 |
Comments MOST of us on are fixed incomes. I cant go to my boss and ask for a raise to help pay my higher property taxes, water bill, state income tax,state sales tax and a host of other increases that are being proposed so I can pay for state employees to retire at 55 while I work to 75 for the honor of paying for their "free" healthcare et al. Couple years ago I commented on how the bond money flow to state and local governments was coming to an end, that investors are going to catch a clue as to the incredibly desperate financial condition of this state and many of its local governments. I was, of course, wrong, in that i assumed this realization would have come sooner than it has. Its here now however. Its going to get very very ugly in this state and its clear the bureaucrats will be whistling right off the cliff.
For those who, like me, were a little confused about the subject, I think this is the discussion item
"Researcher Ruth Bernstein from EMC Research said, overall, there’s strong support for improving schools with a bond. With 63 percent of survey responders saying they’d support the bond, she said the measure would likely pass." Is this the same person who said the sales tax was a cinch?
The news article didn't address senior citizens. I am pretty sure senior citizens are exempt. I'll check tomorrow.
So it looks like this is going to be a yearly thing with Cabrillo Unified - either a parcel tax or bond issue on every yearly ballot. If this year's bill is another $50 per $100,000 of house evaluation, that is another $250 added on to your yearly tax bill for a modest coast side house worth about $500,000. Bond issues stay on your property tax bill for 20-30 years on top of the extra hundreds we already pay for the existing bond and parcel taxes already voted for in previous years, most recently last year's parcel tax. I vote no. Enough is enough. I imagine the paid hype consultants will be out in force soon with the phone calls, paper ads, flyers in the mail and the paper. There is always money for that. Pay attention and add it up to what you are already paying. Any senior who needs an exemption should not be voting for someone else to pay what they won't due to an opt out exemption.
Fixing roofs, double-pane windows, and other energy-saving and structural fixes, I can understand. But a performing arts center, artificial grass, and a new swimming pool are toys that have to wait until the economy picks up. There is still 8 or 9 years left on the old 25 year bond measure. I do not see an expiration for this new proposal. The long payback is what I do not like about these bond measures. Its like getting a 25 year loan for a car that lasts 12 years. This proposal definitely needs to be scaled down.
The greed of our educators is boundless and matched only by their proven incompetence.
I was very much in support of the parcel tax. If this proposal is not scaled back to cover only repairs it will fail. School board, do not make the mistake the City Council made by believing the consultants. As proposed, this is a total loser.
Vote NO! on any/all taxation to pay for somebody's trumped-up idea of what's necessary for Johnny & Mary to become contributing members of society... and speaking of wasting school tax dollars on non-education-related stuff, what the heck is up with the terra-forming going on at the school in HMB? Geezuz!
"While the tax rate hasn’t yet been decided, consultants proposed tax rates ranging between $30 per $100,000 of assessed home value and $60 per $100,000 assessed value. Consultants indicate there’s a $50 threshold in people’s minds and it may make sense to keep the tax rate below that amount. Board members ended the night saying they want the tax rate to fall below the $50 rate." Let's be clear- It's not a $50.00 addition to your bill. it's $50.00 per ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND of VALUATION. So, as stated by 'precocious'it will tack an additional $250 on if your house Tax Bill valuation is 500K or if closer to 750K = $375, and homeowners with valuations over 1 million expect to pay $500.00 per year ... times 25-30 years. I'm still paying on two parcels for the last "Parcel Tax" I voted for.
You can look up your tax "add-On's" here if you know your parcel number: (Don't forget to click on Special Charges to see all the Extra "Stings") In my case (Moss Beach) I pay a total of $6,628.10 annually ($5,734.60 is the GENERAL TAX) but included in that is $893.50 of "Special Charges" MY VALUATION IS : $480,487 after a $7,000. Homeowner's exemption. Here is a breakdown of my Special Charges.: Special Charge Phone Number Amount FedCA&NPDES Storm Fee (650) 599-1417 6.42 Pt Montara Fire Assmt (650) 726-5213 117.00 SMCCCD 2010-2013 (800) 273-5167 34.00 SMC Mosquito Abate Benefit Assessment (800) 273-5167 17.26 Cabrillo USD Meas E (800) 273-5167 150.00 Montara Sanitary Dist (650) 728-3545 568.82 --------------------------------------------------- Additionally, I pay on my VACANT lot: (No homeowner's deduction) A GENERAL TAX of: $174.66 Annually including:$219.24 Annual SPECIAL CHARGES (MORE THAN THE GENERAL TAX!) Special Charge Phone Number Amount FedCA&NPDES Storm Fee (650) 599-1417 3.22 Pt Montara Fire Assmt (650) 726-5213 23.40 SMCCCD 2010-2013 (800) 273-5167 34.00 SMC Mosquito Abate Benefit Assessment (800) 273-5167 8.62 Cabrillo USD Meas E (800) 273-5167 150.00 THEREFORE, My Total property taxes on the "Goat's Lot" and My home are: $393.90 + $6,628 = $7,022.00 That already includes $300 in School Taxes for Measure E. and $68.00 for SMCCCD (San Mateo County Community College District?) OK, so this CHILDLESS Couple is already paying $268.00 Per Year for the education-related TAXES that benefit OPK (Other People's Kids). In the past ,I didn't mind, because I thought that good schools NORMALLY equate to improved property values, but who can argue that lately? I agree with Boney! Scale it back. During these times of financial hardship I like to recall a quote from growing up in New England: "Use it up, Wear it Out, Make do, Do Without!"
One in seven families in the United States are on food stamps. How can the school district even propose such a bond?
"One in seven families in the United States are on food stamps." Well thats another part of this equation of course. I also get to pay for thos families, some of whom are a part of a wholesale expansion of this program by the Feds. I tool voted for the last parcel tax. There is not a chance I will vote for this one. Not a chance. Talk to your local water board and all the other various state agencies, including police, fire and prison guard unions that have run this state aground
My Water District (MWSD) has gone to a new tier rate plan that actually SAVES me money because I have become water-wise and frugal My annual water bills have dropped since they did. 2009 - $720.35 2010 - $598.00 2011 - $379.98 My sewer fee went up (strangely *) 2009-2010 - $486.72 2010-2011 - $654.34 2011-2012 - $568.82 It's suppose to be based on my water usage during the wet-weather months, but in that case, why did it go up when my water useage went down? Maybe the SAM charges went up? (Anybody?)
There's not enough information in the article or here yet to even begin an intelligent discussion. I'd start with two basic questions: What is the itemized breakdown of the bond amount (how much for the pool, etc)? To give us detail. What is our community's total bond/parcel tax burden for education compared to other communities? To give us context. --Darin
Mr. Boville, your voice of reason is important. What I am saying (and I believe is the position of others) is there should be no bonding at this time for anything that is not vital for the continuing operation of the schools. Regardless of the amount building a new swimming pool and a performing arts building at Half Moon Bay High School and replacing existing elementary school fields and the high school softball field with synthetic turf is an outrageous proposal at this time. As I understand the situation, the final decision on the bonding request will be made net week so it would be unfortunate to see it all go down in smoke because of the over reaching by the school board.
Some of you, over 67% or so, voted for the last parcel tax so you would get smaller class sizes. How did that work out for you? My understanding is that the school population is actually decreasing due to the aging of the coast side population and more people sending their children to private school. I got fed up with Cabrillo Unified long ago when they did away with school busing and wasted all that money on the Wavecrest middle school fiasco. Also the ridiculous story that one of the superintendents funded one of the parcel taxes out of his own pocket. Fool me once....you know how it goes.
Performing arts center? Swimming pool? Are they joking??? Asking for things like that is insulting. Also insulting, the comment that educators are greedy and incompetent.
I'm sure many of the "For the Children" drones will be out in force for yet another tax, including the public school teachers and their union - perhaps the most powerful union in California politics. The reason this district continually clamors for more of our money is that they refuse to make significant cuts in district spending and because they actually want more. What do artificial turf and solar panels have to do with their core mission of educating our kids - NOTHING. They want what they want and would have you believe these things are necessities. Well they aren't necessary. They are optional at best and extravagant for the most part. "But the buildings need maintenance and repairs..." they will say. Well, where is your maintenance budget and long range planning? A responsible person doesn't spend more than they have. These people are spending your money - so why not get whatever they can, as often as they can? Spending money is presented as an accomplishment by these people. How about test scores, graduation rates and reviews by parents/tax payers??? They never want to be held to account for those real issues. And before you cast me as an ogre, know that I have kids in the district. If I could afford it, they would be elsewhere. I can't afford this additional burden now, even if it made sense - which it doesn't.
I picked around other rates in the county. It may not be 100% accurate, but should be close. HMB - $150 parcel + .052 of assessed value Belmont - $174 + .083 Brisbane - $119 + .079 Burlingame- $180 + .083 Daly City - .082 Foster City - $275 + .074 Hillsborough - $544 + .067 Millbrae - .068 Redwood City - .063 San Bruno - .07 San Carlos - $189 + .09 San Mateo - $275 parcel + .038 SSF - .022 Woodside - $256 + .073
Evidently "franz" is confused and thinks it is the teachers union that is making these potential proposals. My impression is that there are few union teachers serving as Superintendent or Assistant Super or on the school board. While I have no personal or inside knowledge, my bet would be that the teachers oppose the non essential spending as much as we do.
"What do artificial turf and solar panels have to do with their core mission of educating our kids - NOTHING." EXACTLY. The only mission of the school system should be to educate children. In the past, we have given them money for the things they want without demanding better performance. That is self defeating. We should make it clear that there will be no more money until performance improves.
This is going to look a little messy--hard to format things here on TalkAbout--but what I've done (if I've done it correctly!) is simply to take FoggyDew's numbers (thanks for that!) and calculate a "typical" tax burden assuming a $700,000 house. The last number is the total tax burden in annual dollars, since it is dollars that we really care about, not percentages. That gives us a more understandable starting point to discuss the proposed bond--how much actual money will it cost us? In addition to calculating the dollar amount, I've ranked the districts from high to low using this total dollar amount for a "typical" $700,000 house. That will help to offer a little context, comparing our tax burden to those of neighboring districts. There are no value judgements here. We don't know what we are getting for the new bond so we can't talk intelligently (yet) about whether it is worth doing. Nor do we know whether our neighbor's have gotten carried away in their education spending. So being low on the list, though it looks a little worrisome, isn't automatically evidence for higher spending. But seeing the total amount and seeing that HMB ranks low on the overall burden is a start to our analysis. Now, if we can just get a breakdown on how the proposed bond money will be spent and what the justification for each item might be we'll be well on our way. San Carlos 189 0.09 630 Belmont 174 0.083 581 Burlingame 180 0.083 581 Daly City 0.082 574 Brisbane 119 0.079 553 Foster City 275 0.074 518 Woodside 256 0.073 511 San Bruno 0.07 490 Milbrae 0.068 476 Hillsborough 544 0.067 469 Redwood City 0.063 441 HMB 150 0.052 364 San Mateo 275 0.038 266 SSF 0.022 154 --Darin Here is the same chart with just the overall numbers for a "typical" $700,000 house, since I know the above chart will be hard to read: San Carlos 630 Belmont 581 Burlingame 581 Daly City 574 Brisbane 553 Foster City 518 Woodside 511 San Bruno 490 Milbrae 476 Hillsborough 469 Redwood City 441 HMB 364 San Mateo 266 SSF 154
Seniors are included in this bond expense. Also, there is the Cunha related bond measure from the 90's, last year's tax assessment and this proposed bond measure. Foster City just tabled their school bond measure. The Daily Journal reported that the board room was packed with angry taxpayers. So, the bond measure was tabled.
Hey Darin - What about unincorporated areas? (Are we lumped into HMB?) Is this proposed Parcel Tax on all parcels or just those with residences on them?
I hesitate to post here to this subject because we've seen it get pretty emotional in the past and this is only beginning. That said, there are a few points I'd like to add. First, thanks Darin for your input. Next, starting from the bottom: Cid, you are in the CUSD "sphere of Influence" (like that?). This parcel tax will go to all in the District, most of which is unincorporated. Open that wallet young lady. I have been to more than a few CUSD meetings, although not for a while. Terms and conditions of the measure are adjusted and set by the Board. I have seen them spare seniors that request it, although marc (above) says not this time. I have seen them include and not include baron parcels. I have seen more, but that adds up to nothing because, as Darin so aptly noted, we (I) don't have all the data yet and I was not at that meeting. They may not have even tightened up all the considerations yet, I don't know. I suspect, if you wanted to offer input, you could go to the next Board meeting and do so. If it's just questions you have, you could call the admin office and speak with the Super. He'll know. In closing, I'd like to address what I think is important to understand. We can bitch at the folks making the decision here (CUSD Board), but they really have very little room to do anything other than try to manage what they have. The revenues (our taxes, again) are determined by Sacramento using an illogical, outdated and as we see, much less than perfect formula to determine who gets what. I'm not certain what the percentage is now, but for many, many years 87% of their Budget went to personnel. That doesn't leave much to work with. Add to that the State has been "borrowing" school money for quite a while (years), putting a further financial strain on CUSD. On top of that, the District has no clue how much they'll get next year (July 1), yet they are required to have a budget prior to that. What a system. I'm not going to show my cards at this time, not that it makes any difference because I don't want to get into the cross-fire. I am neither endorsing or opposing this measure at this time. There is another, equally prevailing reason. Again, as Darren so aptly noted we (I) don't have enough data yet and don't want to get warped on or with fiction. Hope this helps.
Oh, one more thing. Our kids are at the back of the bus in funding. Some of the Districts over the hill (most of the ones mentioned above) get substantially more per student than we do; some twice as much. I thought that was important to know.
Remember the 1.5 million Cabrillo lost in the Lehman meltdown? That's what your last parcel tax was for...to make up for that. If you want to perpetuate this behavior I wonder why.
To address Boney Bill's response about the teachers union and the school district - they both win when more money is poured into the system. The teachers do not want layoffs, pay cuts, reduction to benefits, reductions to spending in any way - why would they? That is not the point. The point is this: the Board is in place to govern the school system. They need to make due with what they have, not endlessly seek more funding so that they do not need to make the tough decisions. Stripping down the schools budget should reveal the core requirements and core values that the district provides. Instead, we get luxuries lumped in with money supposedly aimed at basics. Sound familiar? See Washington DC. The school board is in a tough spot in some ways - I agree with that. However, they need to make the tough decisions to ensure teachers, books and classrooms are provided. Everything else is less important and should be eliminated or minimized as the budget allows for. They don't want to feel the pain of the staff and their own pride being wounded when they have to admit that they can't provide what they want with the budget available. What they want and what their legal mission are should be the same thing, but are they? Letting the educational system get away from us was our first mistake as citizens. A bigger one is to perpetuate this problem by not dealing with it. I want to pay for a public funded education system that produces academic results. I am forced to pay for it even if I don't agree with it's direction or the results we get from it. Most in this system have their idea of what the system should produce but that often includes results which have nothing to do with a sound educational background preparing one for life. Manipulating the students and manipulating the system for maximum benefit of itself and it's teachers is what this union is about. Fine. That doesn't mean they know what is best for us - the tax payers and students who are forced into this system. A reluctance to take them on and passive agreement with many facets of their positions is what the school administrators have in common with the union. If the union, the administrators and the board all want the same thing - more money, that tells you something right off. The fact that the system is producing sub-par results, is compulsory and refuses reform tells me all I need to know.
Just a quick note: I don't think we have enough information yet to make any sort of serious evaluation of the bond proposal, certainly not enough to make a decision for or against it. But I do want to point out that exclamations along the lines of "I won't give them any money until they perform better" is more of an emotional outburst than a logical conclusion. After all, if the school system did perform better, wouldn't that same person then conclude that they were doing well enough with their resources and the money was better spent elsewhere (or kept in the taxpayer's pocket)? It would seem impossible under any conditions to satisfy the requirements of such a viewpoint. --Darin
Mr. Boville, your caution about jumping to conclusions without all the information is a reasonable request-usually. It now appears that the School Board is going to make a decision this week on whether or not to incorporate such items as building a new swimming pool and a performing arts building at Half Moon Bay High School and replacing existing elementary school fields and the high school softball field with synthetic turf into the bond issue. I think some of us are warning the school board that the entire issue may fail if they do not scale it back to only the maintainence needs. Perhaps they could split the maintainence and the new construction into two different voting items. I for one would hate to see it all go down the tubes because of the overreaching.
When my child graduated from HMBHS I considered her semi literate when she would send me her college papers to comment on. Be mindful of the fact that when your child gets into the upper grades they don't bring home their homework like in elementary school. She always got B's and C's in her English classes so I wasn't worried. It wasn't until about her third year in college that she finally learned to write like an educated person. What's even scarier is that she breezed through the English placement exams of one of the more selective state colleges. Can you imagine the writing skills of the students accepted to that college who failed the exam and had to take remedial classes without credit? Her friend, a valedictorian from Watsonville, had to take remedial math classes. So it is not just our school system. It is pervasive in the public school system when mediocre is good enough and I don't think throwing more money at the problem is the way to solve it.
>>I for one would hate to see it all go down the tubes because of the overreaching.<< Exactly my view. I think (hope) this is where TalkAbout and the whole new media thing can shine a little... I too have my doubts about a new pool (i'm not clear what is wrong with the old pool!) and the new turf. I'm a little more tempted by the performing arts center--something we need here on the coast and I bet building costs are low now compared to if we wait for better times. But in any event we need more info on the individual costs and justifications. Plus--and this is a very big plus given the current swim team/pool controversies--I want to know what sort of public use will be allowed for these facilities. So we need to move quickly! :) --Darin
>>I for one would hate to see it all go down the tubes because of the overreaching.<< Exactly my view. I think (hope) this is where TalkAbout and the whole new media thing can shine a little... I too have my doubts about a new pool (i'm not clear what is wrong with the old pool!) and the new turf. I'm a little more tempted by the performing arts center--something we need here on the coast and I bet building costs are low now compared to if we wait for better times. But in any event we need more info on the individual costs and justifications. Plus--and this is a very big plus given the current swim team/pool controversies--I want to know what sort of public use will be allowed for these facilities. So we need to move quickly! :) --Darin
>>I for one would hate to see it all go down the tubes because of the overreaching.<< Exactly my view. I think (hope) this is where TalkAbout and the whole new media thing can shine a little... I too have my doubts about a new pool (i'm not clear what is wrong with the old pool!) and the new turf. I'm a little more tempted by the performing arts center--something we need here on the coast and I bet building costs are low now compared to if we wait for better times. But in any event we need more info on the individual costs and justifications. Plus--and this is a very big plus given the current swim team/pool controversies--I want to know what sort of public use will be allowed for these facilities. So we need to move quickly! :) --Darin
Re-reading the piece that Mr Bills linked in above, I have a question on something that for some reason jumped out at me. From the piece: "Other items include: ... moving the district office,..." What's up with that? Anyone know? I am curious about this part. It doesn't fit with facilities maintenance and upgrades. Where would they move to? Why? Are they planning on leasing the current space for revenue? Are they planning on moving the District office to another CUSD property? How do the numbers add up between the cost of the move and the possible rent paid versus what they have now? Has this move been on the table for a while? Of course, these questions lead to more, but they are a start. Perhaps there is someone out there that was at the meeting that might shed some light? Perhaps some knows the answers.
The United States spends more, per public than virtually every nation on earth with one exception. Pouring more money into the system solves nothing. I sympathize, to a certain extent, with Cabrillo as they face challenges some other districts do not. But the fact is, they also compete for my limited dollars, with all the other government agencies that have their hands out these days, pretending that the world is not shifting under their feet.
As to dollars, "clearwater" is correct. By percent of GDP....
In the latest CUSD board packet (3/8/12), $1.1 million in cuts are expected for 2012-13 due to decreased state revenue. Cuts for 2013-14 ranges from $1.4 million to $2.6 million, the latter if the Governor's tax plan fails.
Now that is eye opening. According to the chart from the link provided by Mr Bills. the US shares #37 with Austria and Estonia. Well, at least I've heard of those countries. We also fall behind Vanuatu, Lesotho, St Vincent and the Grenadines (sounds like a Motown group), Mongolia, Cape Verde, St Lucia, St Kitts and Nevis, Namibia, Swaziland, Malawi - most of which I couldn't find on a map the size of Texas with a 1000x magnifying glass. I'm not sure exactly how to feel about "Education spending (% of GDP) (most recent) by country", but I do not see this as favorable. Some time ago I posted all of the CA Agencies and Commissions here on TA. It is a mind blower. Problem is, there are so so so many that it discouraged others from posting anymore to that thread. If I had it as a link, I'd post it here now. I will look for that thread. If I find it, I'll post it as a link. That folks, is a huge part of the problem; way too many leaches sucking up our taxes at the detriment of critical programs - like education. It is past time to realign our priorities, as a State and most assuredly as a nation. We are discussing one of the best arguments for why.
Found it. Here it is: Web Link The thread is titled, "Vote YES on Measure H" from 10/31/11, written by Adrienne Zaninijust prior to the last election. For those that haven't seen it, it is well worth the gander. It is an absolute mind bender when one actually sees where our state taxes go and how many bureaucracies we fund. The overlap alone is frustrating. I hope those interested take a look. Just scroll down and you can't miss it. Also note, only one person posted after that. It is a very, very long list. Now, wanna talk issues?
Hey George, Two points. First, that list you link to is impressive but, to put it frankly, it is b.s. There is no doubt that there are a lot of government agencies and a lot of potential cuts there (just like if you were able to see into any large private organization--GE, Apple, Ford--maybe the government has the disadvantage of being more visible to the public). But that list double and triple counts. It lists the boards of agencies and then the parent organization, then the parent of the parent organization itself. And then you have the weirdness exemplified by the very first item--the API. Is that an organization? If you look at the bottom of their web page you see mention of it being run by the "Academic Accountability Team"--that sure sounds like part of some other organization. Of course the California Board of Education is listed as a separate item. Just doesn't pass muster, I'm afraid. Two, we really need to step back and think what the right level is for the problem we are facing and what level the solution must be at. We've got a major recession, maybe a Depression here. Things are looking up a little but we all know that there is a lag of a few years before government gets hit from these things. So government, especially at the state and local level, is getting hit hard now. This is a national level problem. Ditto for school standards, teacher testing, and all the reset. It's national problem, somewhat a state problem and will require a large-scale response to address. It's starting but will be a long slog. Our issue--the proposed bond--and our question--to pass it or not and what the money should be spent on--is on the micro scale. Our issue is what we do to protect and nurture our community's kids while all this macro stuff is going on. Which communities will emerge stronger from this criss and which will not? Spending more money is not automatically the right answer--it depends on what it is spent on and how it is spent. On the other hand, I doubt starving the schools for cash would help our community to emerge from this crisis in any sort of health. So while we are supporting national and state education reform on one track we need to make the hard decisions about what to do locally on another track. Let's get more information, and quickly, about what the money will go for and how much for each item. Right now it looks like a bit of a Christmas tree with something for everyone who is active in school politics. But who knows, we haven't heard the case for each item yet. But it was developed in a hurry and no doubt they put it out to the public in raw form just to get it out to see what would fly. Don't know why they didn't plan better but then again you can't cut budgets one year and then bitch about an organization's loss of capacity. --Darin
"Found it. Here it is: Web Link" WOW! HOLY COW! Mind blowing indeed.
Perhaps Darin is right. Maybe we don't have enough entities sucking up money - often for naught. More Agencies!
As to dollars, "clearwater" is correct. By percent of GDP.... What the...??!!!!..% of GDP is an irrelevant measure. Such poor performers such as Germany, Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea are well below the US in % of GDP spending. That's a meaningless measure. There are millions upon millions upon mlllions of $$ that are wasted on
Hey Darin, Before I even start, I’d like to announce how frustrating it is to try to post to TA, while at the same time playing beat the log-in clock. I had almost completed what I feel was a good post and for some reason the darn page went back one. When I reversed it, my stuff was replaced with the log-in request. Very frustrating and very common. To your first (of 2) points, Darin. You state (in part), “But that list double and triple counts. It lists the boards of agencies and then the parent organization, then the parent of the parent organization itself.” All of which are sucking our tax dollars. Whether an agency, a board of the agency or a ‘parent’ organization of said agency, they are all funded with our money and drink plenty at the public trough, increasing their appetite annually. All you note, best I can tell, is actually supportive of my point by recognizing overlap and repetition; not to mention the very clear ability to do without more than just one or two. As an example: where would you prefer your tax dollars go, Darin? - the CA Allocation Board or your girls’ education? Perhaps a better example might be a choice between California Consumer Information Center * California Consumer Information * California Consumer Services Division and your girls’ education. Not sure, but this example might reflect one of your points. I know where I’d prefer to see my money go and why. To me, there could be much more value added to our kids education with the culling of much of the bureaucracy we have in CA. Every year there is a finite amount of tax dollars generated. Sometimes more than others, sometimes less than others; but the bureaucracies we’ve built just get bigger, better insulated and more expensive - while at the same time the things we are most concerned about, most sensitive to and most passionate about, the education of our children, continues to suffer cuts and constrictions that directly impact their future negatively, and by extension our nation’s future. The list provided is littered with excesses and redundancies, all requiring our money to be. You state, “Just doesn't pass muster, I'm afraid.” It passes mine and the “muster” of many throughout the state. No, I think the point made is valid. We’ll just disagree I suppose, although I don’t understand why. Now, to your 2nd (of 2) points. Darin, you are a very fortunate man. You have two lovely, well mannered and well behaved girls (cute, too). I’ve seen them at public meetings on several occasions and they’re reading, or doing homework or just sitting quietly as the meeting moves on. A positive reflection on them, and Mom and Dad. Good job. With that, however, comes a point that probably should see more light. You and I are at two different levels when it comes to the public education of our children. That is not to say that one level is better than another, or higher or lower than another; they are just in two different places. I have 2 boys, although they might take issue with me calling them boys. They are my boys and as such, will always be my boys - even when they hit my age now; but in fact they are in their mid to upper 20’s and are men, adults with their own lives. Both went through the CUSD system. I was active in school affairs in the early 90’s, when my kids were at Hatch. I discovered that the District was being poorly run by the Board and I uncovered evidence to that affect; a lot of evidence to that affect. I went to the Board with several questions and got the old ‘you don’t know or understand...’. Well, you know me; that didn’t cut it and after some two and a half years, myself and others were able to realign the Board and Superintendent, replacing them with folks that did a much better job of protecting resources and applying those resources to our children's’ education. It was a huge effort. The ‘system’ has its issues, but for this purpose, I’d like to focus on one of them. It was my experience that when the boys were in elementary school, the school just couldn’t get enough parental support. Parents helped in class, helped with clerical work, participated in and contributed resources to field trips, school supplies and more. Many Moms and Dads participated in the education of their children and the school not only tolerated it, they embraced it, encouraged it. When the boys hit middle school, their environment changed, along with the expectations and demands of the school. I found much more emphasis on discipline and regimentation along with an obvious increase in workloads. I also found that the school was not as embracing of parental participation and involvement, unless of course giving money was involved or the participation was ancillary (chaperone at a dance, for example). Plus, they were only there for a couple of years, so by the time kids and parents got a handle on the change, it was time to change again. At the high school, we saw a whole new environment and set of expectations. Our boys were growing up, I guess, and that process can be tough at times. Anyway, I felt that parental participation reached a new low there, with very little parental control and a school that exercised more control. Parents were no longer helping in classes. Parents felt more distance between themselves and their ability to help their children. Parental roles were shoved to more outside school grounds than inside. Oh, we were encouraged to come to events, buy this or that as ‘fund raising opportunities’, and we still drove them back and forth (until they got their drivers license, which presented a whole new facet to parenting, but that’s another story), but the school was very much the authority. Parents, more often than not, were just a sidebar, and an aggravating sidebar at that. I felt like we were being put up with. Then, before you know it, they’re gone! In a constantly changing environment, such as the one I just described, it is very easy for a parent to focus on one slim facet somewhere in there and deal with it. It is a different story, however, for those not in that position at this time. So, what you may perceive as critical in your world may not carry the same weight in someone else’s world. Not only that, but I can say without reservation that for as long as I’ve been aware of CUSD, they have always - always - had fiscal shortfalls to deal with. It was that way when my kids were there and it’s the same now. It doesn’t make a stitch of difference whether the economy is humming or in the gutter, there has always been a shortage of resources for our children in the CUSD. I believe I understand your points and find myself liking most of what you say. I do believe, however, that folks have varying interests, varying abilities and varying perspectives. In order for the District to get any footing here, I suspect that they would need to understand this and incorporate that logic in their dialog if they want to have a prayer in getting another bond passed. Sorry for the length.
Who is monitoring the parcel tax that passed two years ago? What are the results of that monitoring?
Here's what I suspect will happen with this bond issue. The noise about the $50 per $100,000 of valuation will be scaled down to about $30 per. People will be so glad it's not $50 that they will trip over themselves to sign up and volunteer to get it passed. The schools will never have enough money. That's a given so it's "go along to get along" "for the children" as usual. George's insights were spot on. My property tax bill right now shows $194.18 for Cabrillo Unified, Cabrillo Measure E $150.00, CSM college bond $74.02, and another one for $34.00. The whoppers are Montara Sanitary bond at $451.61, Pt Montara Fire District $117.00 and another Montara Sanitary District at $746.58. All this plus a general tax rate of $3719.99. HR Block says in next year's tax collection, special fees like parcel taxes and fire, sewer assessments won't even be tax deductible because they are "fees", not taxes. And we have to hire a contractor and pay to fix our own street. Plus some smaller fees for mosquito abatement, which you might not have heard, had two employees arrested for pilfering a few hundred thousand for their own pockets. They had already been arrested for this in their previous jobs. Lord forbid that anyone check their criminal records before hiring county employees. Point being...we are being charged enough and I personally am not voting for any more local or state taxes for awhile, because I don't like the way it's spent and if we keep funding their performance as is then we have only ourselves to blame.
"Before I even start, I’d like to announce how frustrating it is to try to post to TA, while at the same time playing beat the log-in clock. I had almost completed what I feel was a good post and for some reason the darn page went back one. When I reversed it, my stuff was replaced with the log-in request. Very frustrating and very common." Here is my experience. If I take a long time composing a post on line, I am told to sign in after I hit submit. I sign in. I go back to the thread I was posting to and find that the message I composed is still there. I hit submit, again, and my message is posted. Your post are sometimes quite long. I am impressed that you can do them so fast that they usually get posted on the first submit. You must have taken typing in high school - which we now know we should all have done.
George, For a long or detailed comment (or both), try writing it in Notebook and then copying and pasting it in the comment box. Sometimes, though it comes out double-spaced.
George makes a good point about the schools seeking or dicouraging parental involvement. When the kids are little, they love the help. My wife and my mom have volunteered in the elementary classroom for many years with my kids and others in the family. In addition to organizing, cleaning, helping with instruction, driving on field trips etc., they even grade the homework for the teachers. That has always made me wonder what the teacher would do without them.... but always figured it was better to know what is going on than not. Compare that to middle school and then the high school, two different worlds !! The bottom line is this - once the kids can blow their own noses the school doesn't want you around. Once the kids can be expected to do some things for themselves, they quickly are supposed to do everything for themselves. This includes advocating for themselves and negotiating with the teacher by themselves if there is a problem or dispute. Guess who loses that scenario 99.9% of the time? By the time you get involved, the damage is done. The transition to Cunha from elementary school can be very dramatic and even traumatic for some kids. Mine couldn't wait to get there but our experience was anything but positive. My biggest concern is the attitude of the schools, they almost verbalize the sentiments: "Don't ask too many questions and just support our methods and decisions regardless." Example - you find out your kid has some zeros for homework grades. You know damn well he did it, because you sat with him and helped him do it. When you inquire, you may get an answer or you may not. Eventually, you will and are told - "He didn't turn it in". You ask the kid and start searching, you may then find the completed homework in the backpack or in a coat pocket etc. You then ask your kid what happened, why didn't he turn it in? The answer comes - "I don't know", then you say "When the teacher collects the homework, why didn't you put yours in too?". The next answer " The teacher doesn't ask for it". They don't remind the kids it is due, so some kids simply forget to turn it in. So you have them turn it in after finding out what happened and it's still a zero because it is "too late". You then try to prevent this from happening again but that leads to more frustration. The kids are expected to manage their time and organize their work, turn it in on time, use the right color pen, the right format, the folder that particular teacher likes etc. The teacher is not expected to help them or warn you of any issues, it's between the teacher and the kid. Parent butt out. It's usually too late because there is no feedback from the teacher. Why? They have too many kids and are too busy. Why can't I find out via the SchoolLoop web page that each teacher has (and the district endorses) when the homework is assigned and when it is due? Well, the teachers in Cunha are not required to use SchoolLoop, and the teachers at the HS are only required to update the information every 4-6 weeks. Why? The union apparently negotiated that time frame with the district. You think I'm exagerrating here but I'm not. If you have or had kids this age, you know exactly what I'm talking about. This is a small example of why the system isn't working. No oversight or critical examination is allowed of the schools methods and actions. The answer is always more money, not more parent/public involvement. Involvement means communication, critique, analysis and support based on the results. Their idea of involvement is a signed check. Twelve year olds need to be reminded, they need to be guided, they need structure but most of all they need leadership!! Leaders don't watch while their people founder and sink. They take action and make the changes and communication needed to get better results. Parents are part of the solution. Parental involvement in the classroom may be minimal as the kids grow but parents need timely feedback and information to help the student help themselves. If the kids are expected to remember all their assignments, behave well and be respectful, how can we expect less of the adults running the schools? The teachers, administrators and school board should be working for us. The system is supposed to be working for us, instead we are working for the system.
Since I don't have kids I can only weigh in on Franz's remark from personal experience. WAAAAY back when I was in school, I was pretty smart and so I would day-dream alot while the teacher was talking about a subject I had already learned. I still do this to this day, BUT, the classes were so easy for me, it did not hold me back when I day-dreamed through the time when I was supposed to walk up and put papers on desks or get the red pencil for tests. Fast forward, now I sell houses for a living, and I have many past clients and current friends who Home School their kids. For some reason, the Kids I have encountered who are Home Schooled have a higher degree of socialization and comfort-level around adults and they are very articulate. Does this mean the "regular" system does not empathize these qualities in kids? Do they prefer to leave the day dreamers behind because it's too much trouble for the teacher to REMIND a kid they haven't turned in the homework? I DUNNO! I had always wondered HOW the Home School parents had the time to teach them so well. One parent told me there is an on-line organization, complete with academic agendas, tests, and the local group of families even have field trips with other home-school families. If things keep getting worse, parents may have to resort to teaching their kids, if even to supplement what's being taught at school.
Funny you mention the home schooling Cid. Feels like you have to home school them anyways,even though they are at public school all week. The level of understanding at times is so far below that needed for doing the homework, you just wonder what is wrong with the system? As a parent, you end up helping or trying to help your kid with all of their homework and projects which come home with them. I started asking my wife (who is in the elementary school classrooms and volunteers in other ways with the other schools) a number of years ago - What do they do in class? The amount of homework alone is a deluge. How they are doing is an obvious concern but getting the information is incredibly difficult. You try emailing or calling the teachers but that is only successful maybe 20% of the time. My youngest will be ready for middle school soon. We likely will remove her from the public school due to our experience and the feedback from other parents. Things are not getting better and likely will continue to get worse. One of my older kids took a class through a private entity, my goodness what a difference !! I now really understand why most wealthy people send their kids to private school. People answer the phone and your emails, answer your questions and don't seem surprised that you want to know what is going on. They also make the same or less money than those in the public schools.
Wow! This thread makes for looooong posts, but I'll buck the trend and keep mine short. On my way down to the CUSD offices to put in my 65-years-old exemption I had a brainf@rt: why don't we collect the moneys that are given every day to the churches world wide and fund schools with them? The entire world would have unending school wealth, and those old, isolated GUYS in Vatican City would have to get out among the people they supposedly represent to their god, and all the rest of them, including those fakiist-of-fakes TV Evangelists would be outa a job.
Cid: If all parents were involved personally with their child's education, instead of believing it's somebody else's (anybody else's!) responsibility, this thread wouldn't exist.
Thank you to Barnus and FoggyDew for the tips. The real problem is I talk too much and my fingers are my mouth on TA, so naturally, I write too much as well. Can't help it. A shout out to franz, too, for the kind words. In addition, while reading your posts, I found myself nodding my head with what you wrote. Been there. And to John Gruver's point (just above): very good point. As it seems with most things, 20% of the parents do 100% of the 'volunteering'. That's always been my experience - that whatever the issue/cause or whatever, everyone has something to say, but it's always a minority that gets it done. If the District allowed...no...encouraged parent participation in all forms and at all levels, our entire community would benefit and as John stated, this thread wouldn't exist. That would be one way to keep money off the ballot, at least for a while. I hesitate to express a thought that I'm sure will offend some, but it seems a good time and place to share it anyway. When I was active in District business, I worked like a dog to help them, uncover the wrongs, make them right and save them money. The last item that came up while I attended was bussing. It was expensive, but I felt necessary. It isn't cheap to buy and maintain busses. Fuel, as we know, just gets more expensive and then of course you need drivers to drive. I thought the District could save money by contracting the bussing out, and the numbers proved it at the time. Well, that went over like a lead ballon. One by one, the drivers went up to the podium and told their story. Driving for 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, nurturing our kids and knowing the routes, kids and schedules...etc. In the end, it was all about jobs. Although I sympathized and understood, that left a bad taste in my mouth. It was a blatant example of the District looking at our kids as a money center rather than moldable eager youths needing to learn. That was my last real effort with the District. Perhaps it's changed, or perhaps I just mis-read the matter, but I felt there was little to no doubt. I'd seen it many times before, but it was always more subtle.
John Gruver, concerned citizen and idea man!! Wow. Your statements above say a lot about you Mr. Gruver. You are so concerned about the educational system that you exempt yourself from funding these additional local efforts. I suppose you are all for not having to pay but are all for me paying more, interesting. To boot, you take a swipe at religion and religious leaders as if they had nothing but a negative impact on the world. Do you propose that people only give their money to the state? That is your solution?
Nearly on topic. Once we get the kids through high school and find we can't afford to send them to a Public California College or University, we could send them to Harvard where it is cheaper!!!!!
Brain Lock! here is the site Web Link
I used to think the Tea party members were a bunch of crack pots, but I think they have one thing right in that if you want to shrink government and make it accountable you have to stop funding every thing they ask for. I don't think it takes an additional pile of money to ensure our children are proficient in the basics, things like writing a one page summary of a book with coherent sentence structure and a logical train of thought. These things can be taught without buying everyone an ipad. High school graduates should also be able to do problems in first year algebra. Point being, a new bond issue or a parcel tax is not the way to go to improve our children's education because it just perpetuates the problems there.
Mr Bills, that is a heck of a story. Where were you when I needed you? the kids are done now, You know, something just occurred to me. I value education and have always believed that the more one knows, the more one's worth. Maybe it's time for me to go back and learn more. A Harvard sheepskin carries some weight. In addition, maybe, just maybe I'll learn how to jump higher than a credit card, join Harvard's basketball team and team up with Jeremy. Now that would be a story. What Mr Bill's link demonstrates, IMHO, is a symptom of the sicknesses we suffer in CA; spend, spend, spend with no regard to payback - until it's due. No way to run an airline, that's for sure. Further, it makes one want to go back and look at that state agency and commission link I posted, with a bright red Sharpie (hey, TO) and start the elimination process. What the Hell are our legislators thinking? What have they been thinking. Further, what are they doing about it? Apparently our legislators have their minds set in the mold of yesteryear (unless it comes to their compensation): Web Link That link is one of many when seeking info on CA spending on education vs prisons. Maybe our legislators have received info from the USGS demonstrating that CA is in fact going to separate from the mainland, which would make CA a lot like how Australia started out; a place to send the country's prisoners. Is that our destiny?
" those old, isolated GUYS in Vatican City" That is a pretty shameful statement, john, but never mind. Let's just look a a fact or two - well maybe only one, but, in this context, it is a biggie. The Catholic Church supports and runs a LOT of schools - elementary schools, high schools and Universities. Other religious entities do as well. With few exceptions - none that I know of - the elementary and high schools consistently turn out a better product - better educated students - than the public schools do - and for much less money. The universities rank among the best in the country and the world - and, of course, they consistently turn out great basketball teams.
" those old, isolated GUYS in Vatican City" That is a pretty shameful statement, john, but never mind. Let's just look a a fact or two - well maybe only one, but, in this context, it is a biggie. The Catholic Church supports and runs a LOT of schools - elementary schools, high schools and Universities. Other religious entities do as well. With few exceptions - none that I know of - the elementary and high schools consistently turn out a better product - better educated students - than the public schools do - and for much less money. The universities rank among the best in the country and the world - and, of course, they consistently turn out great basketball teams.
Boney -Great link. If you go back and read the first comment, it gives some ugly numbers (which I dare not post here lest I be accused of plagiarism!) But it shows that UC Regents are wasting money FER SURE! A portion: "UC BERKELEY Chancellor Birgeneau ($450,000 salary) "Spends $7,000,000 + for consultants to do the work of his management team (prominent East Coast university accomplishing same at 0 cost)." Ending with: "In tough economic times, unpleasant decisions must be made. " Reminds me of some of the out-sourcing work to "Consultants"that goes on around HMB. Time to make the deep cuts and tough decisions. We are all trying to weather this rough patch, so why stomp on us further for more $ ?
George... I thought they got rid of the School buses a few years ago, and that's one reason we still have lots of traffic in the mornings and afternoons. Did they bring them back and I somehow missed it? 2.) I don't have a clue what they teach in schools, but my Broker's grandchild told his Grandpa that he should "be a good citizen" and recycle...so they must be learning something! 3.) One day I was showing properties in Pacifica on a sunny, glorious day, and to my surprise, as I opened a bedroom door to show my client one of the rooms, inside all lumped on the bed were three very large (nearly adult) teenagers playing on-line video games in a darkened room wearing headsets and (IMHO) languishing about when they could be outside ENJOYING the world. They would not be so large if they got out and got some fresh air , sunshine and ...exercise! Oh, MAN! It is the parents. I could hear my ole man yelling "You kids go outside and play!"
Cid; I believe somewhere above I mentioned the background. The timeframe I'm referring to is the early 90's, when my boys were at Hatch. They had busses then, but they were cutting back on pick-up and drop-off points and rerouting. When they actually eliminated busses I don't remember.
Regarding the buses, I remember they sold the bus fleet for something like 300k. I may be mistaken. The buses should never have been eliminated IMHO.
Senior citizens are NOT exempt from passed school bonds.
I know thar I mess up my posting sometimes, but - I did not post my last above twice. Is TalkAbout going through the pangs of an overhaul?
I believe Measure E did allow an exemption. Perhaps it is on a case by case basis?
Measure E provided an exemption because it was a parcel tax. This bond, on the other hand, only needs 55% of the voter's approval and Senior Citizens are Required to pay bonds on their properties.
An important distinction marc. Thank you.
Note on the buses - they were eliminated for the majority of students/families but not for certain students/families. During the reduction in service and prior to elimination, a fee was sought for the bus service. A lot of people paid the fee but the service was eventually shut down, unless you "qualify" for the service. If you fit certain guidelines (some would say stereotypes)then you get the bus provided for you - at no cost. Like they said in the book - "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others..."
Silly me, the Title said School bond measure - Confusing! If it won't be billed to our Property Taxes. how shall it be paid?
Now I'm going to sound like H/B....Maybe they should tax those with kids in the system. It's only fair since they are the families using the School system. For a couple with no kids, we see no measurable benefit. We used to, when good schools meant good property values. Now, who's going to use the Pool? I mean from Moss Beach it's a 14 mile round trip. Anyway, I thought the HS had a pool... Did it sink? Is it "not good enough"? "Use it up, wear it out, make do, do without. Same goes for astroturf or what-ever. Scale it waaaay back and I MIGHT suppoet it.
>>Now I'm going to sound like H/B....Maybe they should tax those with kids in the system. It's only fair since they are the families using the School system. For a couple with no kids, we see no measurable benefit.<< Well, heck. Let's charge people on an case-by-case basis for fire and police service. If you pay you get the service, if you don't you are on your own. I think roads are the same way. Did you know that I almost never drive on certain roads in the community? I get no measurable benefit at all from those roads. I wish I didn't have to pay for them--if they gave me a vote I'd vote "NO" in a heartbeat. Let then drive on dirt. And don't get me started on the coast guard. I don't surf and I don't own a boat. What the heck does that red helicopter cost every hour it is in the air? That's got to be very expensive. Get rid of it, I say. Save a few bucks. The courts? Forgetaboutit. There are very few local disputes that strong talk and a shotgun won't resolve. Why are we wasting so much money on a legal system that is obviously inefficient? So-called "clean" water? I can afford bottled water. If you can't get a better job. Sewer? My next door neighbor is downhill from me. Won't be my issue, thank you very much. It really goes beyond services. It's about the future. Why pay anything now to build a solid community foundation in the future--heck, I'm just hoping to sell out and move to Portland the minute housing prices go up. Why should I invest in kids that are not only not mine but aren't even in the schools yet? What am I supposed to be, Santa Claus? I'm sick of people asking me to support schools and cops and fireman and all that other government stuff. Let the government get their money from somebody else, they don't do anything for me. Every dollar they get they waste anyway, padding their own pockets. Now, it's not that I'm unwilling to pay my fair share. Not at all. If the local schools were running perfectly, without any waste, without any inefficiencies, and if the students coming out were all scoring in the top of the nation, if there was no crime, no fires, no lawsuits, no strife, if everyone rescued lived happily ever after....if government did it's job THEN I would consider, maybe, the possibility of kicking in a few bucks. Until then my money is mine. Screw everybody else. --Darin
Darin, I enjoy your obvious exaggeration to make a valid point. Let me add a few more for you. How many meals should I be forced to miss to pay for a new swimming pool at the high school? How many medical prescriptions should I postpone to pay for school yard astro turfing? If I promise to vote for school maintenance bonds could the kids be educated in their current facilities? The difference between your and my "exaggerations" is that mine are real in hundreds of households on the coast.
A school bond of $80 million dollars, paid back over 30 years at 4% interest will cost the average parcel within the school district approximately $325 per year in tax payments every year for 30 years. If the yearly rate of inflation is 2.5% and steady during the entire 30 year payment period, then in the last year the current value in purchasing power of that tax payment will be about $150 in today’s dollar values. The question of how many meals or how many prescriptions are equivalent to this tax is not difficult to figure out. A meal at McDonalds can cost as little as $5 with all of the government tax breaks and subsidies provided to the farmers who grow the feed corn for the cattle and produce the beef. There are also tax benefits that lower the cost of processing the beef and delivering it to your local eatery. If all of those government entitlements went away the cost of that meal would be substantially higher, some estimate it could cost as much as $40 or more for a Big Mac and fries without all of these public benefits and entitlements that keep food prices low. Anyone who has had to pay for a prescription that is not covered by their insurance plan or a Medicare drug benefit, if you are eligible for this entitlement, knows that a prescription for almost anything can cost easily over $100 every month. Perhaps Boney Bills and others who object so strongly to supporting our local public schools with this small bond considering the big picture of all government entitlements and subsidies could explain why their personal benefits are so much more important and worthy than benefiting the children in this community with first rate schools. Those kids will be paying the future taxes that will provide the very subsidies that keep food cheap and drugs affordable.
Mr. Larimore, you have misrepresented my position. Either intentionally or because you have not read my previous posts. I do not object to or oppose supporting our local schools. I have supported actively the recent parcel tax. I support the bond issue for all the maintenance issues. Many of our citizens are under financial duress. Now for some (evidently yourself) a few hundred dollars a year is not significant. To many it is critical. Some think that a mere 300,000 dollars in speaker fund income is insignificant. Some people are living paycheck to paycheck and there is no money for a Big Mac on Thursday night. I am imploring the school district to slash any voluntary items from this round of bonding to minimize the hardships on many in the ommunity.
$325 per parcel - $650 if you have a big yard. Not one kid will come out of the system better educated because of it - not one. Our education system is broken beyond repair. Worse, the educators have no desire or intent to repair it. Their goal is to keep it just as it is, and continuing to fool us into throwing money at it in hopes that might help. It will not, of course. The system has to be turned on it's ear. The very best and least expensive thing we could do is to rid ourselves of it and turn it over to the parochial schools, just as HMB turned law enforcement over to the sherrif's department, with the proviso that they have to leave religion out of it. Like it or not, parochial schools do a better job of educating children than do our public schools. At the very least, we should study the way that they do it, and try to do it that way. Throwing more money at the failed education system will not help - it will only serve to convince the educators that taxpayers are a bottomless well that they can pump from forever.
According to the CUSD website: 54% of their students are minority, primarily Hispanic. Special education is provided for 400 students. 24% of the students receive English as a Second language or Spanish Immersion instruction. And, 33%of the students were eligible for free or reduced meals.
Darin - I was a bit tongue in cheek, but you did not get it. However, to my point and your counterpoint: Every time a COMMUNITY needs money, they elect to asses Property Owners. At what point does the well run dry? 1.) However, I don't believe Fire and Police services are funded from PROPERTY TAXES (Correct? 2.) Our ROADS are funded by the gasoline tax and not just off the backs of PROPERTY OWNERS, however, a bit more fair because it is charged to ALL DRIVERS who fill up. Even Municipal buses charge a fee to riders, and we pay the delivery costs in each product we purchase at a store, as delivery/freight is built into the price by the store or the wholesaler. 3.) The Coastguard is a Federal Entity. It is funded in part by the Recreational Boating Safety State Grant Program. (In other words it is a USER Pays/USER Benefits Funding which is provided through the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund, which gets its revenue, in part, from federal excise taxes on motorboat fuel, taxes on sport fishing equipment, and import duties on fishing tackle, yachts, and pleasure boats. No general tax revenues are used—the funds come from the people who benefit from these services. Additional funding comes from ARRA Web Link and OSLFT 4.) Courts- I don’t see any Legal System (Courts) Fee on my Property Tax bill either. But I suppose that could come, as State Budgets are being stretched. Web Link 5.) Water & Sewer - I do see both Water and Sewer on My Property Tax Bill, and as those services are directly connected to my Property, PLUS we were able to Successfully VOTE to agree to Purchase our water system here in MB/Montara, so what’s to quibble about? I DIRECTLY BENEFIT from that assessment, don’t I? In fact I have a neighbor on a well who is peeved because she may be mandated to connect, in spite of a well she had to drill in order to build. (Her decision, but she knew it could happen eventually). 6.) Move away (to Portland) to avoid the increasingly higher property tax bill with all the “Add-ons”. Hmmm, now as a REALTOR it seems to me that this is no secret…Retirees are moving out of state by the droves, after cashing in their homes they opt to move to a state with a lower cost of living.. NEVADA seems to be the cheaper choice. (Nevada has no Personal or Corporate income tax) Washington State has no individual income tax but they do have a business tax) The Crown jewel is Alaska: They actually give residents money for living there, distributed from its Permanent Fund, a state-administered oil wealth savings account. In 2010 every man, woman and child who had lived in Alaska for at least one year received a 2009 dividend of $1,305. There's no income tax, no state sales tax, and only 25 municipalities even levy a property tax. Some municipalities impose local sales taxes of up to 7%, however. 7.) We don’t pay directly for Fire and Police on our Property tax bills either. (Well, maybe a little bit.-$117.00 per year.) They are funded from state collected VLF Funds. Two thirds of the Vehicle Licensing Fees go back to cities to fund protective services such as fire and police. Again, not directly billed to the end–user, but spread out over a broad base – Motor Vehicle Owners. It makes sense to me, since many fire and police calls are from Auto-related incidents. Darin, And, as I said before, in the past I supported the School tax. I don’t see a need for TROPHY Pools, if there is already a serviceable pool in the District. And Astroturf? Please tell me why this is seen as necessary? “They” always want more, more, more it seems and my “Golden Years” will come and folks will still be thinking up ways to add to my Property Tax bill, won’t they?
Cid, Barnus and marc's points taken together illustrate the collective problem with our education system. This system is indicative of what is wrong with our entire society, a society fractured by disparate interest groups all looking to maximize their own benefits and minimize their costs. The education system is already supposed to be paid for through our state (and in recent decades federal) taxes. The state lottery system was created to supplement the state education system. The local school entities cry foul because the state doesn't give them the money they think they need to run the schools. So, the local school entities try to garner more money by placing parcel taxes, bond measures and any other fees they can upon the local land-owning citizenry. Why? Because many of the families with kids in school don't have to pay - instant support of a large bloc of people. Why is land ownership utiilized as the primary qualifier for who pays? The answer to that question is at the heart of the most important political issues. The middle class is being torn apart through these methods. The poor don't own land and the wealthy can afford the added fees being tacked on. The school officials also promote user fees and fund raising efforts by the citizens who then turn the money over to them. Nowhere in the bond fund or parcel tax will you find accountability for the results. You won't find that anywhere. We have a system which is ever-expanding, self-fulfilling and considered above review or analysis. Whatever we give is never enough. Their answer is to take and take more. The system must be fundamentally changed, to feed it is to grow the problem. If Mr Larimer's points are to be believed, then we should eliminate all subsidies and taxation. That way, the $40 meal at McDonald's can be paid for by those choosing to do so and who still have the money they earned in their pockets.
better late than never... franz: I friggin' pay CA Income Taxes, I bet way more than you, certainly way more than most. Bonds and especially parcel taxes are the weakling's method of enabling those lazy b@st@rds in Sacramento who waste our tax moneys. Vote them out if you don't agree with their policies. Stop asking me for more money! Actually, asking it too nice a word. Demanding is more like it. barnus: the Catholic Church supports a bunch of Catholic schools, not schools in general. And they demand religious freedom to teach what they want. And that bunch of old GUYS does exist in a bubble (not unlike our state representatives, BTW), totally ignoring the fact that their lavish lifestyle is supported by the poorest people in the world!
"barnus: the Catholic Church supports a bunch of Catholic schools, not schools in general. And they demand religious freedom to teach what they want. And that bunch of old GUYS does exist in a bubble (not unlike our state representatives, BTW), totally ignoring the fact that their lavish lifestyle is supported by the poorest people in the world!" Perhaps. I don't really care. No one who doesn't want to be a Catholic has to be a Catholic. No Catholic who doesn't want to support old guys in the Vatican has to give money to be used for that purpose or any purpose. As taxpayers, we have to fork over money whether we want to or not or have our property taken us and perhaps be hauled off at gunpoint and put behind bars. Still, while enjoying unlimited funding from that propitious system, our educators fail to educate or at least to do it as well as parochial schools. Again, I think we would do well to look carefully at parochial schools and glean and put to use that which we can - or simply hire them.
"I am imploring the school district to slash any voluntary items from this round of bonding to minimize the hardships on many in the (c)ommunity. Me too! Scale it waaay back! Especially after reading this BOND scandal article! someone who signed for this BOND was a liar, plain and simple. NO WONDER they had to settle. Beats going to jail for fraud.
Barnus - Comparing public to private/parochial schools is apples to oranges. Parochial schools have entrance tests; private schools cannot do this. Parochial schools do not have to educate anyone they don't want - including special ed and English language learners. If a student at a parochial school does something bad, they can get kicked out. This is not quite the same as public schools, who have to adhere very strictly to the laws and ed codes. Parochial schools also do not have to take the CST test or the CAHSEE - so what criterion are you using to say that parochial schools are somehow educating their kids better?
John Gruver - where do you see me supporting this bond measure or raising any taxes/fees for you (or anyone)? I think we are on the same page here. My contention is that the local parcel taxes and school bond funding is a convenient way to avoid changing the system for those in power. We are basically being taxed twice for the same service. Our income taxes are collected by the state of California and the federal government with money going to public education. Then, the local school district hits us with multiple fees which are then collected by the county of San Mateo via our property taxes. I say, NO MORE !!
It appears "THEY" think that property owners are and endless pool of money. THEY ARE WRONG! Do without or find some "alternative financing" for a change.
Stop finding new ways to tax struggling homeowners in this community! Property Owners who are watching their values drop every day because a neighbor's home is being foreclosed! Get Creative...you can only pump so much from one source until it is tapped out! SORRY, but it's the facts right now, and I can't but wonder why no one can see this. Don't you read the news...or are you taking the Ostrich's approach?
It appears "THEY" think that property owners are and endless pool of money. THEY ARE WRONG! Do without or find some "alternative financing" for a change.
Stop finding new ways to tax struggling homeowners in this community! Property Owners who are watching their values drop every day because a neighbor's home is being foreclosed! Get Creative...you can only pump so much from one source until it is tapped out! SORRY, but it's the facts right now, and I can't but wonder why no one can see this. Don't you read the news...or are you taking the Ostrich's approach?
This matter came up and is moving forward at a very fast pace. One of the troubling facets of something agencies get caught in when moving this fast is not having all the elements of a successful measure. They get in such a hurry that they don't listen to the public (it's not thoroughly vetted) in favor of getting their wish list as they see it on the ballot ASAP. Might I suggest that everyone with questions, particularly what some might consider stupid questions, attend this evening's meeting - if for no other reason than to get the facts straight from the source. It is not required that you speak, but you are free to do so, to contribute in any fashion that meets your needs. From the looks of this thread and others on this topic, we should all attend. I will be there, although I doubt I'll talk. I do want to learn as much as I can about this effort/issue.
Who is evaluating the results of the last parcel tax which was put on the taxpayers two years ago?
George- Since you're in the "know" How about a where and what time element for the meeting?
I just posted this (slightly modified here to better fit this thread) on another current thread with the same topic. Just felt it might fit here, too. There seems to be one matter that most are tapping on, but not thoroughly nailing. I'll try to expose that now. For illustrative purposes, I'll use a fictitious example, but one that should touch nerves: Let us suppose, just for sake of argument and for example purposes, that a person (or family) owns a 5,000 sq' parcel within the District. Let's also assume that s/he has a mortgage - sat $2500 p/m. Let us also assume that s/he has a spouse and two children at home. Additionally, let's also provide a vehicle for each adult in that home. Let's also assume that aside from the mortgage, they have $50,000 in other debt, primarily credit card debt. And to polish it off, let's also assume that one of the adults (of the two that live there) works part time and the other hasn't had a job for two years. What I have described, with the liberal use of assumptions, may well be a snapshot of many in this community. Let's add that this family had invested money before the meltdown (2008), but has since seen their investments dwindle significantly since the meltdown due to losses and pulling out some to live. How do you ask someone like that to vote yes on a bond, parcel tax or any other additional expense at this time, even IF they agreed with the cause? Asking is one thing; expecting is another. I see threads like this one here and in other locations on this topic. I see folks stressing over the potential outcome. I have seen (many times) where one will accuse another of hating kids if they oppose something like this. I've seen others that simply go hog wild with public support just to avoid the bs of others, only to vote No. We've all seen it. Add to that, the Review published this Web Link 3 days ago. Titled "School district set to deliver pink slips", this piece appears to be the hammer, to balance out the carrot they (CUSD) seeks. From the first paragraph: "Two assistant principals, two counselors and the equivalent of about 14 teacher positions are likely to be on the chopping block later this month as Cabrillo Unified School District tries to balance its budget." Well that doesn't sound good, but beyond that...what does this proposed measure have to do with personnel? Apparently a lot, so discussion on astro-turf and swimming pools needs to be broadened a bit. Best recommendation I can provide to anyone with even a casual interest in this proposed tax is to go to the meeting this evening. From the CUSD website, Web Link , we see that meeting starts at 7:00 PM and will be held at the Cunha library as opposed to the District office. Looks like they expect a crowd. I hope they get what they expect - a full house. That is the only way this measure will be fully vetted Before we see it on the ballot. Thank you.
The web links provided above don't seem to transfer with cut and paste, so here they are again, and working: The Review story web link - Web Link The CUSD website link - Web Link And it seems Cid and I were hitting submit at the same time, so I missed her post. I hope, however, that this addresses her question(s) and those of others.
Next regular Board Meeting date is listed below. • 7:00 pm Public Session • District Office 498 Kelly Ave, Half Moon Bay March 8th Or Cunha Library...which is it?
Cunha library
MOBILIZING NOW ...
People are pretty smart and don't like being played. Once they do the math on how much money this will cost their households, they will vote no. What was done with the last parcel tax?
"Barnus - Comparing public to private/parochial schools is apples to oranges." - - - - - I'll say! "What criterion are you using to say that parochial schools are somehow educating their kids better?" - - - - - The kids come out having learned more. While I suspect that you are right, I have not been able to verify that parochial schools are or are not required to administer the CST (STAR) test to their pupils. The CST test is all about money - what schools get what state money. There would be no reason for the Catholic schools to participate. Catholic schools in the area do start administering an achievement test in the second grade - the IOWA test of educational development. It is true that Catholic schools do not have to admit anyone they don't like or tolerate unruly students. However, all but the crowded schools rarly turn anyone down. Also, they rarely have extended behavior problems. Parents who are paying for their kids education take an interest in it, and make sure that the kids toe the line. That is one reason why the Catholic schools do such a good job. As I said, we would do well to learn how they do it and adopt the best of their ways. They may not have to provide special ed - but they do. It is unreasonable to expect most special ed pupils, particularly those with sub-standard IQs to leave school having learned what the brighter pupils do. But when they graduate from a Catholic school at the age of 16 they have learned what it is reasonable to expect them to learn, and in particular, they have learned cleanliness, how to dress appropriately, manners and responsiblity. They are equipped to make a living. You are right that Parochial school pupils can be kicked out. In some circumstances public school pupils can be kicked out as well, but that is the exception. Notwithstanding their rights, parochial schools rarely dismiss students. Except in aggravated cases, they deal with them. The right to expel unruly students is another thing that the public schools would do well to insist on. Foolish laws to the contrary should be changed. Pupils doing their job should not have that job made more difficult by one or a few pupils determined to remain ignorant. Some of the things that make it difficult for public schools to perform better were asked for and continue to be fought for by educators - they are cited in neverending efforts to have more money pumped into the system. Parochial schools have to compete. That assures efforts to keep costs down and performance up. Our education system needs basic reform. Requiring them to compete might help.
franz, my post was in response to this post from you: "John Gruver, concerned citizen and idea man!! Wow. Your statements above say a lot about you Mr. Gruver. You are so concerned about the educational system that you exempt yourself from funding these additional local efforts. I suppose you are all for not having to pay but are all for me paying more, interesting. To boot, you take a swipe at religion and religious leaders as if they had nothing but a negative impact on the world. Do you propose that people only give their money to the state? That is your solution? franz, a resident of Moss Beach, on March 5, 2012 at 4:28 pm" If we are on the same page, I don't see it in that post, sorry. I'm on the page of I'm paying way too much in taxes now, but I don't care (too much) what happens to the money school-wise because I'm neither a student nor a parent of a student. If you are, then get your voting done to remove the representatives that are responsible for not spending my tax dollars the way you want them to.
I'll take another whack at explaining my reasons, not so much for Mr. Larimer but for those interested in the truth about public education: Fact #1 - More spending does not directly correlate to better results. I never attach web links but this article explains this and the fact below, hope it works. Web Link Fact #2 - Public school districts routinely misstate and mislead the public about what they actually spend and what they spend it on. Fact #3 - Our CUSD schools are already funded, they are funded by state law and that funding methodology has not changed since 1978. Fact #4 - This bond will not change any of the funding methods coming from the state and county. If you believe that is a problem (as many do) then why not put an initiative together to change that? Fact #5 - Private donations have significantly improved many facilities. That is money the district did not have to spend. Why do they need more when they were given free improvements? Where did the money go which they had allocated for improvements and maintenance in prior budgets? Fact #6 - The local schools have been improved in recent years. If you have been involved (as I have), you know that new buildings have been constructed, classrooms and lockerrooms and others aspects have been remodeled, building improvements have been performed already. the schools have not been sitting there rotting with no maintenance, no improvements or no new additions for the past 30 years. That is what Mr. Larimer wants you to believe but it is not true. Fact #7 - Public schools spend far more money than private schools on overhead and administrative costs. How much of a reduction in these costs in proposed by CUSD? If they are reducing costs then they don't need more money. If they aren't, they should be. Fact #8 - Public schools spend more on teacher salaries and benefits than private and charter schools. Are the results better? Are they more responsive to parents and students? Fact #9 - Prop 13 is constantly thrown up as the evil doing which killed California education. That is a joke. What killed California education is continuous expansion of entitlement programs and service mandates regardless of funding, fairness or effectiveness. This was foisted upon us by the liberal Democrats in the Ca. legislature (and in the US Congress) over the past 30-40 years. Go to the web and search (even wikipedia) if you don't know the history. Prop 13 is the only thing which has allowed middle class people like me to stay in our homes, especially in tough economic times. Fact #10 - there is nothing stopping Mr. Larimer and other supporters of higher spending from donating as much money as they want to CUSD. It's even tax deductible.
Mr Gruver - we are on the same page. I may have mistaken your comments regarding seeking your own exemption whilst also advocating for money to be transferred to public schools rather than churches. I agree that many church organizations need to better manage their personnel, finances and the like. However, I am not forced to pay for their mistakes or things which I don't agree with. Educational reform is needed, and not the Dope and Mange kind of uber-liberal change evoked by Obama and his socialist party. All citizens should contribute a fair share to the public education system, not just property owners. Parents should have choices as to which schools they send their kids to. This type of choice and competitive environment will make all schools better. Without equitable cost sharing and choice, you get what we have now - lots of costs, lots of waste and poor results.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, so I will throw this out to those who may know. I think this bond is unconstitutional since it is punitively structured to overtax more expensive homes; ie: The taxpayer with more assessed value in their homes will be taxed more. I think that this bond is unfairly structured.
"This matter came up and is moving forward at a very fast pace. One of the troubling facets of something agencies get caught in when moving this fast is not having all the elements of a successful measure. They get in such a hurry that they don't listen to the public (it's not thoroughly vetted) in favor of getting their wish list as they see it on the ballot ASAP." George nailed it "THEY" were in a huge rush. They "listened" but rubber stamped it for EIGHTY-ONE MILLION DOLLARS to come on the backs of property owners. I hope evryone votes it down so they have to come back with smaller requests. Not unreasonable items like the entire SECTION 3 (See Darrin Boville' post
A property tax is like a sales tax, it is based upon the value of the property. There is no Constitutional issue here. Following this logic, you might ask how is a parcel tax legal? A parcel tax makes no distinction over the value of a property; it treats the small house owned by someone of modest means the same as the multimillion dollar manison owned by a Larry Ellison. Prop. 13 has made legal an almost complete disconnect between value and tax. A property owned for 20 or 30 years by the same owner will have grown in value due to inflation and demand, yet the tax on that property will stay at a much lower value. When the property is sold the sale price and the assessed value in the tax collector's record book is adjusted to reflect the property's real value. In some cases when properties have not turned over for several decades the tax increase associated with a property can increase 5 or 10 fold. In all those previous years the prior owner received an individual tax credit that everyone else had to contribute to with their taxes. How is that fair?
If this bond passed that means hypothetically that Larry Ellison would pay on $80 million assessed home value divided by $100,000 (bond would ask for $30. or so for every $100,000 assessed value). Meanwhile, the CUSD taxpayers are paying lawyers and consultants thousands of taxpayer dollars to put this half baked idea on the ballot. Sounds illegal to me.
A residence that sells for $1,000,000 today will have to pay $10,000 per year in property taxes. If it sells for $10,000,000 as perhaps Larry Ellison's house did, then he pays $100,000 annually in taxes. Ellison also pays a high total sales tax on his expensive automobiles, airplanes, and boats. That is the law of the land, it is not illegal. Property taxes go towards paying for public infrastructure and people who own a lot of stuff use more of the publicly provided infrastructure than those who own less. Consider how much water Ellison must use to keep his garden green, or how much rain water run off must be collected from his large estate, or how much more police and fire service is required to protect his property. What is unfair about him paying his fair share of these costs?
"Prop. 13 has made legal an almost complete disconnect between value and tax. A property owned for 20 or 30 years by the same owner will have grown in value due to inflation and demand, yet the tax on that property will stay at a much lower value. - - - - How is that fair?" It has saved many homeowners from losing their homes. It has helped to stabilize communities. How is a tax based on the value of property fair anyway. It would be wrong to assume that the value of a property reflects a property owner's ability to pay. Some times it does - sometimes it does not. That is another way of saying it is a meaningless indicator. You have properly noted that a property owned for some time probably has grown in value DUE TO INFLATION. Often - usually - there has been no real increase in value. A homeowner who has owned a property for some time and watched the probable selling price increase cannot sell that property and then buy a better property in the same area with the proceeds of the sale. That would be true even the homeowner did not have to pay an un fair capital gains tax on the sale. How is it fair to tax the homeowner for capital gains in that circumstance - there has been no real capital gain - just inflation. The same applies to property taxes. How is it fair to tax homeowners for the inflation that has cut into the buying power of their income. Prop 13 was passed because folk were losing their homes to the taxers.
Barnus is suggesting the reverse of noblesse oblige. The ultra wealthy or anyone who owns a valuable property should get a tax subsidy of lower property taxes from the rest of us so they can stay in their expensive property. Now nice for the rich. Barnus wants all of us to believe that it is somehow fair and just for someone who lives in a very valuable property to be subsidized to stay there when they could just as easily sell their valuable property and with the high sales price purchase a less valuable property where they can afford to pay for the taxes. Please explain why when the grand parents want to display their gold bricks on the fireplace mantle and therefore will not sell them or when their neighbor who just purchased his new Mercedes and vacation home can't afford his taxes the rest of us should grant them a tax break? Everyone should pay their fair share of the cost of government regardless of age or how much of their wealth is rapped up in property. What happened to the simple American common sense idea that if you cannot afford it, sell it or don't buy it in the first place? Prop. 13 should be seen for what it really is, a tax break for the wealthy. That is what several decades of this hugely unfair law has created, tax breaks for the rich at everyone else's expense.
Proposition 13 helped me and alot of others to stay in their homes. Vote No on this bond.
Who is monitoring the parcel tax that passed two years ago? What are the results of that monitoring? marc, a resident of Moss Beach, on March 4, 2012 at 5:10 pm NO MONITORING ALLOW.."they" have it all under control, and we don't need to worry our little heads with silly monetary details.
Thanks Cid. I just noticed that there's only a couple of responses to Jim's thread.
The school district Board of Directors is an elected body. Ms. Young again has revealed her confusion, this time regarding how government works. Her suggestion that that some entity other than an elected one, the School District's elected Directors, are required to manage the District's business is just plain wrong. If the School District Board decides to delegate some of their responsibilities and appoints an oversight committee, the Board is still the ultimate responsible entity, their appointed committee can only be advisory. How government works is taught in school, that is one of the many reasons we need excellent public schools so that everyone has a chance to learn how our government was designed to work.
Barnus, I used to live in "TAX-A_CHUSSETS" as it was called. Whenever the town needed to rais money the would send the Local Tax Assessor out and he would drive around and say "Yours is now worth X" His is now worth Y" and it made folks go NUTS when they got thier seemingly arbitrary increases each year. For that reason, Prop 13 made perfect sense to me. When I purchased my first home in Daly City in 1981, the owner next door had purchased her identical home brand new for $12,000 from the developer waaay back when. I moved in and (as a former renter at $400 a month) thought she had a pretty good deal, because I paid $92,000. I was still thrilled to get my 1st "starter home". Obviously, her taxes were lower, but I thought that was O.K., because she was older, and we had our life (And earning years) ahead of us. Incidentally, when I moved and sold it for $197K a few years later, she benefited by the up-tick in her property value (on paper) as well. Now, many years later, when it comes my time to sell, some "yuppie" will pay me more than I paid for this home, and feel lucky to have it too, like I did. At that time it will be re-assessed on the Tax rolls. Now, as an almost Senior Citizen, I'm glad it is capped with the annual Ad Valorum (1% approx) increase.. As it stands now, the County is loosing tax money when many homes are re-sold, because those that were bought at the peak in 2006 are today being sold for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS less.( Thus, A lower assessment per prop 13). Unfortunately, the Counties, (and local governments) got all "Fat & Happy" when the tax rolls were going up. That was then...this is now. These "thin" times call for cut-backs but folks are in denial!!! THE BIG PROBLEM with PROP 13 is that it applies not only to Residential properties, but to Industrial and Commercial as well. BUSINESSES often don't sell the land or properties, they exchange them tax deferred, or they just take in a new lease when one business leaves. Thus the only increase is the Ad Valorum tax which is incremental, like the small increase on your own residential property tax bill. It is wrong for the State to be raiding the funds they collect instead of portioning them out to School Districts as they have done in the past. And don't even get me started on the CA Lotterty! Desperate Times for desperate measures.
Jim-Jim-Jim - Don't you think I vote? I know they are ELECTED.(and I don't know what made you IMPLY that I did not.) Go ahead, Just keep smearing me in T/A. it's not the first time you've misconstrued another poster's point of view in order to obfuscate the subject. You're going to keep harponing away from your soapbox anyway. "The school district Board of Directors is an elected body. Ms. Young again has revealed her confusion, this time regarding how government works. Her suggestion that that some entity other than an elected one, the School District's elected Directors, are required to manage the District's business is just plain wrong.If the School District Board decides to delegate some of their responsibilities and appoints an oversight committee, the Board is still the ultimate responsible entity, their appointed committee can only be advisory. How government works is taught in school, that is one of the many reasons we need excellent public schools so that everyone has a chance to learn how our government was designed to work."
The same complaint against Prop. 13 – that neighbors sometimes pay enormously different tax bills for similar homes – is very similar to the complaint heard against residential rent controls. The two policies are motivated by analogous concerns: protecting the public from predatory, often market-driven, increases in the cost of housing. But you pretty much never hear the same person decry – or support – both Prop. 13 and rent controls. Why not?
"What happened to the simple American common sense idea that if you cannot afford it, sell it or don't buy it in the first place?"Outstanding question Jim. May I suggest that it not only apply to individuals and families, but government agencies too. Damn, what a novel idea! I'm gonna write that one down so I don't forget it.
When will the middle school parcel tax be retire?
And of course us very wealthy individuals and families get to cover the City's backside, too. Let's see, we have 27 years left on Beachwood at $1,126 Million per annum....wait, hold the presses! There's a glitch! Yeah, seems the City was approached by the feds and they were angry. Why, you might ask? Because the bonds we (the City) chose to sell were designed for projects to get Americans back to work, not to purchase a property as a remedy to lost litigation. That little gem will cost us $56,000 in back interest to the bond holders, $175,000 to the feds for a wrist slap and we get to tack on an additional $1.5 million + for future payments! We have 27 more years there. Add the Benjamin litigation over the Kehoe Ditch, which HMB lost. We still can't figure out what the remedy is. It could be as little as $4,000 or as much as over $1 million. Let's not forget the pension deficit the City is running. Oh, and the Fire District promises to be exciting, too. With millions in unfunded pensions already, they are now talking of releasing CalFire and going back to what we had - which we all know worked so well before. How much more will that agency cost us? Then, of course we have the County and State matters to deal with as well. Oh, and let's not forget our personal liabilities, although no worries there. We're all loaded with big bucks pouring out of our pockets. Yeah, government is great. Just tax more to keep up with increased expenses, wages and the rest, while allowing Fannie May, Freddie Mac, Shearson, Bear Sterns, GM, AIG and the hundreds of others to flat out screw us all, then the world. Yeah Jim, I think you're onto something here.
I forgot the elephant in the room; over $15 Trillion (& growing by the second) of federal debt, too. Yeah, like we can even afford to pay the interest on it. I still believe this is the greatest country on the planet, but I have to say that we have really gotten ourselves in a very bad spot and it continues to get worse.
Thanks goodness we have Cal Fire which offers excellent services at moderate costs.
OK Don Bacon, I will take your bait. Prop. 13 according to many experts has raised, not lowered, property values it has not had the impact you suggest. It has had the opposite effect. See Web Link(1978) Regarding rent control, it makes sense only in dense urban settings where there are many barriers to competition in rents. In a community like ours where there are plenty of buildable parcels available, there is no need for rent control as the marketplace economy will respond by building more affordable apartments to rent. If you are going to argue that in a community that creates politcal barriers to growth and development therefore making rent control necessary, I would argue that both policies are wrong. So there you have an example of someone who opposes both Prop. 13 and the unnecessary use of rent control. But what does this have to do with a school bond? Are you just trying to change the topic here? Start an new blog for that discussion please.
"Prop. 13 according to many experts has raised, not lowered, property values it has not had the impact you suggest. It has had the opposite effect." Actually, I didn't comment on whether Prop. 13 raised or lowered property values. Must have me mixed up with someone else. I am in favor of both Prop. 13 and residential rent controls generally. I also like the protections for seniors, like Props. 60/90. "In a community like ours where there are plenty of buildable parcels available, there is no need for rent control as the marketplace economy will respond by building more affordable apartments to rent." About as plausible as your $40 Big Mac/fries. What does the priced out renter do while he waits for the market to respond and build him some nice cheap new rental units? "Start an new blog for that discussion please." That begs the question of why you started two new blog threads to try to replace this one.
Don,
Prop 13 has since 1978 tended to stabilized home ownership costs by making property tax increases predictable for the purpose of family budgeting. Link: Web Link(1978) Studies almost universally agree that rent control is detrimental. Link: The reason you never hear the same person decry stabilization of Property taxes and Stabilization of rents is because increases in Property tax assessments were often arbitrarily set by a Town Assessor, whereas Rental Increase Limits are set much like Prop 13, with a designated cap. In San Francisco for instance, The allowable increase is announced each year and is based on 60% of the CPI. (Consumer Price Index) HOWEVER, the Rent Control Ordinance does allow for Pass-Throughs: While a landlord must obtain prior Rent Board approval for most other types of rent increases (e.g., capital improvement costs or increased operating and maintenance expenses), a landlord is permitted to impose the annual allowable increase each year without filing a petition with the Rent Board. In a nut-shell, even renters will be saddled with School Bond increases, since the Property Tax increase is considered an increase in "operating costs".
Don Bacon has created the diversion I knew he would. No thanks Don, I am not going to play that game with you. There are plenty of issues around the school bond issue that deserve discussion. The current plan is a solution to the dire financial condition of our local schools find themselves facing - a huge descrease in state funding. As you may or may not know the state has proposed a budget for next year that requires a substantial reduction in programs and staff. The two years after next year are not better. In fact the proposed decrease in year two is almost twice as large as this years decrease. The school district strategy is to put as many operating costs as possible on a budget line that does not depend upon state funding to free up operating budget to support teachers. That sounds like a good solution to me and their are several ways to look at it. They are all worth discussion.
On another thread someone suggested retiring the old bond before instituting two bonds simultaneously.
Marc - You said: "People are pretty smart and don't like being played. Once they do the math on how much money this will cost their households, they will vote no. What was done with the last parcel tax?" marc, a resident of Moss Beach, on March 8, 2012 at 2:06 pm Marc - Most voters don't bother to read the ENTIRE Voter Pamphlets, nor do they remember to bring them with them, when they vote. The abbreviated version of this measure will read (unless amended after last night's School Board vote): SUMMARY OF BALLOT MEASURE "To improve the quality of education in local schools by replacing leaky roofs; performing essential safety repairs on classrooms and facilities; updating science labs; equipping classrooms with 21st Century technology; maximizing energy efficiency and water conservation to save money; and renovating, constructing and equipping classrooms and facilities; shall Cabrillo Unified School District issue $81 Million in bonds at legal rates, with citizen oversight, annual audits, no funds for administrators' salaries and all funds staying in local schools?" OK, that's the short version that will appear on the E-slate machines in the voting booths. In addition to MOST voters not really reading it, it does not even mention a specific assessment amount on the Short Version. It does breeze past the 81 million after several lines of run-on wording. Were it worded differently, like "Do you think we can improve the quality of education by fixing leaky roofs....for $ 81 million dollars." folks would say HELL NO! I mean, what do leaky roofs have to do with the quality of education anyway? (They might have to do with a quality learning environment...but Quality Education??? That is a stretch! It also implies that there are existing safety issues in the class rooms. SOME ONE CALL THE CA. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND SAFETY RIGHT AWAY! (CAL-OSHA) Basically, I object to what looks like deliberate obfuscation. And there will be a poor turn-out for the June election, and they know it...therefore, it has a better chance of reaching the 55% threshold, than were they to full vet it and place it on the November Ballot. I duely noted that it DID NOT say and we want a 15 million dollar Performing arts facility or a brand new pool!" Somehow that got left out so they could use the phrase: "equipping classrooms" twice.
Does Ms. Young imagine that the quality of the roof on a building might be related to the quality of someone's sleep if the leaking roof were over their bed? Given the rock solid depravity of her logic that failing building have no impact on education, there is no point in further discussion. Ms Young's message is that the kids in this community and their dry desks let alone their education is not worth the cost to fix a leaking roof.
I'd like to see them establish a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District... but that might be too much Accountability , for the bunch I witnessed last night tossing something out and quickly voting on it. (Worry about details later on...) MORE ACCOUNTABILITY - MORE TRANSPARENCY Link:
Look what you started marc! Jim, twisting the words of someone that disagrees with you, to set up a backhand by you will not curry favor. Now, either you are on these blogs to share thoughts and sway, through logic and fact, other voters, Or you're just grinding others for some personal pleasure. I sure hope it turns out to be door number 1.
Keep it up Cheerleader! Agin you are misconstruing my words: "Ms Young's message is that the kids in this community and their dry desks let alone their education is not worth the cost to fix a leaking roof." ATTENTION: If there is any leak over a desk in the District will someone please let me know so I can call the proper Authorities? School children should not have to be subjected to such an environment! Besides those kids can't get their proper sleep if the roof is leaking over the desk (Bed). "Does Ms. Young imagine that the quality of the roof on a building might be related to the quality of someone's sleep if the leaking roof were over their bed? Given the rock solid depravity of her logic that failing building have no impact on education, there is no point in further discussion. Ms Young's message is that the kids in this community and their dry desks let alone their education is not worth the cost to fix a leaking roof."
My point about Prop.13/rent control is that people tend to create reasons to support positions they've already assumed based on their experiences, rather than coming to conclusions based on sound reasoning. Jim, for example, has told me he spent most of his professional life working for government or companies that contract to government. He's a longtime local public official, so he has an affinity for other public officials, like our local school board. He has a warm-and-fuzzy toward government in general. That's not a criticism, just an observation. Someone else might start into this school bond issue with the opposite attitude. That's why I applaud George for having a skeptical, undecided attitude about the proposed bond measure. He wants to support public education, but he has questions. Like why it seems so last minute. And what about the money from the last parcel tax. And is this really the time to lard HMB property owners in particular with more debt. People question whether bond money usually gets spent where they promise it will be spent. Of course not. I am reminded that with the bond passed way back when for a new middle school (presumably at Wavecrest), a few million of it was gone by the time they started on the Cunha rehab. Bureaucracy has an inherent tendency to fritter money away. One question I have is how wishful and unrealistic the line item expenditure sheet appears. I'll pick just one item that I have some familiarity with. A new swimming pool is penciled in for $5M, if they haven't changed the figure. Not that a new pool isn't a nice wish. The one they have has one end so shallow, it's unsafe to dive off starting blocks, or even flipturn for elite swimmers. Never should have been approved as designed and built. The problem is that $5M won't buy a new pool. It will cost about double that for a similar (but safer) product. It would cost about triple to put in a modern 50 meter X 25 yard pool to serve the schools and public. BTW, the notion that a June bond measure has a better chance than in November makes little demographic sense. June voters skew older, more conservative, more property owners. This November (presidential election, etc.) will be high turnout, skewing younger and more liberal.
Jim does bring up an interesting point. If there are leaky roofs, and perhaps there are, where are they, specifically. I'd like to go see those leaks; the leaks CUSD maintenance is supposed to fix. I'd like to take a gander at the size and the resulting damage of those leaks to assess a rough dollar amount to fix them. I doubt that combined, and they have been referred to in plural, repairs would run $81 million, or over 3X the current budget to fix. Yes, I am being a bit snarky, but we hear about delinquent maintenance every time a bond or parcel tax comes along, and we've seen a few from CUSD. The point here is that we don't know. We do not have anything, not even a back of the envelop scratching showing specificity of maintenance needs, yet we hear it. How many other maintenance items is the District arrears on - and most importantly, if there are maintenance matters that have fallen behind, why? How much of the $81 million will be going to fix these alleged leaky roofs? We know it's not all of it. Could it be half of it? Probably not. A 1/4 of it? probably not. Jim, perhaps you would provide us with some numbers and specific needs. Inquiring minds want to know, and I saw nothing in the District handouts last night that even broached specificity on this matter, or any other matter...for that matter.
Regarding accountability, we just had a bond go bad in Pescadero. Perhaps some remember. They passed a bond for their school district; a facilities bond, if memory serves, with a lot of zeros. Well, one thing led to another and it seems the District completely mis-handled the money (and I am being very kind). In the end, the misappropriated money was gone, at least one person was fired and the kids got screwed, along with the parents. The Review did at least one piece on it, but I don't feel like looking for it and it's too late to call any friends down there now to ask.
Don Bacon knows that changing the topic to who the person is instead of what they have said about an issue diverts the discussion into something irrelevant to the topic at hand. It is his standard ploy to win arguments. The discussion here is about a proposed school bond that will add a $45 tax for every $100,000 of assessed evaluation to property within the school district for 25 years. The average value of property in this district is less than $500,000 so this tax will add less than $225 per year for 25 years to the average tax bill in the district. By year of the bond repayment period the purchasing power of this bond tax will likely be less than a tank or two of gasoline; today it is equal to about the cost of 4 tanks of gasoline for an SUV or minivan. The reason the school district has proposed this bond is to reduce their operating costs so that money can be used to pay the salaries of teachers who will be laid off if the bond fails. The reason the district must lay off teachers if the bond fails to be passed is that the state has decided to drastically cut funds for K-12 public schools over the next 3 years. Next year’s school funding will require a loss of about 10 teachers and double that number the following year. No small school district can lose 30 plus teachers without an impact on teaching. That is what is likely to happen if the bond fails. The bond will pay to build a solar electricity system and this will save the district about $300,000 per year in electricity charges saving as many as 5 teacher’s jobs. They will also replace an outdoor swimming pool that is 50 years old and that requires a great deal of energy to keep the water warm enough for people to swim it during the school year. They will also replace old and worn out equipment that has a high cost of constant repair with new equipment that will not need repair. They will use these funds to improve energy efficiency in all of the school district buildings. Most new things have a period of operation where they are maintenance free, often 3 to 5 years, and anyone who has replaced an older model automobile with a hybrid or electric one understands that there is can be a substantial operating cost savings. These actions will save additional teacher jobs. New lights made of LEDs are cheaper to operate than florescent lights so replacing lighting anywhere electricity must be purchased in the district’s buildings can add to savings. The bond will put local people to work in several ways: it will save local teacher’s jobs and it will produce construction jobs in our community. Part of the current economic slump we are in is due to job losses and the resulting reduction in demand in retail markets. So by keeping people employed and employing new people this bond will also have the good effect of creating some jobs and thereby adding to demand for products in retail markets – all good for our local and regional economy. But the biggest and most important good reason to support the bond is the good it will do for the children in this community in the classroom. Don or George or Cid or Marc if any of you want to discuss these points or disagree with them that would be reasonable. But a discussion of the Constitution, rent control, Prop. 13, why our economy is in trouble, my background as a university professor or NASA scientist/engineer is really an entirely different set of topics. The assumption that anyone elected to office, as I have been three times, is therefore suspect is an American tradition noted years ago by de Tocqueville, it is part of the American character. I have no problem with that attitude.
"Don or George or Cid or Marc if any of you want to discuss these points or disagree with them that would be reasonable." Well thanks, Jim. That is just so gracious of you. "But a discussion of the Constitution, rent control, Prop. 13, why our economy is in trouble, my background as a university professor or NASA scientist/engineer is really an entirely different set of topics." Is that so? It is and has been your sop to bring Thomas Jefferson, Prop 13, the founding fathers stories, intentions and actions, your own background (which is impressive) and more to just about every discussion you enter. This topic is no different. You raised Prop 13...multiple times You raised economic issues....multiple times You seem to be of the opinion that anyone that disagrees with your all over the map wailings, disguised as support for higher taxes, should just start another thread and stay away from the ones you're on. Jim, first of all, you can't have it both ways, and secondly, what happened to you? You've changed.
I might add that for a local government agency currently running a $25 million budget and asking for $81 million from us, whose retirement will take 25 years of annual payments, on top of the annual payments we already provide to them sure sounds like an economic (among many other points) issue to me. If you want to be a cheerleader for the CUSD, that's your prerogative and right. Go for it. But when you are challenged by others, don't cry about it. Stand up and take it like the man I know you to be. This is most certainly an economic issue. To attempt to claim otherwise only serves to make that individual a fool.
My "standard ploy" is to examine facts, question assertions, and eventually marshal arguments towards a conclusion. If the arguments don't hold water, I start over. Jim has made so many vitriolic ad hominem attacks against those who question him, that he has made himself a subject for scrutiny. Fair enough. For better or worse, his anger probably isn't recruiting votes for the bond. Honey, not vinegar... Back to substantive argument. The reasons Jim has given for a new bond are that money is currently cheap, so are building costs, deficit spending stimulates the local economy, and finally, that improving infrastructure will lower operational costs. Let's look at the last assertion. None of the proposed projects are shovel-ready. So months and years will pass before they're started, much less completed, and months and years after that before the cost curve is bent enough to start lowering operating costs such that teachers' jobs are saved. So infrastructure funds cannot have an appreciable impact on operating costs for at least the next few years. That doesn't mean the infrastructure isn't worth improving; simply that the argument about short- or medium-term operational savings is a myth. And certainly not a reason to take on debt over four times the size of the Beachwood nut. As an example of infrastructure improvements that will actually increase operating costs, look at the new swimming pool idea. The existing pool is as small (25 yard, 6 lane) and as shallow as possible. The heaters and pumps are relatively new, and even the newest equipment hasn't revolutionized pool expenses. Pools are very expensive to operate. The primary way to save money is to cover the pool when it's not being used, and keep the temperature down. A new pool will presumably have greater surface area, and certainly more gallonage, the two factors directly determining pool operational expenses. In our climate, solar panels won't make a dent in the heating. The times of day, and seasons of the year, when heat is most needed is when we have the least solar radiation. Bottom line: a new pool, regardless of design, will cost significantly more to operate, not less. As for the new pool's supposed $5M price tag, Pacifica just spent over $20M rehabbing Oceana's pool. The building was reroofed, locker rooms and offices improved. The pool itself was resurfaced but otherwise unchanged. $20M. After a few years of planning and a year and a half of construction.
Thanks Don for bringing a reasoned point to this conversation. Thanks to all who are questioning this absurd bond. I am confident it won't pass. However, I will not become complacent. I will share the reasoning for a no vote to friends, family, and neighbors. I am really beginning to wonder about the sanity of Half Moon Bay institutions. The town is drinking the kool-aid and I am so glad I live in Moss Beach!
“Barnus is suggesting the reverse of noblesse oblige. The ultra wealthy or anyone who owns a valuable property should get a tax subsidy of lower property taxes from the rest of us so they can stay in their expensive property. Now nice for the rich.” I never suggested that or anything like that – you said that. I simply made the obvious and irrefutable point that the value of a property does not necessarily reflect the owner’s ability to pay. Barnus wants all of us to believe that it is somehow fair and just for someone who lives in a very valuable property to be subsidized to stay there when they could just as easily sell their valuable property and with the high sales price purchase a less valuable property where they can afford to pay for the taxes. There you go again. I never said or suggested that – you said that. You are also suggesting that, if folk can’t afford tax increases, they can just sell their property and buy less valuable property. This tax increase affects rich and poor alike. If you own a $500,000 house, of which there are precious few on the coast, it is not so easy to buy a cheaper house. That suggestion is as hard as any I have ever heard. “Please explain why when the grand parents want to display their gold bricks on the fireplace mantle and therefore will no? sell them or when their neighbor who just purchased his new Mercedes and vacation home can't afford his taxes the rest of us should grant them a tax break? What ??????? “Everyone should pay their fair share of the cost of government regardless of age or how much of their wealth is rapped up in property.” I agree. I just think that you have odd ideas of what fair is or what the cost of government should be. “Prop. 13 should be seen for what it really is, a tax break for the wealthy.” Prop 13 was adopted because local governments were taking advantage of inflation to tax folk out of their homes. It accomplished that purpose. You do not seem to think that is a good thing. According to you, government should just take what it wants and folk can just up and move away if they can’t afford it. Again, that is hard.
Maybe certain people who work for the government as university professors or with NASA have been working for the government too long, enjoying all the perks of government employment and can't appreciate the financial difficulties of those of us in the private sector or on fixed incomes. Just a thought.
Well said precocious! People don't forget to vote on the HMBR main page poll on this bond.
Will everyone please vote on Clay's Poll at the link: time will tell what the actual VOTE in June will decide. 1.) The Voters may DEFEAT it because The School Board was over-reaching to put a lump sum of $ 81 Million Dollars on the ballot in a huge rush. 2.) Renters and folks with kids will rally around to pass it, paid for by Property Owners, so their kids can get a "better education or environment". 3.) There will be Supporters and Detractors and they might not get the neccessary 55% approval. Those are three scenarios I think it boils down to. "Barnus" has a good point, just because someone owns a home, doesn't mean they can afford to pay all the various assessments the Voters decide to tack on to his living expenses.
I agree that WHAT the bond is designated for “might” be laudable. But at the meeting there was more than one parent and even school folks there asking the Board to think “Out-side the Box” to fix and fund the immediate dire situation. Jim said “The reason the school district has proposed this bond is to reduce their operating costs so that money can be used to pay the salaries of teachers who will be laid off if the bond fails.” Ah-hem - $81,000,000??? (EIGHT-ONE MILLION) dollars will MORE than reduce their operating coats. They are actually pulling numbers from the “AIR”…… including some Capital Improvements for this Bond. (Which are not spelled out in the short version of the VOTER statement). I E: A Performing Arts Center, a Pool, Solar Power, and Astro-Turf? It’s NOT simply about Preventing Layoffs. One thing is for sure, they are ONLY looking at property owners to give them their “handout”, If it fails, THEN they can go back to the drawing board and scale back the “Would like to haves” and put the “MUST HAVES” in proper perspective! Let’s take a few items: Solar Power conversion will save money. Yes, I agree. But why haven’t they looked around our community for a SPONSOR? Hellooo, TJ Rogers and his Wife Valetta own the Wine Shop on Main Street. It so happens that they also own Clos de la Tech Winery in La Honda. But that is not how they amassed their money. Could ANYONE in this community explore the possibility that perhaps as a former Director at Sun Power he might even consider helping the School District with obtaining a grant or even make a donation himself? Web Link THAT would be thinking outside the box. If a swimming pool needs to be totally replaced, why not build a wonderful indoor Community Pool for use by all taxpayers and residents alike? “We” get to pay for it over at the school, but don’t “We” get to use it? I heard no mention of that. Things like that should have been spelled out. I heard the school got a SPONSOR for the new Tennis Courts. WHY NOT FOR THE POOL? Read this link: Web Link NO TAX DOLLARS SPENT "Amazingly, no local tax dollars were used for the pool’s renovations. All funding came from private industries and individuals." A few others too: Jim Says: “The bond will put local people to work in several ways: it will save local teacher’s jobs and it will produce construction jobs in our community.” Not necessarily true, Jim. There is no guarantee that the construction firm that is hired for Coastside School Improvements will only utilize employees from the Coastside,... UNLESS they actually put it in the contract! Otherwise they will go with the best bid...! An excellent example of that was recently when San Mateo County paved some of our roads out here with Chip-Seal and they hired a firm from Union City (Alameda County) to do the work. Now, please don’t start another rant. I am merely pointing this fact out, because you brought it up. It is not necessary to attack others during a polite debate..
I posted this on one of Jim's threads, but I have doubts that Jim will respond (although I hope I'm mistaken). For that reason, I thought I'd repost it here. Seems marc has hit the Mother-load for exposure and comments. Here we go: Looking at this proposal from a different perspective, I see a huge red flag. How many in this community have sought funds for a business; either start-up or otherwise? Although things are tighter than usual now (some say by far), any lending institution or source (well, except for POST - remember the "park" on 92) would require some information from the prospective business borrowers. The information required by the prospective lender is just a simple way for the prospective lender to learn more about the business, from product, to management, to more (production, distribution, timelines, margins, existing contracts, potential contracts, the solvency of the owners, assets that might be collateralized and more). It is standard faire and expected. After all, if the shoe were on the other foot, wouldn't you want to know as much as possible, every detail you could garner, all in an effort to determine whether the loan is a good one or one to avoid? Who lends money with little to no hope of recovering the principal and interest? Who lends money without intimate and specific proof of need and where it's going? Who lends money without a comprehensive understanding of need and destination? Nobody I know. IF someone out there knows different, please post the name and contact info here - so I can use it. Thanks. Oh, btw, $81 Million is a substantial amount of money in anyone's book, so to trivialize the amount is not defensible.
Had Don Bacon attended the school board meeting he would have learned that the budget crisis the state is facing and its consequences for K-12 public schools in California is a multi-year problem with funding reductions each year for the next three years. Next year’s reduction will require approximately 10 teachers be let go if no alternative funds are created. In year two the budget cut is larger so more layoffs will be required if nothing is done now. No one’s crystal ball has a clear view of the future, but these budget projections paint a sad picture with few options other than to layoff more teachers. If the bond passes in June, the solar electric project could be implemented immediately and would save the district $300,000 per year starting immediately. The district has been in discussions with a company that will install these panels; the district could begin saving electricity costs as early as next fall. A new bond will have an immediate and lasting impact for the district saving the cost of electricity for many years well into the future. The financial strategy the district has adopted is to use facilities monies provided by the bond to eliminate costs that would otherwise be charged to the yearly operating budget provided annually by the state. Because these funds come from different funding sources and have restrictions on how they can be spent real savings are possible even in these dire times. The bond will make a difference immediately saving teacher jobs so the argument that it will take too long to realize a cost saving is wrong. The School Board has held several meetings to discuss how the savings will be generated. They are real savings. It is easy to find fault when you are unaware of the details. In this case the details are available and the school district is more than willing to share them with anyone who wants to understand the proposal before finding supporting it or objecting to it.
"The district has been in discussions with a company that will install these panels." Don't these public jobs go through a competitive, sealed bidding process? An estimated $7.7 million dollar job goes off no-bid? What is going on around here? And how could a local public official blithely report that fact without questioning its propriety? "Had Don Bacon attended the school board meeting he would have learned that the budget crisis the state is facing and its consequences for K-12 public schools in California is a multi-year problem with funding reductions each year for the next three years." I don't need to sit through a meeting to know school budgets are being slashed across the state. My cave gets the internet. The Review reported that you told the school board the bond idea was "brilliant." Sounds sycophantic. Maybe the bond is a good idea, or maybe it's a bad idea. Brilliant it's not. A scientific discovery might be brilliant. Or a scam, that might be brilliant. Maybe that's what you meant. If the solar panels for the schools actually cost $7.7M after a competitive, sealed bidding process, and they actually save $300K per year, that would be about 4% of the original cost, or less than it costs each year to borrow the $7.7M. Even if the district had the $7.7M debt-free, it would take over 25 years to recoup the expense. Fuzzy math. This is why people are questioning an $80M bond. And Jim cherry-picked the solar panels out of the goodies list to show something that is shovel-ready, and would save teachers' jobs. Try again.
As with my most recent post above, I posted this to Jim's thread that I mentioned above. Thought it a fit here, too. I was told by a friend that, among other things, that I have become a universal critic. I don't feel that way, but maybe he's right? His comment caused me to look at my post above and re-read it. Perhaps I didn't make the point as clearly as I should have, so I'll try here. Show us, the ones that you are asking this of, a detailed description of where the money will go. Simple. Now where this gets tricky, and time consumptive, is the level of detail I believe the District should provide, to the best of their ability. I would ask: Imagine it is the day after the election and the bond passes. Now what? Step by step, with every project, every purchase, every movement of every dollar over the entire duration of its use - a spreadsheet juxtaposed against a calendar would be very helpful. Further, it takes away the "trust me" factor that I see many mention. Certainly, when asking for enough money to take 25 years to pay back - from us to the District - this is not an unreasonable request, is it?
Don Bacon nailed it. They are talking to vendors instead of sending out Requests for Proposals, before the bond is even on the ballot. The procedure is RFPs for blind bids. Jim L. was on a board and should know this.
GEORGE SAID: "Who lends money with little to no hope of recovering the principal and interest? Who lends money without intimate and specific proof of need and where it's going? Who lends money without a comprehensive understanding of need and destination?" ANSWER: WALL STREET or they..USED TO. (Prior to the melt-down.) You can read all about it in the BIG SHORT by Michael Lewis.
My cave gets the internet. LOL - Good one!!! Made ME chuckle! "Fuzzy math"- Even better! LMAO! (It must be the Pom-Poms shaking silly dust in the breathing orifices.) In all seriousness. By the time the got to the Solar portion of the Agenda, item 13 H "Direct Staff to Enter into Negotiations with Firms regarding a Solar Power purchase Agreement" after 10:00PM I believe... by then my eyes were bleery, and my ears were bleeding (Kidding) but I'm pretty certain I heard them say that two firms gave bids. One was Solar City which had not taken the time to make a lot of measurements etc. and may have proposed "Over-sell" on a one size fits all. They came in cheaper for one aspect, but the other company (Whose name I forgot) came in lower on a different aspect, and had also actually taken the time to properly measure and size the equipment for the needs. (OK I was tired and may not have the details correct..this was late) They said that of the 2, that Solar City was the bigger company. They did not imply that one "had it in the bag" and mentioned there was still negotiating to do yet. I did hear them say they had help from a person I know and respect here on the Coast who is very knowledgeable regarding Solar Power. It seemed to me he may have been assisting them to understand what is involved when analyzing the bids and systems being proposed, as none of them seemed to have any in-depth understanding except perhaps with the exception of John Mosley, and the Superintendent. They did approve the Agenda Item. "Direct Staff to Enter into Negotiations with Firms regarding a Solar Power Purchase Agreement"
I wonder just how good a negotiator "STAFF" is when it comes to $7.7 Million dollar Solar Contracts, BTW. Does anyone know? Who exactly is staff? Or will it be the Top Dog doing it all himself?
Wake up people! Sure you had one hour less sleep, but it's time to get going again on this school bond rant. Proud to say I was the first one to vote "no" on this website.
Please look at the demographics of this district. It is a real eyeopener. Also, the school population is shrinking. Vote No on the HMBR poll.
How much of the $81 million will be going to fix these alleged leaky roofs? RHETORIC, George, Heart-string ploy.
marc - Can you provide a link to the demographics of the school district?
When you go to Cabrillo Unified School District, they have a narrative roughly paragraph length describing their district. They include ESL, 53% minority stats, special education, and immersion data.
Tell your friends about this bond attempt and vote NO on the HMBR's web page, on their poll about this bond. People are being taxed out of their homes.
I have picked a number of the so-called reasoned arguments presented by Mr. Larimer for examination. I'm beginning to think he actually believes this drivel or he believes we are too naive and ignorant to know reality from fantasy. "Property taxes go towards paying for public infrastructure and people who own a lot of stuff use more of the publicly provided infrastructure than those who own less." Really? Does someone who owns a bigger, more valuable house than I own need more teachers and books for their 2 children than are needed for my 2 children? NO. "Consider how much water Ellison must use to keep his garden green, or how much rain water run off must be collected from his large estate, or how much more police and fire service is required to protect his property. What is unfair about him paying his fair share of these costs?" If you have a bigger garden, you PAY for more water. If you use more water, you PAY for higher sewage costs. Does a larger home require more police to respond if there is an incident? Do the police send more units when responding to a 5 bedroom home than a 2 bedroom home? NO. Fire services are provided and paid for by all property owners because they are a general benefit to all in the community. In Ellison’s case, I believe he has his own fire service on site which he pays for. Both Fire and Police response is in accordance with the threat presented in real time. "In a community like ours where there are plenty of buildable parcels available, there is no need for rent control as the marketplace economy will respond by building more affordable apartments to rent." I’m generally against rent control but this topic still illustrates Mr. Larimer’s inaccuracies regarding reality. The marketplace economy is continually hamstrung by the high costs and blockades imparted by local and state restrictions and regulations on building. Perhaps Mr. Larimer has heard of the Coastal Commission, the LCP, the imposed restriction on building and new water and sewer hook-ups, etc? Has he ever tried to build a home in our community? I’m sure many of you can attest to the absurd assertion he makes here. "The school district strategy is to put as many operating costs as possible on a budget line that does not depend upon state funding to free up operating budget to support teachers." I thought that was the main purpose of the state school funding – to pay for teachers? If not, what am I paying for via my state and county imposed taxes and fees? "The reason the school district has proposed this bond is to reduce their operating costs so that money can be used to pay the salaries of teachers who will be laid off if the bond fails." If they were really reducing their operating costs, wouldn’t that retain money for teachers? "The reason the district must lay off teachers if the bond fails to be passed is that the state has decided to drastically cut funds for K-12 public schools over the next 3 years." Yes, that is the idea. When you have less money, you spend less. The state is in debt up to its eyeballs precisely because they spend more than they take in. You are supporting an increase in spending and liabilities in a time when record numbers of people are unemployed and when the entire economy is stumbling. It’s time for the CUSD to be responsible and cut spending, starting with administrative costs and operating costs personnel and facility elements that do not serve their primary mission – educating.
"Next year’s school funding will require a loss of about 10 teachers and double that number the following year. No small school district can lose 30 plus teachers without an impact on teaching." Do you want us to believe the district budget results in losing 10-30 teachers, and that it is both unavoidable and devastating? If it must happen, then it must happen. The CUSD could cut more drastically elsewhere first but maybe they don’t want to? How about putting half of the administrative/clerical staff on a part-time schedule or eliminate/furlough a portion of these positions? We must pay the price eventually. History and common sense indicate that paying sooner rather than later costs less in the end. "They will also replace old and worn out equipment that has a high cost of constant repair with new equipment that will not need repair." What equipment, machine or device have you ever heard of that does not need repairs? It won't need to be replaced either? Is that free too? "New lights made of LEDs are cheaper to operate than florescent lights so replacing lighting anywhere electricity must be purchased in the district’s buildings can add to savings." New LED lighting costs money – a lot of money!! Same with your fantasy of using solar power. The initial costs of purchase and installation are significant and take decades to pay off through savings on operating costs. Many times, the solar panels and LED lights will need to be replaced before the cost savings can be realized. People who know the facts about the use of these technological options know what they cost and what possible benefits are. "These actions will save additional teacher jobs." No they will not. They will cost a lot of money to buy and install. How do those additional costs directly provide for more teaching staff? The don't. Teaching positions can be saved through cutting elsewhere. If that is not possible, then some cuts to teaching staff is warranted. The endless spending, borrowing and resulting increases to tax payers and especially property owners must end.
The evening before last, I posed this: "I would ask: Imagine it is the day after the election and the bond passes. Now what? Step by step, with every project, every purchase, every movement of every dollar over the entire duration of its use - a spreadsheet juxtaposed against a calendar would be very helpful." "Further, it takes away the "trust me" factor that I see many mention. Certainly, when asking for enough money to take 25 years to pay back - from us to the District - this is not an unreasonable request, is it?" I posted that (in part) both here on this thread and on one of Jim Larimer's threads Web Link I have not received any responses; no takers. I suspect the reason is because it is very difficult to provide something that apparently doesn't exist; but I continue to have and hold hope. Any takers?
Franz, what a brilliant addition to this thread. I hope everyone goes back and reads what Franz wrote.
Here's a link to an article from the Sacramento Bee, with databases for school district layoffs 2008-11. The statewide layoff average was about 8% of teachers over the last four years. Out of a total teaching staff of 163, Cabrillo laid off 4 teachers, or about 2.5%, less than 1/3 the state average. There was a slight decrease in our district's school population (0.3%) during that period.
>>The statewide layoff average was about 8% of teachers over the last four years. Out of a total teaching staff of 163, Cabrillo laid off 4 teachers, or about 2.5%, less than 1/3 the state average.<< Excellent point, Don. We all want our schools to be above average....We need to lay off more teachers if we are going to beat the other school systems! What slackers we've become. Thanks for that insight. :) --Darin
Thank you marc. You, don bacon, precocious, Cid, George and others have made many good points in this thread. The thing you can take away from all of the argumnets for this bond and others like it is always the same thing - bureaucrats and politicians with access to your tax dollars always want more !! Note that there is never a proposal to decrease budgets and spending by government entities and school boards. This district and many others across the country are seeing the number of students Decrease. In the meantime, their costs and budgets continually Increase. Many people have had it with the BS, poor results and terrible service which they pay for. This is the reason for the explosion in charter and private schools. People will always take action to promote and defend their interests, as well they should. I have children in the district. I am against this bond. Why? Because it doesn't make sense or cents. Pay now, not later.
Thanks again Franz! Darin you have children in this school system and I don't know you might be independently wealthy. That is why your bias doesn't make a dent on this thread. I am sure you are a nice person. I see your pretty photographs from time to time.
Darin - your response is laughable. Given the reality of our educational system and financial situation, you seem to be delusional. Wanting and wishing does not change reality, not even if your cause is noble. I want a personal instructor for my child for each subject in school - so what?!! How can that ever happen? It can't. If a public school or school district produces better test scores, higher graduation rates or other demostrated results, those schools are not within reach of people in other districts. Their excellence can not be expanded to more students, nor is it rewarded. Those administrators and teachers should be entrusted with more responsibility and incentives to continue and expand their success. Competition must be fostered amongst the schools receiving our tax dollars. How many families are moving to the coast for the sake of better education via our public schools? How many coastside families are there who send their kids to local and peninsula private schools by comparison? It's not all about money or the sacred per-pupil spending so often cited. Look at how much inner city school districts spend per pupil. You want to send your kid to those schools? Money is not the solution in and of itself. Accountability is paramount for all leaders and service organizations. Our system is sorely lacking in accountability but the customers have no recourse. You have to pay twice to avoid the monopoly on education.
>>Darin you have children in this school system and I don't know you might be independently wealthy. That is why your bias doesn't make a dent on this thread.<< Marc, I've seen your posts about my supposed "bias" a few times here. Here's two questions: How long do you think it will take to build a new pool? How long to get the approvals and to build a performing arts center? My kids will be out of the system before the doors to either one opens--plus, as a resident of Montara the Oceana (Brink) pool in Pacifica will be closer in any event. I expressed my thoughts--and reservations--about the bond items in the other thread. I look forward to learning more and hopefully having my concerns addressed. I voted "yes" in the Review poll--I haven't promised to vote "yes" on the bond. But what I am NOT doing is starting from an automatic, anti-tax, anti-government position. I am certainly not holding any position on this due to the direct benefits to my kids--unless the bond includes a new college for HMB by the time things are built my kids will be a bit too far away to go for a swim. :) I'm glad you like my photos. There's more on my site at www.darinboville.com. --Darin
Darin, I am far more interested in your points regarding Franz' great comments.
>>Darin, I am far more interested in your points regarding Franz' great comments.<< My comment about Franz's post, and others like it is simple. Many people, including me, are frustrated by our nation's school system. Frustrated by the slowness of it to adapt to changing needs, to the power of the unions which seem to rank job protection over educational excellence, and so on. But we are not talking about national policy. We are talking about our own, local schools. We are in a time now of significant budget cuts and education will get hit hard. Some communities, richer ones and ones with supporting education more deeply ingrained in its local culture, will ride out this crisis and even emerge stronger. Others, with less of a history of supporting education, will suffer. Franz (and many others) are talking about national issues that are far away beyond anything we can hope to significantly affect here in tiny HMB. It almost seems at times that such arguments are used as a convenient excuse--you know, put up reasonable-sounding-at-first objection that is simply impossible to satisfy and then say you would have supported the bond if only your objections could have been met. Its a old debate tactic that makes the other guy the "bad guy." People with those positions START the discussion in entrenched opposition to the bond, before they've read any of the details or heard any of the explanations. Not much point in arguing with that sort of position. The question before us is do we vote yes or no on *this* bond. Not education policy for the United States. And to do that we need to learn more about the proposed bond. --Darin
My point in linking to a statistical article from our state capital's newspaper of record was to add some facts to the discussion. Maybe in place of some of the angry rhetoric. The good news is that our school district has weathered the first four years of our worst economy in decades with relatively few layoffs.
"There was a slight decrease in our district's school population (0.3%) during that period." "How many coastside families are there who send their kids to local and peninsula private schools by comparison?" Interesting insights. Our system is not attractive to parents. Throwing money at it will not make it more attractive. You can have the finest, most modern facilities in the world. If you continue on with the same administrators, the same method of choosing administrators, the same teachers, The same method of choosing teachers, and the same teaching methodology, you will not see pupils coming out of school with a better education. Why would anyone think that they might? Throwing more and more money at a failed system without insisting on measurable improvement in the quality of education offered will guarantee that there will be no improvement. We have been throwing money at it for decades only to see it get steadily worse. Will we never learn? Improvement MUST precede more money or there will be no improvement. Isn't that obvious? THe system that we have is a failed system. The people that we have have no incentive to fix it. We keep giving them what they ask for and they keep giving us less and less. When will we ever learn?
George - Your question ""I would ask: Imagine it is the day after the election and the bond passes. Now what? Step by step, with every project, every purchase, every movement of every dollar over the entire duration of its use - a spreadsheet juxtaposed against a calendar would be very helpful." "Further, it takes away the "trust me" factor that I see many mention. Certainly, when asking for enough money to take 25 years to pay back - from us to the District - this is not an unreasonable request, is it?" MY answer: The day after this passes (IF it does) you will hear the popping of Champagne corks at the CUSD District Office appropriately followed by continued lack of transparency and accountability. Along with obfuscation about what they really will do with it.($$)
No one in my neighborhood is voting for it.
marc tried to get some answers from Darin regarding my comments and those of others. I noted no answers to the questions posed, only references to me having an "entrenched position" and concerns about "...national policy...". This district has continually eroded the confidence of the citizens it is supposed to serve. That is why people like me are against giving them more of my hard earned money. I made reference to some greater national and state issues, but only to provide perspective of how this school bond has come to be, and why it is going to perpetuate the bigger problem. This bond measure fails on it's own supposed merits because it is not necessary to spend that kind of money. This bond can not solve the bigger issues, so what does it offer the property owners (the people who are paying for it)? It promotes a myriad of expenses for things which are not needed. A performing arts center, new artificial turf and a new aquatics complex are not required !!! These things are wish list items promoted by district personnel. If you can't maintain the facilites you have now, why would I support construction of larger and more complex facilities to be run into the ground by these district hacks? How many times has the football/soccer field at Cunha been reconstructed? That was supposed to have a lasting effect but the people who are paid to manage and maintain the athletic fields never do the job competently. Have you seen the athletic fields at Farallone View and El Granada? They look like that because CUSD is not capable of responsibly maintaining their own facilities, even though they have a staff for that express purpose. They have also paid landscaping contractors to assist them but the results are always the same. CUSD and bond proponents also promote the idea that this money is required in order to perform building maintenance. Where is the money already allocated for building maintenance? Where did it go? Are you telling me there were no building maintenance expenses or personnel costs before this year? How much work could be accomplished by contracting out some of these services or repairs versus retaining a standing staff of people? Is the existing staff even capable of performing the work which needs to be done? If they are, why do you need more money? If not, why are they employed there to begin with? I also addressed other specific issues with this bond, even light fixtures and solar panels being shuffled out for public consumption. I'm sure that was thrown in to appeal to the "greenie" types. Even if it was not - it shows the flawed reasoning of the people presenting the proposal. The merits of spending thousands of dollars to save tens of dollars is not supportable. Go do the math yourself. Get a proposal from a contractor to install solar panels on your home, examine the upfront costs versus the potential savings. For most people, it doesn't add up. Additionally, how prudent is it to pile up more debt on the tax payers? Especially now, when people are struggling to make their house payments, their county tax bills and who may be out of work.
Well said, franz. We talked to a couple of people in our neighborhood who bought into and installed solar panels and they have yet to see any savings...between still paying PG&E and now they have an additional bill to pay for the solar stuff.
Regarding just the solar panel installation, maintenance and long term savings, perhaps the City might share their own experiences installing, using and trying to maintain the solar panels they had installed at Poplar Beach for the new paid parking there. Hasn't worked out quite the way the City was told it would, which the City then parroted to us prior to installation. Now that they're in and being used (and failing), we see occasional pieces in the Review about them; about how the City hadn't considered the HMB climate; about how a City employee has to go and replace the batteries every other day because they are drained and need constant recharging to do the job. It is items like this that are troubling. It's not as if we don't have examples to draw from and learn from. A very good example of why the CUSD should provide to those they are asking a substantial amount of money from, to be paid back over 25 years, is right here. Although perhaps a small example relative to the amount of money requested in total, none of us have a clue on purchase costs, maintenance costs (specifically over the entire 25 years), replacement costs, actual energy savings amounts and over what timeframe and more. Yes, this is but a slice of intended allocation, but a slice that provides a glimpse of what concerns me. Again, I would strongly urge the CUSD to provide us with a very specific plan for those funds, whether intended for immediate use or parked for periods to be used another time. Let's see the plan.
precocious - just wait until the solar panels fail or maintenance is needed on their solar electronics system! Many of the companies offering solar panels and their guarantees will be long gone when you go back to them for service or a refund as promised. If you have no knowledge about a subject which you must make a decision upon, then you need to get educated. If that is not possible, then a commitment should not be made. If as George says, the city of HMB didn't consider our weather then there is only one thing that can be said - those people are idiots, or they were taking graft from the contractor/supplier of the devices. I hope it is the latter, since anyone who makes such a decision without personally benefitting can only be described as dumb, lazy and incompetent. When it isn't your money, the only thing preventing waste and fraud is integrity. The school board and the administrators may not be personally motivated but professionally they certainly are. A fresh influx of money does two things which serve their interests: 1) It avoids them having to make tough decisions regarding finances and staff. 2) The resulting construction gives them something to point at if someone asks - "What have you guys done for us?". What we really need them to do is focus solely on improving the education which all kids in the district receive. That education does not require new swimming pools, LED lights, solar panels or performing arts centers. That education does require competent and motivated teachers, books, needed supplies and a dry, warm classroom. I believe most of those things are readily available now.
IF they (CUSD) didn't put out their "LIST" to the Public at the Meeting where they were taking a BOARD VOTE, why should the PROPERTY OWNERS being asked to fund this bond be asked to automatically vote yes? It sounds like a "TRUST US REGARDING WHAT & HOW WE PLAN TO SPEND YOUR MONEY" situation. The yes votes will be people with Kids in the system who want the shiney new goodies this bond will purport to provide, OR the non-property owners who have no "skin in the game".
|