In response to “Tuition Hike Alternatives”
In a recent piece titled “Tuition Hike Alternatives” (https://cityonahillpress.com/2012/05/31/tuition-hike-alternatives-2/), you quoted several sources commenting on my recent report on UC finances. I wanted to respond to one of those comments made by Diane Klein.
According to the article, she stated that “there hasn’t been a general obligation bond since 2005,” which is rather misleading. Even if the UC itself has not sold general obligation (GO) bonds in that time, it has sold “lease revenue” bonds, which have a similar impact on general funds of the University and of the State as “general obligation” bonds. In fact, the UC sold a set of lease revenue bonds just two months ago, and in April of 2010 (as can be seen here: http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/bonds/os.asp). Moreover, while the UC itself may not have sold GO bonds since 2005, it has received money from GO bonds sold by the state since then, such as those approved by proposition 1D in November of 2006 (including at least one such sale in the march of 2010).
Our purpose was not to criticize all construction as such, but rather highlight the fact that the funds used are not as inflexible as they are often portrayed. Hence, in our judgment, they deserve more scrutiny than they typically see.