 |
Comments Crazy, that's all I can say.
Once again, thank you Darin for your information. In your first statement you said "1) Much of the proposed bond seems to be not for immediate maintenance needs but to form a sort of endowment for maintenance needs. Am I reading that correctly?" Could you share with us what it is you are "reading"?
I would add that those with kids in the CUSD are biased because they aren't paying private school tuitions.
>>Could you share with us what it is you are "reading"?<< It was mentioned in the minutes somewhere but also mentioned (less obviously) here in the pdf of the resolution: Web Link The overall idea is to shift some of the burden off the general fund but to do so in a way that doesn't make us look like ripe for the picking from Sacramento. At lead that is my impression at this point. --Darin
Darin I too appreciate your input, becasue I believe you must have been at the previous meeting than the one I attended, and perhaps have some better insight as to what they were thinking about when they pulled these numbers together. However, as the'city" of Half Moon Bay is already in serious trouble I really don't feel like contributing another dime to infrastructure that will sit within the City limits. The traffic to get there is terrible already, and that further burdens the rest of the Mid-Coast parents who must schlep their students there by automobile to participate. Should they find a way to pay for the NEW POOL or a NEW PERFORMING ARTS FACILITY via Property tax involuntary extraction from home & property owners, I would hope they spread some of this infrastructure to other more centrally-located venues. I think they need an endowment from a Private Group the State can't mooch the funds from. Isn't there already some sort of 501c3 entity with that purpose? Being Non-profit, anyone who chooses to donate their $225 per year VOLUNTARILY to such an organization will get a full tax break, and can contribute even more, if desired. Or not in the thin years, if they are struggling financially. (In fact, back several years ago, I donated $1,000.00 of my Commission earnings to SAMCAR FOUNDATION (earmarked for the Boy's and Girls Club {Interestingly, a local Broker here, who was President of SAMCAR at that time, was available for the Photo-Op when they gave the check at the Tour meeting...he didn't call me, inspite of it being my contribution. What an EGO!} So when times improve, I do think others will be more willing to have a forced monetary extraction by way of a proposed Property Tax School Bond, but in the meantime maybe they should THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX for ways to keep the State's hands off community dollars. Especially while so many folks are struggling.
Oh, incidentally Darin, when you mentioned the pool, I had considered the envy our student-competitors must feel when they attend "Off-Campus" athletic meets at other schools and see the excellent facilities some communities are able to provide them. I took my Master Gardener Training at the Belmont Library and have also seen the San Mateo & San Carlos libraries. WOW! But does that envy extend to the Faculty and Administrators who want to have something "Big" of their own to "Measure" when they meet with the neighboring Faculty & Administrators at the surrounding schools? And should it be our communities financial responsibility to provide it just so they can feel potent around their peers?
By the time the wish list bond issue items comes to pass, your kids will have graduated from college. That's the way it worked with the middle school. People voted for that and never did see it to fruition until their kids were out of school. Vote no on this turkey bond. Maybe they should have used the misdirected stimulus money for a pool or performing arts center.
Funny you mention that, precocious. As previously mentioned, I have two sons, both of which went through the CUSD system. When the bond passed, both were at Hatch. I had hope that at least one of the boys would attend the new middle school, but that was not to be. Both boys were out of the system before the money went to rebuild Cunha's.
George- Isn't there a group of concerned parents that could form a 501c3 -away from th grab of the State, that could raise money and actually fund the real NECCESSARY items? And if not the neccessary stuff, can't there be a group of concerned individuals who could start a Capital Campaign to slicit donations or grants for some of these un-neccessary-but-sure-would-be-Nice items like a new swimming pool, and a Performing Arts Center. (I know -I know, the P-Festival and Farm Bureau raised funds too, that evaporated...but hopefully they learned from that mistake!)
Cid, I believe those groups already exist and further that they are and have been raising money for each school and the District as a whole. That said, I have yet to see any group in HMB raise $81 million for anything at any time. That is a lot of money. Even 1/2 that, or a 1/4 of that is asking a lot more than I can remember all of them together collecting. In fact, and I'm going to go waay out on a limb here, but I would suspect that if we totaled all the money all the groups have collected over the past 20 years, I doubt it would equal 10% of what the District is asking for here; although, that said, I also have no doubt that each school and the District as a whole are very appreciative off what they've received. Add to that that what you describe is not a reliable source that the District could count on. Good thought, but ... Nice idea, but implementation with success for that kind of money may just be asking too much.
George, I've said all along that this is just really bad timing for most folks. Even though some have labeled me as "Selfish" in my opposition, when I have it, I freely give it. I'm sure there are others who, no matter what, will never open their wallets on principle. Also, considering how pinched folks are these days, even normally generous people are crabbing about this. It seems in appropriate and a huge over-reach to ask for so much at once. It's like someone pointed to a wishing well and said drop all your wishes down there, and they'll magically all come true! As I said before, Sometimes, the well drys up! People are tapped out. My grand mother used to read me a story about the little red that I have always remembered... It's about the little red hen who plans for the future and stores up grain for winter.... Or The Ant & the Grasshopper, both tales extol about the virtues of hard work and the perils of improvidence: "Beware of winter before it comes". Now that they are faced with a hardship at the schools, they could have just asked for a little money to weather the hardest times, but no, a huge REQUEST for waaay tooo much cash from already stretched property owners. Next time plan ahead. People are saying NO!
"As I said before, Sometimes, the well drys up! People are tapped out." So what? Darin has the answer to that. If folk can't afford a big increase in taxes, big taxes are good for THE COMMUNITY, of course, even if they are not so good for the folk that live here, they don't belong here. They can just sell their home and move to Idaho or Arkansas or maybe even Mexico, (actually, almost any place but here) - someplace where they can afford to pay the taxes
Cid: I don’t understand your point… you don’t support the bond because you don’t want the money to be spent in HMB? But it’s the urban center of the coast! If CUSD didn’t provide the land, do you seriously believe your friends would let these things be built any other place on the Coastside? And you don’t really CUSD put the NON-necessary things atop its priority list for the bond, do you? And when is it EVER a good time? You have a leaky roof, you don’t wait 3 years for the economy to improve. Btw, here’s a link to the Cabrillo Education Foundation, a 501(c)(3) that has has done a tremendous job of fundraising (it passed a $2 million endownment milestone) and is now helping fund needed programs. There’s also a (HMB HS) Cougar Scholastic Excellence Fund dedicated to funding current & future course offerings: Marine Biology, Earth Science, Early bird PE, AP Spanish Literature, AG Chemistry, AP Calculus, Sculpture 2, Ag leadership, AP Language and Composition, Journalism, Advanced Algebra 2, Jazz Band, AP Physics, AP Environmental Sciences, Web Design and Strategic Academic Support (SAS). Parents and private donors are behind these efforts toward funding public education; the community should recognize the benefit in investing in schools. George and Precocious: I, too, would have hoped bond issues would yield faster results so my children would benefit. But you gotta think long-term, that this bond will help improve CUSD for the long-haul, and that while we wait for it to benefit our children’s children, hundreds of Coastside kids will get to use the improved facilities.
People can't afford it. That is why it won't pass. Everybody is cutting back on expenses.
Think of the thousands of houses, parcels contributing their tax money to the schools now. Whatever it is, it is never going to be enough. The school population is declining. The past actions of CUSD make this vote a big no for me. I am talking about no busing for children who live miles away from their school, especially elementary age kids, the ten year wait for the redo of the middle school while the board argued over a site in a wetlands zone and spent thousands on architects, plans for that site, the 1.5 million dollar Lehman brothers bond loss fiasco, the plans to divert even this bond money from the general fund so they can give the staff raises. If the bond was specifically to restore busing I would vote for it, but the board can't be trusted to do what's best for the children. They have some agenda which I will never understand, much less be a party to funding it.
I’d prefer CUSD to spend money on the school/students/teachers, not on fixing the coast’s traffic problems. The new reality is that HMB is not alone in phasing out busing due to the ever-increasing cost of bus insurance and gas. Current board members (they’re NEW, btw), have wisely decided to invest where they can make a difference. Time to start examining the new situation and information, and not rely on old prejudices.
Joel, always good to hear from you. I hope all is well in your world. The concept is not what is sticking in my craw. From my younger days, as I've posted to a little here on TA, I have no doubt or lack of understanding regarding the concept. As you may know, I respect you and your opinions, particularly when it comes to our kids. My issues with this bond are relatively simple. When someone comes to me asking for $81 Million, I think it is reasonable - no, more than reasonable to ask what for; specifically. I get very nervous when I hear the old "trust me", even if I'd like to. Why should the District's request for funding from us, which will add a significant amount to my annual tax bill for 25 years, be any different from anyone seeking funding from any lending institution? I do not feel that an itemized accounting, juxtaposed against a calendar (a long term calendar is fine) is asking too much. I would think that anyone being asked to support this would want to know Before the measure hits the ballot how the funds will be allocated. It goes to the old saying that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission type thing. Without a fair and reasonable accounting prior to the vote, I just don't see how I could support it. It almost has the smell of an $81 million slush fund, and I do not like that one bit. I'm being asked to substantially increase my taxes, probably beyond my life expectancy, and all I get is leaky roofs and keeping an abundance of money away from the State for operating expenditures. My question (one of them): Exactly how is that going to work? I do not question the character or morals of any of the Board members. I know full well the stress and pain they feel and what they have to deal with. My comments are in no way meant to disparage any of the CUSD Board members or the body as a whole. In fact, I like them; but tell me Joel - who's going to be on the Board in 5 years? 7 years? 10 years? 15 years? Who will be our Superintendent in those same increments? How many times have we seen something just like this turn south at some point of its duration? Frankly, and I may have stated this here on TA before, but I would be more inclined to support that much and perhaps more if the District did what really needs to be done: lobby all other Districts in CA, especially similar Districts, to join together in a full on assault on Sacramento legislators and our Governor to attack the real problems, the root of the real problems with the goal of fair and even funding throughout the State so that each student is valued the same no matter where they attend school in CA. What we see here is a get around. What happens, Joel, when we read in the paper 10 years from now that funds have been mis-appropriated? We won't even be 1/2 way through the repayment at that point. What do you do then? In business, no one gets $81 Million without detail...well...almost no one. Of course we'd need to exclude Freddie, Fannie, AIG and so many others, but then that's government for you. The sound of what could be lifts my heart for our community. There is absolutely no question in my mind that our kids need help. There is also no question in my mind that public education, perhaps the single most important window to our future, is in very dire straights and needs help. I'm just not sure that what is being offered here is, in the end, helpful or hurtful. Eighty-one Million Dollars, $81,000,000 is a lot of money and can offer a lot of incentive to stray. Twenty-five years is a very long time and a lot can and will happen over that period. Without a detailed proposal, I find it extremely hard to support - even knowing what I know. It almost seems, Joel, that some of the folks at the District just got together and picked a number and threw it up in a hurry. Do you believe that it is too much to ask, given the concerns mentioned vs the obligation? Remember Wavecrest? I sure do.
Joel- I can't make sense of your post- Would you please re-word it if you want a reply This part (I could read clearly the rest) "Cid: I don’t understand your point… you don’t support the bond because you don’t want the money to be spent in HMB? But it’s the urban center of the coast! If CUSD didn’t provide the land, do you seriously believe your friends would let these things be built any other place on the Coastside? And you don’t really CUSD put the NON-necessary things atop its priority list for the bond, do you?" As best I could figure out, you think CUSD ONLY has land located in Half Moon Bay?
When money is tight you only buy necessities. When money flows freely THEN you can afford frills. That is how I was raised. CUSD isn't setting a very good example to our future generations. They put way too many frills into this one for my YES vote AT THIS TIME.
>>When money is tight you only buy necessities. When money flows freely THEN you can afford frills. That is how I was raised. CUSD isn't setting a very good example to our future generations.<< Cid, I just wanted to point out that during the boom years the Coastside's record of passing bonds/parcel taxes is quite poor. Is it one argument against taxes during good times, another argument against taxes during the lean years? Just as long as the answer is"no taxes" the rationale is sort of changeable? --Darin
Darin, where did you find your data?
Everyone has a line in the sand over which they will not cross. Mine was the removal of busing for the school children. My children were lucky in that there was busing their whole 13 years at CUSD. I insist on that for today's and tomorrow's children before I will vote for any more school parcel taxes or bonds. The removal of busing says to me that the children are not the priority of this district. Does it matter that other districts do the same? I grew up in the rust belt of the Midwest where there was not a lot of money to throw around. It is probably poorer today than when I grew up, but whenever I go back there to visit I see school buses running all over that small city because the people back there know what's important. Busing is not a frill in a district of this size with the lack of sidewalks and distance to the schools. How can we judge anything but for its past behavior? The wish list of the bond issue speaks for itself.
"The new reality is that HMB is not alone in phasing out busing due to the ever-increasing cost of bus insurance and gas." Phasing out the bussing is just another disguised tax increase. Anyway, as Darin says, If folk can't afford it too bad. They can jusst sell their home and move somewhere else. What's wrong with that? It would be good for THE COMMUNITY wouldn't it?
I already have a Measure E parcel tax levied against my property by San Mateo County via CUSD. That was passed way back in 2010. I also have a San Mateo County Community College District bond and many other special assessements which I pay for, whether I want them or not. Now, the same school district is after more of my money but it can not be shown that this will solve any long term problems or directly improve the resulting level of excellence of the district. More from 2010: "Whether the tax passes or not, Cabrillo USD's finances are in such bad shape that the district is likely to have to cut 10% from its 2010-2011 budget. The Board of Trustees of CUSD voted on March 10 to give pink slips to 100 employees of the district.[8] Board President Dwight Wilson commented on the pink slip vote, saying, 'There's not one cut that we want to do this year. We need to pass a parcel tax. If we do that, these cuts come off the list.'" 'There's not one cut that we want to do this year.' Is there ever a cut that they want to do? Ever? Making cuts is difficult but necessary. Refusing to make cuts is not in itself admirable but it may be foolish. Boy, that parcel tax sure fixed the problems over there. Now, they want more, lots more. Why? To fix all of the problems that they contend are out of their control. I say, get some control and make the cuts which affect education the least. Not cutting your spending in times when you have less income is irresponsible and self-destructive. VOTE NO
I was speaking to a retired school teacher yesterday who also happens to be a property owner. I thought she would be in support of a School Bond, considering her background. You know what she told me? "The day will come soon where Public Education will no linger be free. Parents of Children will have to contribute to their children's schools if they want a quality public education."
Actually, I don't see why they couldn't contribute what homeowners are being asked to.... I'm being asked to contribute over $6,000 (over the 25 years). What if every school age kid's folks contributed that over 12 years ($6,000 divided by 12) That's only $500 per year per kid. A whole lot cheaper than Private School. That's $50 bucks a month during the school year. It might not buy them fancy swimming pools but I bet it could cover the teachers' pay and leaky roofs
"Anyway, as Darin says, If folk can't afford it too bad. They can just sell their home and move somewhere else." What's wrong with that? It would be good for THE COMMUNITY wouldn't it?" Oh boy! Now I put my foot in it. Darin DID NOT say what I said he said. Jim Larimer said that. I don't know how I got Jim and Darin mixed up - Philosophically, they are as different as two peas in a pod - but I did - and I'm sorry. Darin - I apologize for saying that you said something you did not say. On March 9, Jim Larimer posted:- - - - - "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." --- That is easily the hardest and most shocking and revealing statement I have ever seen posted or published anywhere ever. Darin, however, did not say it, and, Again, I'm sorry for saying he did.
Philosophically, they are as different as two peas in a pod. huh?
I never understand why people post suggestions that those of us with kids in the school system should just contribute money. Who says we don't? Do you have any idea how much money is raised by parents to help run the schools? Most of the parents I know contribute all of the time and also give to the sports teams music funds etc. I am sure that there are parents who can't afford to donate even a little cash to the schools. But most of us who CAN contribute DO contribute. AND many of us are homeowners so we contribute there as well. And it's a hell of a lot more than $500 a year.
Cid: You wrote: “I really don't feel like contributing another dime to infrastructure that will sit within the City limits.” To me, it’s absurd that your first rationale for voting against a school bond would be that the City would benefit. (I find that a nice unintended consequence, not a reason to oppose.) From your string of comments, methinks you’d vote against it no matter when, no matter what, even if it is only 70-cents per day. Precocious: The removal of busing says to me that the children most definitely ARE the priority of this district. I, too, am a Midwesterner but I appreciate the money being directed toward students, not buses/gas/insurance. Darin: Thanks for the initial note of support. Fyi, the Boys and Girls Club had helped arrange and pay for the HMB HS pool to be open for community use over the summer. George: You’re certainly right to demand an accounting, and the burden IS on CUSD supporters to made the case for the bond issue. (But you and I both know MWSD has been successful in getting away with that “trust me” line for years; witness its obscene legal bills.) I don’t agree with the way you pose the hypothetical (funds being misappropriated in 10 years). How about “What if... CUSD continues to deliver quantifiable results?”, which is more the trend. How long will you ask them to deliver better results before you give your stamp of approval (provided they provide justification for the bond)? Having recently witnessed one son’s journey from K-12 and receive more-than-adequate college preparation from CUSD, I’ll tell you the school board has earned my support on this bond measure. Contributing 70-cents more a day to benefit the Coastside and students is about the best investment I can make.
1) If you will be paying only 70 cents a day if the proposal passes you are living in one of the cheapest houses in Montara. Some how I doubt that. 2) I am fed up, sick and tired, of you people who think or pretend to think that $250 or $350 or $500 a year means nothing to people. If you have so much damned money - donate a piece - stop trying to take it out of the hides of folk who can ill afford it. Your thoughtlessness and disdain of folk who haven't been as fortunate as you disgusts me.
Joel must live across the street from the school in that he has no transportation problems at all to get his children there. Either that or he or his wife are at home at times when they can ferry their kids back and forth. Good for you. Most parents aren't so lucky. Our home in Moss Beach is about two miles from the elementary school and six miles away from the junior and senior high schools. To expect an elementary student to walk along the highway with no sidewalks or along Sunshine Valley Road also with no sidewalks, to the elementary school is ludicrous. How in your mind do buses not benefit students directly? It's not about easing traffic congestion like you mentioned earlier. It's about getting kids to school. That is more important than a new pool, solar panels, artificial turf etc.
Ha! -.70 cents a day.... for 25 years...GIMME a BREAK! NOPE! The reason I opposed it was the Piss-Poor Presentation the CUSD Board provided at the Public Meeting when it was Voted on. I'm from Missouri THE "SHOW ME" STATE! They appeared to have rushed to pull a wish-list together and trot out the usual tired "heart=string" ploys "It's for the Kids" or "Leaky Roofs" and Sustainability "Solar panels" "Astro-turf" etc. They did not even Discuss at the meeting the Swimming Pool or the Performing Arts Facility which they should POSTPONE asking us for the FUNDING for until the Economy picks up. We, property owners, are STILL paying on past School Districts tabs. Measure E and the Middle School Improvements. (WHICH I willingly voted for.) I want them to work with what they've got for now... and not come "Poor-mouthing around" as soon as the ink is dry on the last round of PROPERTY OWNERS SPONSORED BAIL-OUTS IT GETS OLD, and right now, too many folks I know are broke. It is coming at a really bad time. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the City of Half Moon Bay lied when applying for a Build America Bond and got caught using those funds to pay for one of the MANY Lawsuits they are involved in. WHY should we, the Midcoast taxpayers pay any money to further enhance the infrastructure located with-inn the HMB City limits? CUSD has property located outside the City of Half Moon Bay. As I said before, the the Half Moon Bay parents ferry their kids up the Coast for "Pool & Theater Time" for a change. The Mid-Coast parents have spent plenty on gas over the years driving their kids to and from Half Moon Bay and a more centrally-located facility such as a Performing Arts Center or Pool should be located where everyone can access it equally. AND, if located in the un-incorporated zone, maybe we could get money from County Parks or San Mateo County, if is was not the exclusive-use of high school students, but might actually benefit the entire community. Just my two cents Joel. Go ahead and try to talk to everyone about your 7o cents a day plan. If I were you, I'd start asking parents to pony up money for their school-aged kids that would benefit directly, because many senior homeowners feel tapped out and are REALLY tired of being asked for yet another hand-out. They have mammoth inflation to worry about coupled with Govt. cut-backs, evaporating stock portfolios over the years, and a weak housing market. I won't even talk about Gas prices or groceries. You are still in your prime earning years, so come back when you're over 60 and see what it looks like then. I hope, for your sake, it won't be as bleak.
VOTE NO ON THE SCHOOL BOND, I WILL.
Mr. Farbstein is well intentioned and I know that he has donated his time to many activities which benefit kids. However, the bond issue decision should not be made based on whether you want to help the schools in principle. That is a false argument. Who would make the statement "I don't want to help the schools or support education. I want the schools to fail."??? The decision should be made based upon one basic factor: Whether you believe the bond money and the improvements/changes proposed are necessary in providing a quality education. If you already pay for the schools via your state and federal taxes, and through a local parcel tax, why is it necessary to add more layers of funding which are distinct from one another? If you believe that school funding methods need to be changed (like I do), then adding more and more supplemental money into that system is counter-productive in the long term.
By singling out "Property Owners" for this BOND, regardless if they even have a child in the school, seems unfair to me, I'm willing to do my share, but in this case they have not PROVEN a need. It seems like a bunch of smoke and mirrors. In fact, it is a disincentive to become a PROPERTY OWNER to be continuously singled out as the "Likely Deep Pockets" for what ails an inefficient school system and a poorly presented cause, in this case on the heels of previous measures that also picked homeowners' pockets. Aim somewhere else. SCHOOL BOARD DON'T ANY OF YOU REALIZE... HOME OWNERS ARE HURTING. OR ARE YOU JUST LOOKING FOR A HAND-OUT, at Someone else's (anyone's) expense?
Cid, first of all I too oppose this money grab by the school board. That being said, your most recent comment seems to imply that renters escape the effects of this property tax increase. You and I both know that landlords will pass this tax increase onto the renters. This would be a tax on each and every citizen of the school district.
Wow, the vitriol some people throw into conversations is really amazing, isn't it (especially from the anonymous)? "Disgusted?" Really Barnus? (What's your real name again? And you and Precocious are both wrong about my house, btw.) Boney Bills (and your real name is ???), I think we'd all find it useful if you could ask landlords how much their rent might be increased. $20 a month? Anything? If you could report a firm number, we could make more-informed decisions. Cid, really? I'm from the Show Me State, too, but NOW the reason you oppose it is because of the public speaking skills of the CUSD board? Your explanations just get more entertaining with each post. (But it's why I keep visiting this thread!) Other presentations (looks like you missed them) apparently swayed a number of people in favor of the bond measure, especially since people are seeing the affects of the last few rounds of CUSD budget cuts (and there have been several). The district had faced a $2.5 million budget shortfall; I'm not sure where it stands today. I think it really is about the money, though facts seem to indicate the economy is recovering, inflation is at 2.9%, and the stock market is at a 4 year high. At least I HOPE that's the argument, as another reason would be that people really ARE just selfish, and I don't want to think that. This seems to be quite emotion-driven issue for some; once they look at the numbers and focus on the fact that ALL Coastsiders benefit, not just the students, I hope they'll reconsider. Franz, thanks for trying to bring some sanity back to this discussion. I think one point worth noting is that the per-pupil spending on CUSD kids is far lower than over-the-hill (CUSD spends $8,512 per student; San Mateo spends $11,703; Woodside spends $19,088). And in those communities the schools do NOT also provide all the recreational facilities that CUSD does. That we'd contribute money and it would result in enhancements for the community -- in addition to improving students' educational experiences -- is a worthwhile endeavor, in my opinion.
"Wow, the vitriol some people throw into conversations is really amazing, isn't it (especially from the anonymous)? "Disgusted?" Really Barnus? (What's your real name again? And you and Precocious are both wrong about my house, btw.)" So typical. Nothing substantial to say so you attack me personally on irrelevant grounds. San Mateo has a much larger population than the CUSD does. The folk in Woodside are, on average, much wealthier. You still ignore the burden of the debt you are urging be placed on the backs of many who can ill afford it, and Your thoughtlessness and disdain of folk who haven't been as fortunate as you continues to disgust me.
Joel, please don't make the mistake of confusing the economy with the equity markets. They are two entirely different beasts. Further, please note that the leaders from all the industrialized nations are artificially supporting their markets, which, IMHO, is the exact opposite of what they should be doing. Taking our own circumstances: our taxes have been and are still being used to stimulate growth. Well, at first it was to avoid collapse, but somewhere along the line it changed. If our legislative and executive branches focused on the real issues and took the appropriate measures to address them, we would see the market take care of itself. There are some pretty bright minds out there on the street. Instead, they reduce rates effectively to zero. They call it stimulus. I'm not getting stimulated; are you? They have created an environment that excludes money going anywhere but equities. Now, suppose you're retired, on a fixed income. How's the interest working out for you? I might suggest that if we're going to talk $81 Million worth of bonds with money we provide the District over 25 years, that we stick to more basic, fundamental and pertinent data, like: Like I described above, a detailed accounting would be nice. Moreover, are we sure the District couldn't shift things around just a bit for cost savings out of a $25 million budget? I stopped by the District yesterday to get some accounting. The best they have, and I was given, was the 2 page thing that Darin put up last week. When it was handed to me, I laughed. I didn't mean to, but when asking for a 25 year debt of $81 million, one would think the District could provide some detail. I did suggest they do that, but I have to say I doubt they will come up with anything of substance. Hope I'm wrong.
No! No! No!... A tousnd xes No!
Joel, "That we'd contribute money and it would result in enhancements for the community -- in addition to improving students' educational experiences -- is a worthwhile endeavor, in my opinion." HUH? Could you please explain? "improving students'educational experiences" and "enhancements for the community" Please be specific if you would not mind, Joel THANKS! ------- I did miss a previous CUSD meeting so I only know that Darin Boville posted as some Proposed "rough" budgeted items for the BOND at $74.8 MILLION dollars, but the evening I went to the meeting where they actually voted on it it had MORPHED into $81,000,000 (EIGHTY-ONE MILLION) dollars with NO FURTHER discussion or a LINE-BY-LINE handout of what was ACTUALLY being proposed. SCENARIO: What if you saw an advertisement for an fancy item, decided to go purchase it for the advertised price of shall we say, $7,480.00, but when you went to the store to purchase it it suddenly with NO EXPLANATION had risen in price to $8,100.00. WOULDN'T you expect an explanation to see what the $620 in add-ons were, or wonder if you were being ripped off? Or would you just whip out your credit card and pay the extra $620 bucks no questions asked? OR, What if you only had so much money in your budget in the first place like folks on fixed incomes, seniors, people with job lay-offs in their homes, or those faced with the uncertainty of future employment, medicare or social security benefits? Many in this community fit that profile, and ALL of us will face the pending STATE income tax and sales tax increase too, not to mention rising fuel prices, and the cost of groceries (due to rising freight/delivery expenses). So, I ask you, would you watch out for your family budget and cut back where you could, forgoing the LUXURIES while you ride out this rough patch? I am predicting that is what folks will vote to do this JUNE. They will tell CUSD to wait on the Luxuries (POOL,PERFORMING ARTS FACILITY,SOLAR POWER, ASTRO-TURF ON SPORTS FIELDS). The voters, I am predicting, will "JUST SAY NO TO CUSD" and their BIG Plans with our hard-earned dollars. It's far too easy to PULL A BUGH WISH LIST OUT OF "AIR" and foist the cost on the voters. It might have been another thing all together, had they just put the neccessities up for a vote, and not asked property owners to be on the hook for the entire 25 years.
FOR THOSE WHO MISSED THE OTHER LINK THESE WERE THE " original" ROUGH FIGURES POSTED AS THE PROPOSED BOND USES. At the meeting where they took the vote, these line items were not provided to the PUBLIC nor were they discussed. They (THE CUSD BOARD) just voted to put it on the Ballot. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Below is the worksheet that the School Board is using as a point of discussion on the school bond. It is important to note: these are VERY ROUGH preliminary dollar estimates. Very rough. Maybe guesstimates. I won't add commentary yet--just let people have a look. Btw, the School Board meeting about this is tomorrow night. --Darin Superintendent’s Worksheet General Theme: Protect our Facility Investment and the General Fund to the Extent Possible Section One: Protecting Our Investment in Facilities (REPAIRS) (In Millions) Establish Endowment Fund for Current & Future Technology Needs: $10.0 Establish Fund for Rotational Roof Repair and Replacement 2.0 Establish Fund for Rotational Asphalt Repair and Replacement 1.0 Establish Fund for Rotational HVAC Repair and Replacement 2.5 Establish Fund for Rotation Bus and Vehicle Replacement .8 Restroom Renovation 1.8 Floor Covering Repair and Replacement 1.2 Site casework .8 Miscellaneous painting, fencing, electrical upgrades, ADA access, walkway repair, compactors, etc. 1.6 Subtotal: 21.7 MILLION Section Two: Preserving General Fund Dollars Add solar (all sites) and buy-out existing PPA agreements in year six 7.7 MILLION!!!! Move District Office 1.5!!!!! (WHY?)...NOT EXPLAINED!!! Subtotal: 9.2 MILLION Section Three: New Construction New swimming pool: 5.0!!!! New Performing Arts Building 15.0 !!!!!!! Multiuse Room renovation at Cunha and HMBHS 1.5 HMBHS bleacher renovation, snack bar and restrooms .5 Synthetic turf on elementary playgrounds 5.0!!!!! Synthetic turf on high school softball field 1.8!!!!! Subtotal: $28.8 MILION Subtotal of three sections above: 59.7 MILLION Soft costs plus contingency (20% + 5%) 15.1 (EXTRA $$ PADDING) GRAND TOTAL 74.8
Just for now, remember that seniors will NOT be eligible for an exemption. Multiple property owners will pay extra, and perhaps Joel is right, if you rent, you probably won't dodge the bullet because the landlord will add his tax increase onto your rent as a Pass-through expense. On the average Coastside rental home that might mean rent today at $3,000 would go up to 3,019.00 (or more if they get a whopper tax bill.) So $18.75 per month more in rent because of CUSD. The stewardship of CUSD is questionable. This rush to get a "wish-list" on the Ballot was VERY questionable. They need to step back and cut it back. That is all I am saying. Vote NO in June.
Just above Cid Young reposted the line items and amounts that were the starting point for the bond proposal that was passed the week after. The original post was mine in another thread. Please note that all of the extra exclamation points and the "not explained" and the "extra padding" commentary are Cid's additions (at least I'm assuming they are hers) and are not part of my original post. --Darin
The bond isn't going to pass because people can't afford it. Many people are borrowing money to stay in their homes. Many are losing their homes. And, then there are the unemployed, the underemployed, the people living on food stamps, medicale and the aged living on fixed incomes.
The use of multiple exclamation points and all caps does not really add much to one's argument. To me it always makes the poster sound a little hysterical. Which might be the effect desired but I doubt it.
Sorry Darin- I thought I had "credited you with the information. And, if the extra commentary could have been in bold I would have, but when T/A converts a cut and paste from a word doc, it erases all that. So Sorry! Oh, now I see that I credited you in an earlier post as the one who put out that ROUGH info on T/A. Was that from an earlier meeting that you attended?
A few more points about the proposed school bond and the purported benefits touted by it's supporters: The $81 Million being spent will do nothing to change the per pupil spending amount so often touted by school officials. That per-student money is delivered to the district via a complicated methodology which includes local property taxes, state funding through state taxes, federal funding through federal taxes and targeted programmatic funding such as special education. That funding methodology is not going to change because of this bond. Note that the description of the spending does not include any extra funding per student or a pool of money to hire more or better qualified teachers. I'm sure proponents of this bond will say that the bond money frees up other money for students and teachers but there is no commitment to any particulars, is there? Most of the bond will be spent on new and expanded facilities which are not classrooms. Roof repair and other maintenance costs are continually thrown out by proponents but look at the information they provide and the guess-timate numbers they have included. The money is not going to be spent on patching leaky roofs and fixing broken heating systems. The image they are trying to create is of children sitting in a cold, poorly lit room with an old pot catching the drips from the ceiling. That is not accurate number one, and if it was - the CUSD has maintenance staff and a budget to repair those things already. If they say they don't - why don't they? Where is the current maintenance budget and what is being done with it? This bond is designed to spend lots of money on shiny, new buildings, athletic fields, and many new components which have zero impact on a kid's ability to read, write, learn mathematics or develop applicable skills. Not only will the new solar panels do nothing to improve education, they will likely cost much more to purchase, install, repair and replace than they ever will provide in energy savings. Even if we were all flush with cash, how does this make any sense at all?? Given the current state funding methods, the best thing this community could do to improve funding for its local schools is to build the local tax base. A strong property tax base comes from new property owners and strong local businesses. People purchasing older homes raises the property taxes collected by the county since the values are reassessed. People building/buying new homes raises property taxes. Local businesses purchasing properties and contributing local taxes also helps fund the schools. Note that schools are funded by local property taxes or by a state minimum funding per student formula. Those localities with enough property tax income get to keep the monies allocated to schools via these local property taxes, even if that total far exceeds the state minimums. The monies allocated from county property taxes is not directly tied to the actual wealth of the individuals or their income level or their income taxes. The property taxes collected are the key to relative independence from the state per-pupil averaging system. If that is not possible, the school district must run the district with the state allocations they receive - that is the only prudent thing to do. If that means making cuts, then that is what needs to happen. Even if local property taxes are sufficient to fund the schools beyond the minimum level required without state inputs, the reality of the economy never goes away. If the citizens don't have the income to support higher taxation in the form of additional bonds and parcel taxes, then the district must deal with those realities. The slow down in the national economy has an impact on school funding - how can it not? How do you imagine anyone or any organization buying things when it has no money? In times like this, spending less is normal. We should be spending less, we have less to spend. The no-growth policies of the last 30 years have had a negative effect on many things, including the schools. It is not possible to have great schools, parks, public services and infrastructure without wealth. More wealth in the community is obtained by creating desirable conditions for development and business. Development does not have to mean ugly tract homes and sprawl. Good planninng can provide moderate and high income housing, with retail and commercial development where it is advantageous for the community. Instead, we have haphazard development wherever citizens can avoid or limit the damage imposed by numerous (and often ridiculous) restrictions imposed by local and state government. What we end up with is one property owner or a small contractor building one home at a time, wherever they can manage it. Why is building a home looked at as a bad thing around here by so many of you? New homes mean new property tax base and that is the key to generating more school funding. Given enough local property tax, the school district gets more money. And that money is not based on a per pupil per day funding mechanism with a dollar value attached. Both of these things require the school district and the city of HMB and mid-coast leaders to partner together. This community must become more desirable for people to buy homes in and to establish businesses within. If local property tax revenue is sufficient, the money collected for schools stays within the local school district - no matter how much "extra" is collected. That is not the case here today and it never will be if we continue to employ the stangulation tactics which currently exist. Local control over local issues is what most people want, yet our school funding is controlled from Washington, Sacramento and within the (needlessly) complex formulas created by the California legislature. The long term fix is to change the tax and educational funding policies of the nation and the state. In the shorter term, maybe we should encourage economic growth here on the coast? PS - I am not a real estate agent, developer, millionaire or trust fund baby.
1.) You need to be able to qualify for a loan in order to build new construction. (Here on the Coast or anywhere -those "qualifying guidelines have changed and become stricter -as well they should since the 2008 Banking Melt-down) 2.) NIMBY's are not stalling new construction that meets with CEQA guidelines(California Environmental Quality Act). Would-be Builders must comply, it's not simple, but that is the situation. 3.) San Mateo County just raised all the Planning & Building Dept. Permit Fees, Review Fees etc. Thereby making it more costly and less accessible to build, on the Coast or anywhere in the Un-Incorporated area of San Mateo County.
Cid - the three things you mentioned do increase the cost of building, but those costs are not unique to the Coastside. Anyone choosing to build will encounter those costs. HMB can control their planning and building fees independent of the county and could utilize a proactive and cooperative approach to attract investment in the city instead of pushing it away. Easier still is to buy an existing home. People have to live somewhere and they choose those places for a variety of reasons. Keeping HMB and the Mid Coast small is a quaint idea but it also stagnates the local economy and therefore the school funding directly (given the current system). I live here because I prefer the community over many others in the area. Smaller is attractive to me but the days of shopping at Angelini's and having your car repaired at Granelli and Cook are long gone. Small is great but Smart is also required. Ranching, farming and fishing are no longer primary modes of living. The Coastside has changed a lot in the last 40 years and it needs to adapt continually to the realities of the world. The county and HMB leadership raked in the fees and taxes associated with development but did a poor job planning and investing for the future. Infrastructure has been lagging, especially the roads throughout the Coastside which are vital to tourists and residents alike. I hate to say it but Pacifica has made some good improvements lately, none of which I see in HMB. Their Linda Mar Beach parking area, public restrooms and rehabilitated shopping strip are attractive. People are filling that lot every sunny weekend and spending money there. We get the same crush of traffic but make a mess of things at Surfer's Beach. The situation is unsafe, inefficient and less profitable than it should be. Those tourist dollars can help fund schools without burdening the locals.
WOW! You touched my heart. SO many topics I agree with you on! I have only been here since '88 so I have not heard of Angelini's or Granelli & Cook. (Familiar sounding only because of a street called Granelli and My Insurance Agent, Joe. 1.)"HMB can control their planning and building fees independent of the county and could utilize a proactive and cooperative approach to attract investment in the city instead of pushing it away." However-They just "pushed away" their Planning Dept. guy so that won't work for awhile. 2.) "Easier still is to buy an existing home." I agree, but if it is in 'typical condition' of deferred maintenance as most are these days (Especially distressed sales: probates,divorces, underwater, short sales or foreclosures) then the new buyer must take out permits to repair. The higher costs of permits might cause a few to risk it and "repair-under-the-radar" unless a major remodel will be needed, and that may have two effects. a.) Crappy remodels using unskilled labor resulting in unsafe non-conforming finished product OR b.) Higher end value, causing an expense pass-through to the future renter, making the cost of housing go up. For an owner-occupier, the repairs result in a nicer home, but a higher Ad-Valorem assessment, which BONDS are based on. 3.)"Small is great but Smart is also required." Smart Growth refers to Higher Density Residential (Housing) being built near a Transportation Corridor such as a large Apt. Building being built near a highway or a bus stop etc. Here on the Coast the best spot for such a project would be at 92 & 1 where I once shopped for Pumpkins long ago. They could build a huge Apartment Complex with a bus stop and a Park & Ride( MIXED-USE Transit Center below Residential as well as Retail Stores, where commuters, taking the Public Transportation, could also go shop before returning home. That would be smart growth. OR did you mean perhaps attracting a BIG BOX Store such as WALMART to generate sales tax revenue? = "The Coastside has changed a lot in the last 40 years and it needs to adapt continually to the realities of the world." (UGH!) 4.)"The county and HMB leadership raked in the fees and taxes associated with development but did a poor job planning and investing for the future." (I hear ya brother!) By not being good stewards of income from the past "Go-Go" era, they have proven to be a source of spending "our" money where it is least needed. Isn't it human nature to "spend it if you've got it", as if to be oblivious to the possibility that it might be better spent elsewhere when it is truly necessary? (Fable of the Ant & the Grasshopper) 5.)"Infrastructure has been lagging" You mentioned roads throughout the Coastside. Were you not aware that road money comes from gas taxes? (Not including Highway projects- I think Devil's Slide Tunnel project is Federal. Recently the San Mateo County Dept. of Public Works resurfaced the roads on many unincorporated streets. Perhaps they used grant money from a Build America Bond legally applied for under the "Shovel-Ready Program" UNLIKE the City of Half Moon Bay. They (HMB) chose to use their "Shovel-Ready" money to pay off a lawsuit judgement to a Waelthy Palo Alto Developer, leaving the residents with poor roads and poorer coffers, because of the huge IRS fine and increased rates on the (ill-gotten-bond) repayment fees. CLEARLY lacking in good judgement, wouldn't you say, let alone ETHICS! 6.) "We get the same crush of traffic (As Pacifica) but make a mess of things at Surfer's Beach. The situation is unsafe, inefficient and less profitable than it should be. Those tourist dollars can help fund schools without burdening the locals." Yes, because of the "Cherry Stem". Long ago, Half Moon Bay drew their "City Limits down the middle of Hwy One up to the traffic signal at Princeton. About the only revenue along there are restaurants or B&B's in Miramar or along the Cherry Stem at SAM's & The Beach House. They don't collect for the Revenue at the Harbor, is my understanding. If they do, it is a mistake, because Harbor Village is in the Unincorporated area. Unless they (HMB City Council) put in parking stations on "their" side of Hwy One, then they don't get a penny from Beach Goers unless they "Dine at SAM's" or "Stay at the Beach House", or stop in town to grab a taco.
Vote No on the $81,000,000.00 school bond!
AGREE - Since they turned down the Parking Meter "filch money from down-town visitors" project, I think based on responses to Clay's Poll on-line, that the "School Bond Over-reach" will also be defeated. Better times should be ahead, so they can always scale it waaaay back and come back to the well with a smaller bucket AFTER the economy improves. In the meantime, they will have to make the drastic cuts they have prophesied and do what the rest of us are doing, waiting it out, and SPENDING LESS in the meantime!
Cid, I don't want to recount all the points but to clarify, I'm not expecting big apartment buildings or WalMarts. I'm not really promoting those ideas. I'm promoting: Reasonable and already planned/zoned development to increase the total tax base. I'm not big on taxation but that is the method used to fund most of our public systems - including the schools. If you had more growth, you would have more money in the schools via property tax assessments. Less houses/businesses - less tax money coming in to support the schools. The building of homes on in-fill lots, both within HMB and unincorporated areas. People should be encouraged to build here not castigated. I have seen the pain and money drain required to build on a lot which was defined as residential by the city or the county, was planned for the express purpose of providing housing, compliant with it's intended purpose but shunned and penalized by the very entities who garner money collecting fees and taxes from that activity. City and county roads and drainage being maintained and expanded to better handle traffic and storm flows safely and efficiently. The county virtually abrogates this responsibility yet collects taxes to supposedly perform these responsibilities. They also have road mitigation fees tacked onto new development - where has all that money gone? What we have now is a stagnant coastside business and real estate environment. Very little growth coupled with progressively more selective type of resident. Many residents are aging, earning less over time and also paying a much lower property tax rate than newer arrivals. The new arrivals are increasingly wealthy and white collar but also small in number. Local businesses are progressively geared to tourists and the new age residents but those businesses are fighting for that select pool of customers. I don't see the volume needed to correct the errors of the past and shortages into the future. The bulk of coastsiders are looking to minimize expenses, not increase them. The CUSD needs to cut expenses and those cuts should be farthest from the classroom as possible. Some teachers may be lost but that may be unavoidable. The solution is not continued borrowing, taxing and spending. The solution is to cut, reorganize and continue the core mission - fundamental K-12 education. That does not include new artificial turf, solar panels, $50 light bulbs, new administration buildings or the like.
I saw this posted on the Palo Alto Express/Daily forum What they (What Palo Alto, w fairly well-heeled Community) is doing:Web Link
franz, You said: "The bulk of coastsiders are looking to minimize expenses, not increase them. The CUSD needs to cut expenses and those cuts should be farthest from the classroom as possible. Some teachers may be lost but that may be unavoidable. The solution is not continued borrowing, taxing and spending. The solution is to cut, reorganize and continue the core mission - fundamental K-12 education. That does not include new artificial turf, solar panels, $50 light bulbs, new administration buildings or the like" You left out the splashy NEW pool! CUSD needs to take a page out of the Palo Alto School District's notebook! "Board approves $2.1 million in school cuts Reductions come in personnel, utilities, food service, maintenance and staff development." "School funding for Palo Alto -- excluding locally raised money -- has declined by $808 per student, 6 percent, since 2008-09, Mak reported Tuesday -- even more than the $788 per student she reported on Feb. 28. The current per-pupil allotment is $12,215." ---- How much is the per student funding over here I wonder? (I should know since I am being asked to foot the bill.) Another objection I have to the CUSD School Board vote: They are not forthcoming with the facts or the information. "TRUST US is the feeling I got. NOPE!... not when it's my money you want! I'll be like Darin and wait and see what they put out in the way of REAL information. At the moment, I'm not impressed with what they say they want it for. Palo Alto sounds like they have a better grip on their money over here and have exhibited ample stewardship of said funds.
"How much is the per student funding over here I wonder? (I should know since I am being asked to foot the bill.)" Yes Cid, you should considering you were at the School Board meeting when they went through expenses and revs, just before they voted for, and passed, the ballot measure requesting the $81 Million. Now comes the fun part. Without looking at my notes or the handouts (in other words, from memory!), I believe the ADA for HMB (coastside) students is either (roughly) $5600 or $5800. Now, compare that to the numbers you see from over the hill. I'm not endorsing the measure, rather answering a legitimate question. I will wait to see what the District comes up with in terms of a Real accounting for the funds. No real accounting, no vote...or is that vote no? I've said it before and I'll repeat it here; if I'm being asked to submit to a 25 year, $81 Million request, I want specifics. To date, I've not seen anything resembling what I am requesting. I did, btw, go to the District and speak with administrators there about this and requested what data they had. It was anemic, at best - Darin posted it - one and 1/2 pages! Not even a realistic summary, let alone plan. I then requested they come with something better than that. I was told they would within a couple of weeks. That was last week. We'll see, but frankly I don't see it coming.
George- I got to that meeting late, and having parked on Kelly, I walked further than I had to, in order to find the meeting location. By the time I found it, there was a fellow talking about the "budget" but no hand-outs (What a shock!) were left of the budget, and as I recall he had an accent or seemed to mumble and there were lots of coughing or squirming kids rustling about in the back where I was first sitting so...from my vantage point I could not hear the presenter nor could I see the "Power Point" presentation. Heck, I could not even be sure who the "guy in the hat" was once I moved up near the front. Thanks for the follow-up at the CUSD OFFICE and also your reply here on T/A. (I'm wondering -did the anemic info. they gave you have Darin's earlier figure $74.8 or such, or did it explain how it had morphed in to 81 million?) So, Palo Alto approves over 2 million in budget cuts and over here they ask us for 1.8 million to come from strapped homeowners.
Interesting reading: "Public schools consume the largest share of the state’s shrinking general fund – 42 percent of the $86 billion total. How those funds are allocated is coming under increasing scrutiny by education leaders, advocacy groups, school districts and lawmakers." School Spending link: Web Link Last year, California schools spent an average of $8,452 to educate each student, a figure that includes money from local, state, and federal sources, including one-time stimulus funds. "The disconnect between money and academic performance is at the heart of an ongoing debate among educators and researchers." “Money may be necessary for school improvement, but it doesn’t guarantee that improvement takes place,” concluded UC Berkeley education professor W. Norton Grubb in his recent book “The Money Myth,” after conducting an intensive review on the subject. California Watch’s analysis is based on the state’s current expense of education per student, which includes annual salaries, employee benefits, books, supplies and other educational services. It doesn’t include costs for building purchases, construction, retiree benefits and food services.
I heard once that there are two times to plant an Oak tree, 20 years ago, and today. I was as much persuaded as volunteered to run for the School Board 8 years ago. It was obstensibly to unblock the 12 year mailaise over the middle school. I supported Wavecrest, but time was of the essense, and we put it back to the people's choice which became Cuhna's modernization. I am proud to have been a part of that, and can safely say we brought the project in whithin schedule and under budget, that is why we could do the astro-field at Cunha (with a little help)! It was a compromise that worked. We always dreamed of two gems for our community, a new pool, and a community arts center. With this Bond measure, they can happen. Just as important, basic facilty needs can be met to offset funds that can better be used for categorical programs. It gets a bit dicey on what the State allows, but it's always better to have the money in hand, than wait to see how much the next cut is going to be. I'm voting for the Bond measure, and suggest you consider doing so too, neighbor!!
>>We always dreamed of two gems for our community, a new pool, and a community arts center. << Hey Charlie, I haven't been on the coast as long as you nor have I been involved in school politics. I missed out on the years of dreaming--from my point of view the inclusion of the pool and performing arts center sort of come out of the blue. I've already voiced my (tentative) support for the bond (I started this thread) but for those of us who are in the dark a bit could you elaborate on the rationale for the pool and the performing arts center? What does this dream look like? --Darin
While you're responding to Darin, could you possibly explain "We always dreamed of two gems for our community, a new pool, and a community arts center. With this Bond measure, they can happen. Just as important, basic facilty needs can be met to offset funds that can better be used for categorical programs. It gets a bit dicey on what the State allows, but it's always better to have the money in hand, than wait to see how much the next cut is going to be." What are categorical programs and why is it "dicey" regarding what the state allows? I HOPE YOU'RE NOT SUGGESTING SOMETHING AKIN TO THE HMB CITY COUNCIL TAKING BOND MONEY UNDER FALSE PRESUMPTIONS. {They obviously decided to 1st get the money (BAB BOND $) and worry about getting caught on what they used it on later!} ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT, CHARLIE GARDNER?
Although Mr Gardner's desire to provide the community with a new pool and performing arts center may at first seem laudable, one must remember that the school district is not responsible for providing community services. That is up to the city of HMB and the county or for private industry to offer options to those interested. The school district is responsible for educating the children of this community and that is what they should be focused on. Sports and the arts are wonderful options but they are not core subjects which will enable kids to enter colleges or develop basic life and job skills. What percentage of people are employed as athletes, performers or artists? Not many. All people need english language skills, knowledge of civics and relevant history and mathematics skills no matter what their line of work. These are the most crucial subjects for all kids to learn and they should be taught by competent teachers. Is this the immutable focus of the district's energy??? It should also be noted that access to school district facilities is always controlled by the district and the schools. The high school athletic fields are not open to the public for use whenever you want them. They are controlled and usually require fees to be paid by the leagues or teams which use them. Is the Cunha or HS gym available for your use? No. The selling point is community service and a resource for all to enjoy. That is not the reality nor am I suggesting it definitively should be. The public schools exist for a reason and those reasons are not for public recreation or entertainment. Those are ancillary activities which they can offer and to offset their maintenance and operating expenses. You don't pass a $81 Million school bond to provide fluff. Get back to basics and teach these kids what they need to know, not what you want to teach or facilities you want to control.
"Although Mr Gardner's desire to provide the community with a new pool and performing arts center may at first seem laudable, one must remember that the school district is not responsible for providing community services. That is up to the city of HMB and the county or for private industry to offer options to those interested." Exactly.
I ran across this this morning: Web Link , titled "Report gives C's, D's to schools in educating poor, minority students" out of the Silicon Valley MercuryNews.com. Now I don't know whether CUSD was a part of this report, but comments in this story echo many of the posts we have seen and continue to see on our threads here. Quotes like this one are troubling; "The report confirms what we know to be true: Too many kids aren't being served by our current system," said Erica Wood, vice-president of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which invests in trying to narrow the achievement gap. One of the biggest 'burdens' CA public schools carry are the mandates, often unfunded by the State, that Sacramento provides public schools that don't apply to private or charter schools. They take a huge amount of money to comply with along with a vast amount of public school resources, which, of course, take away from other areas of focus for learning.
Vote No on the $81,000,000.00 school bond.
Why "seniors" are taking out reverse mortgages at an earlier age: THE ECONOMY And then this : for the HMB Review & Pescadero Pebble: Two more reasons to vote NO!
"And then this : for the HMB Review & Pescadero Pebble: (link)" - - - - - What a turd. I hope they throw the book at him. "(Mandates, often unfunded by the State, that Sacramento provides public schools that don't apply to private or charter schools. They take a huge amount of money to comply with along with a vast amount of public school resources, which, of course, take away from other areas of focus for learning." - - - - - Yes! Funding for schools was transfered from local to state to comply with a court ruling that declared that the quality of education in public schools may not be a function of the wealth of the community. A good idea, perhaps, but it didn't work. Various devices, like parcel taxes and bond issues have been adopted to offset the decision. Since the State does not and cannot see to equality among the schools, the state should be taken out of the equation. A goodly sum of tax money is being spent on the bureaucracy that has grown around the now moot dictate of the decision. Taxes should not be collected by the State to fund public school education, and the funding of and control of public schools should once again be the province of the community school districts. I have groused several times about the failure of our schools and teachers to educate our children. Freeing them from bureaucracy driven mandates and interminable related paper work would go a long way towards freeing them up to do their jobs.
Half Moon Bay Patch is running a story on the school bond today.
Half Moon Bay Patch poll results: 70% NO on tax, 30% YES. So the Bond fails on this unscientific poll.
75 votes? yes; this is pretty unscientific.
The size of the population doesn't always matter. I think the paid CUSD poll had a poulation size of 400. Inferences can be drawn from different sized population. I no longer have the HMBR online poll results, but it ran close to 65% Against the bond and 35% for the bond.
|