Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

Re:Bills before the California Legislature would crack down ... by deathanatos on Wednesday May 10, 2017 @04:39AM (#14306774)

This isn't a misconception in California; the literal text of the law in some circumstances effectively earmarks funds. For example, take the first proposition from the last election — which happens to be about schools — Prop 51 from the November 2016 general election:

> A fund is hereby established in the State Treasury, to be known as the 2016 State School Facilities Fund

> no disbursement shall be made from any funds required by law to be transferred to the General Fund.

> Bonds in the total amount of nine billion dollars ($9,000,000,000) […] may be issued and sold for the purposes set forth…

(This proposition was approved by the voters.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bills before the California Legislature would crack down ... by michaelt on Wednesday May 10, 2017 @11:04AM (#14308720)

Right, but if you were paying schools $x from the general fund, then a special law gives them an extra $y, you can reduce the payment from the general fund by $y.

Thus the schools are receiving the $y, just as promised. Only they aren't any better off, and the general fund has an extra $y in it now.

[ Parent | on HN ]