Under California’s state constitution, local governments may incur bond indebtedness or levy taxes for a specific purpose only with the approval of two-thirds of voters.

The wisdom of this standard is straightforward. First, it’s a guardrail against excessive indebtedness across California’s hundreds of cities, dozens of counties and thousands of special districts. Second, it requires advocates of local bonds and taxes to truly build broad consensus that, yes, new bonds and taxes are worth the burden they impose on taxpayers.

These thresholds have understandably frustrated many proponents of bonds and taxes across the state. The high threshold sometimes means that a majority of voters approve of bonds and taxes, but these measures still fail because they fall short of a two-thirds threshold.

Enter Proposition 5, which was placed on the ballot by order of the California Legislature. Sponsored by the state firefighter union and the state building trades association, under Prop. 5 the approval threshold would be reduced from two-thirds to 55%.

In 2000, voters approved an exception for local bonds for school construction, which have since required only 55% approval. Prop. 5 would expand that carveout to bond measures for housing and infrastructure measures often proposed by local cities and counties. The new threshold would apply not only for future measures but also for the ones that are on the upcoming ballot. Prop. 5 would reduce the threshold for local government bonds for housing and roads from two-thirds to 55%. The two-thirds vote requirement for local bond measures has been part of the California Constitution since 1879.

Yes, there is a legitimate debate over the current two-thirds voter threshold. Some, including several members of our Editorial Board, feel it’s too stringent, undermining the will of the majority. Others argue it’s an appropriately tough hurdle to ensure that there is broad consensus before saddling future generations with additional tax debt.

The arguments in support of this measure are fairly simple. California is facing a shortage of affordable housing and so it would be helpful to make it possible for local governments to subsidize the construction and repair of affordable housing. Likewise, since many local governments are dealing with aging and deteriorating infrastructure, it should be easier for local governments to obtain access to public funds to handle such issues.

These are all superficially plausible. But no self-respecting taxpayer should fall for it.

Public polling consistently shows that most Californians think they are paying more in taxes than they should. That’s because they are. The chief budget problem for state and local governments in California isn’t that they suffer from a lack of money. The problem is how they spend the money.

Needless to say, the problem of high housing costs won’t be solved by making it easier for local governments to go on a borrow-and-spend spree in an attempt to subsidize high housing costs away.

Likewise, while we recognize infrastructure needs are real and expensive, the fact is that when it’s that obvious, two-thirds of voters are indeed likely to approve bonds for legitimate ends.

Bonds are a form of borrowing, much like a mortgage. They must be repaid by taxpayers, usually over decades. Statewide bonds — such as those in the upcoming ballot’s Proposition 2 for school construction and Proposition 4 for environmental projects — are repaid with funds from the state budget. They don’t involve a direct tax increase and only require simple-majority voter support for passage.

But local bonds require property tax increases to cover the debt. So when voters approve local bond measures, they are also approving property tax increases. Which is why there’s logic behind a higher threshold for approval.

The future Prop. 5 promises is one in which many Californians will pay higher property taxes in the name of improving affordability. This fundamental contradiction is why we urge voters to protect existing taxpayer protections.

Vote No on Proposition 5.

This Editorial reflects the consensus opinions of our MediaNews Group Editorial Boards.