Bond opposition getting organized

"It basically amounts to an omnibus spending bill," Nicole Revels of Lenoir, the group's treasurer and its most vocal advocate on social media, said of the bond. "These projects should be evaluated on their own merits. I don't think the voting public has enough information to do that."

At least initially, the anti-bond group seems to be getting a lot of its support from the political right, with many writing and commenting on NC Against the Bond's Facebook's page that $2 billion is too much money for items that are "luxuries" or "fluff." Asked if she was surprised that a Republican-controlled General Assembly would put a measure before the voters considered spendthrift by some in the party, Revels said she was not. While the legislature has operated under a conservative GOP banner since 2011, she said, "I don't really consider a lot of the legislators to be conservative in practice."

"Over the past 15 years, our state has grown by more than 2 million people. We need to invest in our state’s infrastructure and educational systems to help build a better state for today and for future generations," former Supreme Court Justice Robert Orr said in a news release Monday.

"I feel like it was originally proposed as a transportation bond to get that message out there in order to gain general acceptance," Revels said. "I feel like that was kind of a bait and switch."

In fact, during negotiations over what would eventually be in the bill, Senate leaders were particularly insistent that North Carolina should not borrow for transportation needs.

The bond proposal that passed the legislature this summer is focused mainly on education, with $1 billion set aside for the state’s university system and another $350 million for community colleges. The remainder would go toward water and sewer projects, state parks and public safety buildings, including $70 million for regional National Guard training centers.

Backers of the bond say that lawmakers wouldn't have to raise taxes in order to pay off the bond issue. But Revels argues that, even if that is true, future sessions of the General Assembly would still have to set aside money to pay for the spending.

"That $2 billion still has to be paid somehow," she said. "That's going to take money away from other future priorities."