs warning patrons of drink spiking, or provide test kits for customers to determine if their drinks have been drugged, writes CalMatters Digital Democracy reporter Ryan Sabalow. The Legislature is currently considering three related bills by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, who led last year’s bill for the law. The Long Beach Democrat is a former nightclub owner and current partner in three Southern California restaurants that serve alcohol. Lowenthal told CalMatters that drink-spiking has “gotten to crisis proportions.” Learn more about the new requirement in Ryan’s story.

• Hidden fees: Advertisements for goods and services must include all “mandatory fees or charges other than taxes,” such as fees for concert tickets and hotel rooms. A related law also goes into effect. Signed by Gov. Newsom on Saturday, it clarifies that food service providers are exempt from the rule when advertising individual food prices, as long as the fees are listed on menus or other displays. 

• Renters’ security deposits: To make it easier for renters to secure housing, most California landlords are now required to limit security deposits to one month’s rent. Smaller mom-and-pop landlords who own only two properties with no more than four units are exempt.

• Workplace violence: Most employers must create and maintain a workplace violence prevention plan to protect workers from threats or the use of physical force that results in injury, trauma or stress. The plans can include additional training, responding to reports of workplace violence and keeping a log for every violent incident.

Also today: The state’s excise gas tax will increase by 1.7 cents to 59.6 cents a gallon to keep up with inflation, and the new fiscal year kicks off. Two days before the crucial date, Newsom signed the state budget deal, which covers a $56 billion shortfall over the next two years. The spending plan cuts some programs, delays others and dips into rainy-day funds. The Democratic-led Legislature signed off on the deal last week, though Republican lawmakers disapproved of the closed-door budget process.

The number of agricultural guest workers in California has nearly tripled in the last six years. But, as our new investigation finds, state inspectors have struggled to ensure that farms are doing what they’re supposed to do under law — provide their workers with safe housing. 

CalMatters reporters Felicia Mello and Wendy Fry found: 

• The state’s Department of Housing and Community Development employs just three inspectors to oversee all employer-provided dwellings, across a state that spans more than 150,000 square miles and provides over a third of the country’s vegetables and nearly three-quarters of its fruits and nuts. 
• The department conducts all its routine inspections before worker housing is occupied, which makes it difficult to catch such issues as overcrowding.
• When its inspectors do find issues, employers face few consequences, department records show. Despite identifying 1,053 violations in employee housing facilities in 2022, the last year for which data is available the department did not issue a single citation. 
• And, in at least a handful of recent cases, inspectors awarded permits to employer-provided housing without ever visiting the site, a violation of department policy. 

As soon as Antonio Bravo, a guest worker from Michoacán, Mexico, saw the housing that his employer provided him, it killed all the hopes he had built up for the job. 

“I couldn’t breathe,” he said. 

Bravo was part of the H2A visa program. Under federal and state law, H2A workers’ employers must provide them safe and clean housing. California law tasks the housing department with inspecting employee housing annually, including H2A housing. 

Department officials acknowledged past shortcomings, but said they’re now doing a better job, and they must balance the needs of businesses and workers. 

• Pablo Espinoza, department spokesperson: “The system seems to be working. Nothing is ever perfect.”

Read more on the investigation from Felicia and Wendy.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Friday to enable cities in California and other states more power to clear homeless encampments, reactions from some California mayors have been mixed. San Francisco Mayor London Breed, for instance, is ready to jump on the new authority, writes CalMatters homelessness reporter Marisa Kendall.

• Breed, at a news conference: “This decision has really provided us with clarity that we will use in order to be a lot more aggressive with people who are choosing to stay on the streets of San Francisco — especially when we’re offering them help.”

But Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said the ruling was “disappointing.” 

• Bass, in a statement: “This ruling must not be used as an excuse for cities across the country to attempt to arrest their way out of this problem or hide the homelessness crisis in neighboring cities or in jail.”

Meanwhile, the lead counsel for the homeless respondents in the case, Ed Johnson, says his team can re-argue certain legal claims of the case that the Supreme Court left unaddressed — such as fining unhoused people — when the case makes its way back to the lower court. Johnson also has vowed to pursue additional lawsuits on behalf of homeless residents.

Read more about the ruling’s impact in Marisa’s story. And catch up on the issue with our homelessness explainer.