Vote 'yes' on Proposals 1 and 2

Voters this year are deciding on two proposed amendments to the state's constitution. Both are presented in turgid language that is, unfortunately, typical. Don’t be discouraged.

First, both proposals appear on the reverse side of the ballot, so make sure to flip it over and fill those boxes before submitting it. Essentially, the amendments involve the choices state residents have in authorizing the necessary financing for desired school and sewer projects.

Proposal One would eliminate the constitutional debt limit for small-city school districts. Small cities are defined as those with 125,000 or fewer residents. On Long Island, this means Glen Cove and Long Beach, both in Nassau County. Upstate, it includes Albany, Ithaca, Niagara Falls, Troy, and Hudson.

In small-city districts, the debt cannot exceed 5% of the value of taxable real estate. Other school districts, however, have a different deal. Their limits can be modified by simple legislation. More importantly, these other districts can issue debt as high as 10% of property value.

Having one debt limit for some districts and another for the rest defies common sense; Proposal One would correct that.

Proposal Two also affects borrowing mechanisms. It would extend, for another 10 years, New York municipalities’ ability to finance and add to sewer systems — improvements that are crucial to meet the rising challenges of climate change and development.

The New York Constitution limits the debt that various counties, cities, towns and villages can incur. Fortunately, that limit does not include debt for sewage treatment and disposal facilities, which is a crucial matter for both Long Island counties. But the exception would end on Jan. 1 if the amendment does not pass, potentially throwing a wrench into key financing plans. If the measure passes, as we’d recommend, the necessary debt exception will apply until Jan. 1, 2034.

One argument heard against both proposals is that the state’s multiple levels of government already have too much debt and whatever caps or discouragements are written into law should be preserved. But these proposals are the wrong forum for discussing what level of debt is ideal. 

These proposals merely affect the options for borrowing that the public then gets to vote on; voter choice on important capital improvements shouldn’t be arbitrarily limited.

The state in the meantime needs to present these measures in an easier-to-understand way by providing clearer explanations. Officials must provide better ballot display and jargon-free language so that voters don’t shy away from learning what’s to be decided.

Newsday urges “yes” votes on both proposals.