Good goals, dubious plan
Published 2:23 pm Monday, October 18, 2010
Hans Dunshee is a firm believer that the levers of government can and should be used to advance social and economic goals. Referendum 52, his plan to create construction jobs by retrofitting public school and college buildings for energy efficiency, is a perfect example.
Dunshee, the veteran Democratic legislator from Snohomish and chair of the House Capital Budget Committee, started pushing his “jobs bill” late last year. It would authorize the state to exceed its current debt limit (that’s why voters must approve it) and sell $505 million in bonds to help finance the work. The resulting $937 million in debt service would be repaid over 29 years through a continuation of the sales tax on bottled water, currently scheduled to expire in 2013, and energy savings supporters say will be realized after buildings are retrofitted.
Proponents say it would create 30,000 construction jobs, based on a calculation of 16 jobs for every $1 million spent.
Opponents disagree sharply, and convincingly, with those projections. They argue that the job estimates are ridiculously rosy (the 30,000 number, they note, depends on leveraging the bond proceeds into an additional $1.5 billion in mostly federal grants), and that history shows energy retrofits rarely achieve the savings promised.
A Thurston County Superior Court judge thought so little of the job claims that she ordered references to it stricken from the official ballot language.
Then there’s the main funding source. We’re not necessarily against taxing bottled water, but it’s one of the targets of tax-repealing Initiative 1107, which polls show could win overwhelmingly. Without that revenue, at least part of the new debt would likely have to be paid out of the already overstretched general fund. State spending on many popular programs is being slashed. It’s not a good time to be adding a new budget obligation.
We sympathize with Dunshee’s goals. School buildings that need it should be modernized for efficiency, as well as student health and learning. And few industries need a boost more than construction.
But we share opponents’ skepticism about the return on this rather large investment. With the main funding source hanging by an electoral thread, the measure’s financial structure begins to unravel.
We recommend a no vote on R-52. Upgrading public school and college buildings needs to be part of an overall discussion of the state’s priorities, not the by-product of a dubious effort by state government to create private-sector jobs.
