According to the San Francisco Chronicle, 9 out of 10 local funding measures for education are anticipated to pass with the necessary 2/3 vote as a result of Tuesday’s election. The only measure headed for defeat is for Napa Valley Community Colleges. From sfgate:
…Given the dire state budget projections and the governor’s proposed $4 billion cut to schools, the results of Tuesday’s election could spur other districts across the region to consider similar measures for the June and November elections this year. Unlike bonds, which can only be used to pay for capital improvements, parcel taxes can be applied to cover a wide range of costs, including salaries and benefits…
And given the rather grim outlook presented by AUSD in this Budget Fact Sheet, I imagine that other school districts in the Bay Area are probably distributing very similar materials in anticipation of the slashed budget. From the fact sheet:
…If approved as submitted, the Governor’s Budget would result in a minimum loss of $4 million in ongoing funding to Alameda Unified School District. This calculation is based only on the loss to Base Revenue Limit (BRL) funding, the basic per-student funding we receive based on Average Daily Attendance (ADA) of students, currently 86% of unrestricted revenue. When we add to this, the loss to specific categorical programs such as Special Education, Child Development (Woodstock Child Development Center), Career and Technical Education for high school students (classes such as ‘Web Design,’ ‘TV/Media,’ and ‘Careers with Children,’) and Adult Education, the total loss could grow to over $5 million.
To put this funding loss in perspective, Alameda Unified School District has cut $7.7 million over the last seven years, due to previous State Budget cuts and the impact of several years of declining enrollment in our city. Last year’s process to identify $1.4 million in spending reductions, scaled back from the needed $2 million, took place over a period of six months and involved numerous, emotionally charged community meetings, as parents, staff, and community members agonized over what to cut and how to make cuts without hurting students. The final list of spending reductions, approved in February of 2007, included twenty-eight line items, ranging from $6,000 to $180,000…
So what do we cut? $7.7 million in cuts over the last 7 years and a possible $4 million in cuts this year, but yet we still have folks crying out (without any supporting evidence) that the school district is “bloated” and “inefficient.” Rather than come up with positive solutions that could help the schools right now, we instead have people using the schools as the latest tool in their quest to further whatever their pet issue is. Coughredevelopmentcough.
Remember that even if the state does not fund programs like Special Education up to required levels, it doesn’t mean that it can get cut, the school district will have to backfill the funding for those programs with money from someplace else that it is needed.
Even our local private schools are having difficulty staying afloat and attracting students, Alameda Naytiff posted a link to an Alameda Journal article about St. Barnabas closing down, excerpts:
…Diocese officials made the decision last month to close St. Barnabas, which serves students in kindergarten through eighth grade.
Currently, 73 students are enrolled, a 63 percent decline since 2001…
As with the children, the upcoming closure will hit the staff hard: Kurczewski, five teachers and two office managers who work at the school must find new jobs.
The official last day is June 11.
And even Edison Elementary School which was anticipated to swell over with incoming kindergarteners(which was the whole reason the school district was forced to grapple with the lottery vs. first come first serve issue this past year) had only 65 applications for kindergarten slots this year. Which means that if the numbers hold up then (92 applications last year, only 80 kids actually attended) then there will be only three Kindergarten classes for the 2008-09 school year, down a whole class from last year’s spike.
However, even though enrollment may be dropping, there are still 9000 plus students in AUSD that require services. The question is, if the budget cuts are a reality what can we expect to be up on the chopping block this year, and will protestations from parents, community members, and students be able to save programs that are lower on the hierarchy of importance than other programs. If Wood Middle School is up, once again, for consolidation or if JROTC is up for cutting can they be saved this year given the state of the budget? As with last year, we’re not even talking about cutting away at any fat anymore, we’re down to bone and gristle folks.
Good time get rid of the fat from the bloated AUSD infrastructure.
Comment by Roberto — February 6, 2008 @ 8:59 am
Roberto,
Name me one example of fat in the AUSD infrastructure that isn’t caused by demands put on us by the State of California or the Feds…
Comment by Barbara M — February 6, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Roberto - I agree with Barbara. Oakland’s school measure will likey have been approved but it did not add any additional bonds or parcel tax per year - it only extended a present parcel tax. We need to create addition funds for our district becaue Sac is afraid to raise taxes to meet the agreed need to meet the requirments of Prop 98
Comment by David Kirwin — February 6, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Roberto’s last name is Troll.
Comment by Phoenix — February 6, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
After seeing how people react in this area towards the idea of changes in taxes, older measures ( Prop 13) and other pieces of outdated legislation that could likely alleviate some of the financial pressures in the state, it is quiet obvious that changing anything to do with the system is out of the question.People seem to go ape over the idea of changing anything here, which is ironic given the supposedly progressive character of politics in the area.
The economy is… frankly pretty much in the shitter-California’s especially, and will likely be for at least a few years. So seeking finding from the state is also out of the question, or at least highly unlikely. The state is losing billions from the housing situation alone.
So that leaves few viable options. My thoughts: Individual funding from the parents themselves. Perhaps now it is time to start discussing the possibility of parent financial contribution. Parents could simply set aside a certain amount monthly. Quite simple really. Of course some will balk at the idea since many will claim that other schools that might have less wealthy parents might not fair as well. But again- if changing the system as it is is not possible, then this is about the best option I can think of.
Again, if I had school age kids here, I think I would be seeking what the best rates were at U-haul, Thrifty rental, or Budget.
Comment by edvard — February 7, 2008 @ 7:26 am
As a teacher in AUSD, I am shocked that anyone could think there is fat. The district office is running on fumes. The state and federally mandated programs that each administrator has to oversee in addition to the work of the district is so overwhelming, I am not sure why anyone would want the job. Add to that the fact that administrators in AUSD are paid relative to the teacher salaries and we are one of the lowest paying districts and the result is district administrators who are doing their awful jobs for less. The only difference between them and me is tha they could sell themselves to a higher bidder while teachers who have been here a long time would have to go back to year 5 on the salary scale if they tried to go a higher paying district.
What on earth is # 1 talking about? I would love to know what we can legally cut that has not already been carved away during the constant cuts we have faced since I arrived in 1991.
Fat? I would love to know where the excess poundage is hiding since I am only seeing a malnourished frame.
Comment by sylvia kahn — February 7, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
I just looked up what the average teacher salary is for Alameda,CA. The median salary for a middle school teacher is $49,000 a year. The starting salary is $32,000.
On the other hand, the average teacher pay in my home state of TN is
$42,072 a year.My mom who has been teaching for 30 years makes $52,000.
In order to show how absolutely ridiculous this is, let’s do a basic comparison between Alameda and Knoxville.
Teacher Pay for Alameda CA: $49,000
Median home price in Alameda:$587,500
Teacher Pay for Knoxville: $42,000
Median home price, knoxville:$133,865
So as you can see, there’s a HUGE disparity between these and probably most any other area.
Teacher Salaries MUST be raised if you as parents care to keep qualified, experienced teachers in your area. Plain and simple.
Comment by edvard — February 8, 2008 @ 7:53 am
edvard: I like to think of you as the voice of reason on this forum. Your comments always make the most sense to me compared to others here.
I think your numbers above don’t speak to underpaid teachers as much as they do to overpriced real estate.
Despite the recent federal government “stimulus package” (read handouts for bay area homeowners through the raising of the conforming loan limits), that equation will change. I just don’t think it will be salaries rising so much as real estate prices continuing their fall on their way to normal and healthy levels.
Comment by happyrenter — February 8, 2008 @ 10:59 am
Happyrenter, I think there’s a big difference between people who own- who are obviously paying an enormous amount of money to do so- and those who rent. Perhaps if I had made that choice, I too would be thinking differently.So I don’t blame anyone who has a difference of opinion as we’re all in the same boat: try to do what we think is best for us and our families. I’m going to guess that if I had become a homeowner, I’d be acting the same.
Anyway you cut it, the housing boom was far more negative than positive. It only served to benefit people who could sell and move. In the meantime it seriously degraded the lives of countless young families, public servants- like teachers for example- and even young professionals making very good incomes such as me and my wife whom would be paying an unhealthy percentage of our income if we had bought.
The worst part about it all is that as we see, things got way the hell out of hand. Way more than even I who spent years studying it knew. Housing in fact has caused what appears to be a severe economic retraction which means that even those of us who stayed out of it will probably be helping the entire country pay the price.
That said… the good part about recessions and corrections is that the do drop prices and the cost of living. Numerous reports show as much as a 30% drop in prices across the board for the Bay Area. Whether Alameda is affected for the better or worse is anyone’s guess, but I am certain that a degree of realistic affordable housing will once again return to the area, which in turn is good for business, families, and the people who help make communities run.
I know that I usually sound really negative on this blog since almost everyone here are more recent homeowners who don’t want to hear about it. But for me and my family, we had to wait for 5 years while this thing raged on. For me, I’m glad the insanity finally stopped.
We will be a better community as a result.
Comment by edvard — February 8, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Does anyone know where to find a list/details of California or Bay Area cities that have parcel taxes. I’ve checked edsource and CA school finance but can’t find details. I used to think I was good with the Internet. Thanks in advance.
Comment by TMW — February 8, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Go to Mike McMahon’s site. Lauren has a link to the right. If he doesn’t list the current ones he will have a site to go to. A few just changed last week and so I don’t have the most current numbers
Comment by Barbara M — February 8, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
Unfortunately, some sites like California School Board Association post election results and those links stop working in a few months. The best I can offer is a page that has an overview of parcel taxes and some recent examples of ballot language used by a few Bay Area cities.
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/parceltax.htm
Comment by Mike McMahon — February 8, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
By the way, there will be an agenda item on the February 26th BOE meeeting to examine a parcel tax to offset the prosposed cuts to education by the Governor.
Comment by Mike McMahon — February 8, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
I’m tapped out. Rescind the hospital parcel tax and then we’ll talk about it. Also, parcel taxes are grossly regressive. The owner of a 50 unit apartment building pays the same as the owner of a studio condominium. There may be ways of adjusting the parcel tax by parcel size…but first get rid of that hospital tax and then we’ll have that conversation.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — February 9, 2008 @ 7:29 am
As a family of two AUSD teachers, I would support repealing the hospital tax. I did not vote for it and our recent experience there with my husband was just awful. Adding another parcel tax to our already extremely tight budget will be a hardship (with what we out of pocket each month for healthcare results in us bringing home less than we did five years ago).That said, the children of this town did not have anything to do with the hospital tax and since this town will not repeal the tax, to say we won’t do anything for the school unless we ditch the hospital is unfair because it won’t happen. The reason it is hard to pass a parcel tax is due in large part to the elderly community in this town and they are big fans of the hospital.
I am not optomistic this town will pass a parcel tax but if we don’t we are in very serious trouble and the cuts will shock everyone.
As for the home prices here coming down, when we bought our home in 1996, before the surge, we paid $250,00, still a lot more than than the median price elswhere. To sight housing prices as a rationale to support low teacher salary in AUSD is unfair. If you look at salaries of teachers in Pleasanton and Dublin, the difference is staggering and they don’t have to pay the +$650 per month in premiums for their families healthcare.
AUSD employees have born a large burden financially for the districts underfunding by the State.
Comment by sylvia kahn — February 9, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
#15 Let’s see, two AUSD teachers = min 120K per year and you can’t pay your 650 per month health bennies. Times are bad.
Comment by anachrofella — February 10, 2008 @ 10:27 am
Teachers need to be paid fairly. I do not doubt that they should earn more. However, some of us are taxed out. Check your property tax bill and you will see an ever growing list of taxes. Besides the hospital parcel tax and the school parcel tax there is also an AC Transit parcel tax. There is only so much money to go around and many homeowners now find that their home is losing value.
When times are tough for a family, hard choices have to be made and expenses prioritized. AUSD will have to do the same. There are always some items that can be cut or that could be done with greater efficiency. Anyone who has ever worked for living knows that.
Comment by AlamedaNaytiff — February 10, 2008 @ 11:54 am
#17 did you attend any of the meetings about the AUSD budget cuts last year when Wood school was put on the block? Generically your advise sounds reasonable, but this district has been slashing for several consecutive years. Last year we hit reserves to keep it at a mere $2 million in cuts. This year we are looking at another $4million.
Comment by Mark I — February 10, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
Parcel taxes for education may be considered to be ‘regressive’ because owners of large, multi-family property taxes or apartment buildings pay the same amount as a small bungalow. For school parcel taxes, Berkeley has different rates for residential and commercial properties. Alameda does not differentiate, and also gives seniors the ability to “opt out” of paying the school tax. In Alameda, everyone pays the special hospital tax which is a higher tax assessment, and if left unchanged, we will continue to pay the hospital tax even if the hospital were to close or move off the island.
In actuality we should not need to raise or even have local parcel taxes to fund education in California. The State decided that having local taxes to pay for schools was unfair because it provided unequal quality of education as correlated by the relative economic inequalities of the State’s educational Districts. Because of this, the State decided to collect all the local education taxes throughout CA and redistribute the taxes using a method they felt would provide more ‘fair and balanced’ education funding. The voters of California also approved Prop 98 which set a minimum basis level for funding education in CA. Therefore the State is constitutionally obligated to maintain funding to the level mandated by Prop 98. Governor Schwarzenegger’s current budget proposal does not meet the minimum educational funding level required by our State’s constitution. If it did, we would not now be talking about another parcel tax for Alameda schools. It is the State’s responsibility to fund education as required by law. Our governor repealed taxes for personal political gain and the State has fallen into huge deficits. The State must be forced to meet its minimum educational funding responsibilities, and the Ed Code must ‘rebalance’ its formula for the distribution of educational funds. Hopefully the representatives of the voters of CA will not permit or approve the Governor’s unconstitutional budget. Responsible spending is a requirement for government just as it is for individuals. Many of the largest spending programs are not voter approved; we must be able to rely on the ability and integrity of our representatives. Perhaps if the salaries of our representatives were set to the average of their constituents then their votes would better reflect the needs of whom they represent.
Comment by David Kirwin — February 10, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
#18 I’ve followed AUSD’s budget woes for years…I’ve also followed my own. Maybe we should have a district income tax? When families run into financial problems, they can’t pass a parcel tax to bail themselves out.
Having worked in both governmental and non-governmental jobs, I know that there are always adjustments that can be made. It isn’t our job to micro-manage the district, but I am sure that managers do know where adjustments can be made. However, my experience in budget cut scenarios is that too often the dead wood stays and the fruitful trees are uprooted.
Comment by AlamedaNaytiff — February 10, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
#20 I don’t think you can squeeze $4 million in cuts out of administration at AUSD.
Comment by Mark I — February 11, 2008 @ 8:07 am
Naytiff,
I usually agree with most of what you say here, but I don’t agree that somehow, since a home is now losing value, that homeowners in general should be spared the possibility of new taxation as a result.This goes into a more broad statement that I am not directing at you or anyone else particular.If a home losing value is causing financial hardship, then that only suggests that the home was being used like an ATM, which many in the area did. If that be the case, then that’s bad behavior anyway. Home equity should not and should never have been viewed as a way to extract cash.
This goes along with a more general attitude that seems to be permeating the political atmosphere these days, which is that all those who bought or own homes are somehow “victims” since their often excessively over-valued homes are depreciating.
I don’t feel sorry for anyone that bought a house here and has financial problems as a direct result of the transaction. I believe in fiscal responsibility, and if there was any sense that such hardship would have occurred as the result of home purchase, than individuals should not have bought and rented instead until the market eventually corrected itself.It isn’t mine or the government’s problem.If I buy a BMW and work at Mcdonalds, then it isn’t anyone else’s fault but my own if I start having trouble paying for or maintaining that car. The same goes for houses.
What IS a problem is that as mentioned, teacher salaries are grossly too low in this area.The subject of teachers and schools seems to be the most heated debate on this forum and there is no end to arguing and debating. But when anything financially supportive is ever mentioned such as the idea of new taxes, new legislation that would potentially add more money to the infrastructure, or even the repeal of measures that in most cases hamper the ability to gain income is brought up, people seem to balk at it.
One way or another, this and most other cities in the Bay Area must come up with methods to gain cash. Otherwise I can almost guarantee that anyone with half a brain is going to walk out of college with their teaching degree, look at the salaries offered here, and move away. You can’t pay teachers diddly-squat in the nation’s most expensive area and then ask for the moon. Sorry, but that’s now how economics work.Teachers in my mind are the most important professionals in our community and deserve to be treated as such, with salaries that allow them to live as comfortable middle class citizens. Even now, there is no way that even a married couple of teachers could afford a home here, and that is pretty sad.
These are troubling times and in my mind, EVERYONE here needs to be prepared to make more financial sacrifices in order to maintain their community.The mention that many can barely afford their houses let alone have any wiggle room for taxes needed to boost basic infrastructural needs is very telling of just how phucked up the economy really is.In other words, we have absolutely no room to improve because the typical consumer here is maxed out in debt. That’s extremely unhealthy.
Hell- I am perfectly willing to pay more taxes if it means that more kids here get to have better education options and teachers with better pay. Create a tax for renters for all I care. I’m more than happy to help.
Comment by edvard — February 11, 2008 @ 8:11 am
“To sight [sic] housing prices as a rationale to support low teacher salary in AUSD is unfair.”
If that sentence was directed at me, then you didn’t understand my comment.
I was saying what *is* going to happen (home prices continuing to fall and wages — for all jobs — remaining relatively constant), not using one to justify another.
As to whether or not teachers are “underpaid”, that is another question entirely.
I certainly don’t think any profession is entitled to say “we can’t afford the median priced single-family detached home in the city in which we work, therefore we are are underpaid”. Do public teachers in Beverly Hills own homes there? I wonder.
I will say that mortgage/real estate brokers/agents have certainly been overpaid in this bubble, and are now getting their payback. 6% of nothing, after all, is still nothing.
Comment by happyrenter — February 11, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
I agree with you happyrenter, no profession is entitled to anything. But in the case of teachers, being the government-paid employees that they are, It would surely seem wise to make conditions for them more palatable -ie-more reasonable salaries in accordance with the cost of living. There’s actually a shortage of teachers in this state, as well as doctors, police officers, and a number of other vital professionals that for my best guess saw that even in the case of a doctor making 100k per year, they clearly saw that the choice of another lower cost area would likely be more beneficial for them and their families. 100k doesn’t buy you squat here, and that’s more than double what a teacher’s starting salary is here.
So while I also don’t feel that those who make less should automatically receive special treatment, the question of teacher pay falls into a second analytical category. There are many who live in Alameda, Marin, and other higher cost areas simply because the areas had better schools. But in my mind the quality of the schools in the area are fragile as we’re now seeing when budgets are cut when the economy goes sour. Secondly, while money doesn’t solve all the problems, I do feel that if teachers were better compensated, then Alameda and likely other areas would actually have improved schools and a rosters of teachers with more tenure and dedication. I’m not saying that those who teach now don’t, but the truth of the matter is that if you want quality anything, then you have to pay for it. That there are people here who paid more than 800k for a small house just for their kid’s sake and the schools located here has me confused as to why the idea of a tax hike would really make all that much of a difference in regards to what they spend anyway.
Comment by edvard — February 11, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
What sort of taxation policies would adequately fund schools and pay teachers what they are worth? One could argue that those with children in school should pay more than those who do not have children in the public schools. The government routinely charges use fees. I am not saying that a well educated populace doesn’t benefit the entire community, only that public education brings both public and private benefits.
I might favor a district income tax to fund the schools as that seems a lot fairer than a parcel tax. Also, while education is a public good, so are public roads, police, fire, streets, sewer, water, transit, etc. There is endless need, but not endless money.
Comment by AlamedaNaytiff — February 11, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
‘One could argue that those with children in school should pay more than those who do not have children in the public schools.”
That would be a poor argument. If I did not drive an automobile, or support our escapades in Iraq or Afghanistan, nor care to subsidize the beautification of Webster or Park Streets, I am not allowed as a citizen to exempt myself tax wise in anyway to these expenditures, and rightly so. Of course some right-wing Libertarian wingnuts would disagree.
Comment by poguemahone — February 11, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
Re: #26
Obviously, auto driving = cost of roads, freeways, highways, byways, bridges, etc.
Comment by poguemahone — February 11, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
#26 / 27
Was it “right-wing Libertarian wingnuts” who wrote the school parcl tax measure which allowed seniors to ‘opt out’ of paying the parcel tax for schools in Alameda?
Comment by david Kirwin — February 11, 2008 @ 10:52 pm
26. Since you think you should be exempted from paying for right wing-nut escapades, it follows that you’re agreeing that those without children should be exempt from education costs. I agree too, exempt me from paying for the whacky left-wing education for your kids.
Comment by wing-nut — February 12, 2008 @ 9:00 am
I was pretty shocked to read that someone thought my families salary was plenty to cover our monthly portion of medical. To assume that my family has $120,000 a year is pretty arrogant. Of course, it is not more ridiculous that the fact that my husband has to buy his own photocopy paper once his 2 reams per semester are used up. Yes, he has to purchase his own paper in order to teach his class. It is also no more absurd than the fact that teachers take pay cuts every year due to increased health care costs that far exceed any raise we have seen in years.
It is alo unfair to compare public education to police, fire departments or any other city government funded services as public schools have no capacity to raise revenue. We can’t increase the amount of money that it costs to park at the meters, we can’t write tickets to negligent parents who never show up to appointments or return calls, we can impound parents cars when their children destroy school materials but refuse to reimburse the district. The schools are completely at the mercy of the state and the citizens of this town who are once again going to be asked to step up to the plate and take care of the kids since the state won’t.
I will support any parcel tax because the alternative is morally unacceptable in a society that cares about children. I will do in with great anger as I know that next year, a few charter schools will force their way in draining more funds from the district and the state will likely cut our head off to go with the arms and legs they have almost taken.
I am hoping our commmunity will pass the parcel tax and at the same time, collectively stand up to the state and “just say no” and refuse to make cuts. It is time to spend our measly 3% in the reserves and let the state come show us how it should be done. Didn’t they just show us how it should be done when they took over Oakland?!!
Comment by Sylvia Kahn — February 12, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
# 15/30
15 “As a family of two AUSD teachers,”
30 …”I was pretty shocked to read that someone thought my families (sic) salary was plenty to cover our monthly portion of medical. To assume that my family has $120,000 a year is pretty arrogant.”
According to District Reports the average teacher salary in Alameda is 61K plus bennies for 180 teaching days. Are you two below average? Just who is it you want to pay for your over and above?
Of course you’d support any parcel tax, I would too if it put more $’s in my pocket instead of taking them out.
Comment by anachrofella — February 12, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
Anyone who truly thinks teachers are over-paid have obviously been educated in a cave by sorting rocks or they have the exact amount of brain cells as George Bush. Most garbage workers make more money than teachers. Think of how your garbage can gets thrown around when it gets emptied. Also, I guess we could only teach children one day a week.
I will add anachrofella to the list of people I hope are cared for in their older years by people are as ignorant as they are.
If you think educating our population is expensive and not your problem, try the prison system. Actually I just thought of it. When the prison population gets so out of hand we can’t afford that either we will send the prisoners to his house and he can jail them. We could roll this program over to all people who think only parents of children in school should pay for schools.
What everyone has to consider is the future. What happens when there are more have nots than haves. The point in which the divide of the poor and rich is so great there is no middle or HOPE. Can you say anarchy? No this won’t happen in our lifetime but when your grandchildren are adults it could. Perish the thought that we could love all children enough to make sure they are given a true shot at a future.
One last idea (and I really mean this) if you really don’t believe you are getting your monies worth and more, let me take you on a tour. Seriously let take you to several schools in this district (you can choose) and I will show you lightbulbs going on above heads over and over. I will never cease to be amazed at how many talented people who are employed by AUSD moreover how much they love children.
Comment by Barbara M — February 12, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
#29 Not only are you a wing-nut your an obtuse wing-nut. I clearly stated that there are things I do not like having to foot the bill for, like illegal wars, but that that is how it is and should be as in order for anything to even marginally get done in a democratic principled, constitutional republic government. Please read clearly before you grace us with your stupidity once again.
Comment by poguemahone — February 12, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
Comment by david Kirwin
“Was it “right-wing Libertarian wingnuts” who wrote the school parcl tax measure which allowed seniors to ‘opt out’ of paying the parcel tax for schools in Alameda?”
I believe that was a calculated admission that seniors would not support the measure. I also think it is a disgrace how that segment of our population as a whole, (I know there some individuals who step up) refuse collectively to invest in the future by investing in the education of OUR, HERS, HIS YOURS AND MY YOUTH. Seven generations. Learn it, live it, preach it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_generation_sustainability
Comment by poguemahone — February 13, 2008 @ 12:11 am
#32.) It seems the Legislative Analyst Office agreeds to increase spending for education. Oops, my bad. It is a recommendation to increase education of prisoner inmates.
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/708274.html
Comment by Mike McMahon — February 13, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
32. “…they have the exact amount of brain cells as George Bush.”
George Bush was educated at Yale and Harvard. So I agree with you, he can’t have nearly the brain cells of a garbage collector let alone a teacher.
Also, I like your comparing the school system with the prison system. Partial solution to the state current budget crises is to set prisoners free. Maybe we could set some school employees free too.
I don’t think
Comment by anachrofella — February 13, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
The only way we can know if public teachers are over/underpaid is to eliminate public education and see what they kind of wages they could then fetch on the open market for their skills. Since this isn’t going to happen anytime soon, the rest is just speculation.
Speaking of prisons, we could sure save a lot of money if we legalized drugs and let all non-violent drug offenders out of jail, not to mention the tax money we could generate by legalizing California’s biggest cash crop. I’m sure prison guards unions wouldn’t like it, but then, many of them would find out if they’re over/underpaid in such a system as well.
Comment by happyrenter — February 13, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
A prison guard makes much more than a teacher…which is a better investment?
By the way going to yale doesn’t make you smart if you bring enough cash to the endowment. It just makes you rich. If you think the George Bush comment was a compliment, then you are dumber than I thought.
Comment by Barbara M — February 13, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
#37 I assume you are referring to the “open market” for private schools as opposed to teachers taking their skill set and seeing what other jobs and wages they could pull down elsewhere. Private schools don’t generally pay better, sometimes worse, though the environment can be a little better in terms of the average student presumably being ready to learn, in contrast to public school where you get all comers.
It is a fact that many of our teachers have come from other professions which paid better or have marketable skills for better paying jobs.
A way to tell if they are paid well enough is to talk to them about the actual hours they spend in the nine month period they actually teach, and how often they spend their own money for supplies, teaching aids, or even paying a teenager a few bucks to help them enter grades in the computer so they meet their grading deadlines without going bonkers. I have known teachers to spend summer break time on prep and voluntarily taking courses at places like U.C. to keep their teaching skills current. They don’t get stipends or compensation for the latter.
Comment by Mark I — February 13, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
38 Since prison guards make so much money and the state is increasing funding for inmate education, maybe there is brightness lining the dark cloud of teacher layoffs. Think what they’d pay for a teacher guard. Teaching school probably a good resume enhancement for guard duty, since a good portion of the students exiting public schools in the afternoon dress like inmates.
Comment by anachrofella — February 13, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
39 Ever talk to a small business owner about how many hours they spend in the twelve month period of a year trying to make a buck without the three armed bandit known as fed/state/localtax stealing it all?
Comment by anachrofella — February 13, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
Learn it, live it, preach it then forget it, great role models.
The Lamoka and AIgonqins lived in New York State thousands of years before the Iroquois stole their land with no compensation given, except death. The Iroquois didn’t enter NYS until 800 A.D. at the earliest and yet they claim it is their original homeland, thousands of years too late. By this hypothesis, a Cayuga born in Oklahoma in the year 2000, is claiming that NYS is their homeland 400 years after the fact. By this same reasoning, they could claim Asia as their homeland as it is considered the origin of all Indians. This Iroquois claim is a farce, a pretense that is not even reasonably true.
Comment by wing-nut — February 13, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
#34 - I agree it was a calculated risk, and I am saddened by it. At one of the BOE meeting where the Measure ‘A’ oversight committee - (the school parcel tax MA)- was reporting They stated the overwhelming # of seniors to opt out, and that it reduced the amount of MA $ far more than anticipated.
Perhaps if we funded education better we would not have to pay to support the irresponsible idiots who took out “deal of the week” mortgages. Why should responsible tax payers have to support people who may have been buying cars trips and ’stuff’ with money that they were ‘borrowing’ with a junk mortgage?
I too feel I am being bled dry of expendable income - who is going to pay my bills if I can’t turn my cash flow around? Why do I have to pay for the transgressions of others.
We will all have to pay more to get CA out of Redevelopment debt too. Should we legalize and tax gambling, drugs and prostitution - oh wait we are already on that path too.
Comment by David Kirwin — February 13, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
#41 Do you have a point about education or are you just taking the opportunity be put down anybody who would make a statement in support of teachers being worth their salt?
I was putting out anecdotal information in an effort to put the teaching career in perspective. Good for the small business person who tries to live out the American dream and busts their hump. Many do it well and hit pay dirt and sell their businesses for a big profit. Hoo-rah! You think for that effort they should pay no taxes or what?
One tires of giving examples of what is involved in teaching in order to justify the rather low wages they get relative to their skill set and effort.
The situation we are in locally and at the state, isn’t primarily about the teacher wage debate. Without any increase in wages beyond COLA, we are in another deficit bind because of the economy. Must be all those small business people who are lousy at what they do and can’t produce enough profit.
If you want to complain about taxes, get your priorities straight. The federal “arm” is pumping 2 BILLION a day into the Pentagon.
Wing-nut has chosen their blogging moniker well.
Comment by Mark I — February 13, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
#42 Wing-nut, please pay attention and try to focus as it is trying my patience to have to bring you up to speed every time you miss-characterize something I have written.
1. Who said the Iroquois were beyond reproach?
2. I was talking about contemporary education and not Native American history.
3. The Iroquois saw other Native Americans like the Lamoka and AIgonqins as other nations and were not concerned with the seventh generation of “others”.
Comment by poguemahone — February 13, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
#41 Ever talk to public school teacher?
Comment by poguemahone — February 13, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
#42 Another point. The Greeks and Romans, among other things, practiced slavery, raped the women whom they conquered, allowed only an elite class of men to participate in politics, sacrificed humans by feeding people to lions, often slaughtered all men, women, and children in conquered towns, and practiced incest and bestiality. Shall we then dismiss the foundations of our own nation?
Comment by poguemahone — February 13, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
#44 do you have a point about teacher’s pay or do you just resort to cliches? How much support is worth a teacher’s salt? Good for the teachers, many do it well and the rest bitch about low pay and not enough taxes going their way. They’re always welcome to try a different vocation. Teaching should be left to kids just out of college and spinsters. Ten years max in the job and move on to real work.
Comment by anachrofella — February 13, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
45 1. you brought them up as role models
2. no you were’nt, you referenced a worthless obviation
3, so why should I give a shit about your seventh generation, Mr. other?
Comment by wing-nut — February 13, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
47. I agree, we should go back and practice our real foundation.
Comment by wing-nut — February 13, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
46. yes, I talk to myself often.
Comment by wing-nut — February 13, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
To save time and energy in regards to any and all future wing-nut and anachrofella post (seems the same person using two names to me) Just assume I have placed the following in response.-
Wow! That was such a knuckle draging dullish, inane remark and a grand example of how just a few genes seperate us from the chimps. Oh look! just like chimps he likes to throw his own shit around!
Comment by poguemahone — February 13, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
#49
Noun 1. obviation - the act of preventing something by anticipating and disposing of it effectively
Huh? 10 cent minds shouldn’t use ten dollar words.
Comment by poguemahone — February 13, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
#48
Here is a short list of kids and spinsters who may or may not have moved on to real work at some point.
Lord Acton, Henry Brooks Adams, John Adams, A. Bronson Alcott, Louisa May Alcott, Susan B. Anthony, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Hannah Arendt, Aristotle, Matthew Arnold, Isaac Asimov, W. H. Auden, Saint Augustine, Simone de Beauvoir, Henri Bergson, Allan Bloom, Charlotte Brontë, Anthony Burgess, Thomas Carlyle, Willa Cather, Confucius, John Dewey, W. E. B. Du Bois, Will Durant, T. S. Eliot, Albert Einstein, Robert Frost, Margaret Fuller, Georg Hegel, Thomas Hobbes, Oliver Wendell Holmes, William James, Lyndon B. Johnson, James Joyce, Immanuel Kant, D. H. Lawrence, C. S. Lewis, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, James Russell Lowell, Herbert Marcuse, John Milton, Friedrich Nietzsche, Plato, Bertrand Russell, George Santayana, May Sarton, Jean-Paul Sartre, Seneca, Adam Smith, Socrates, Anne Sullivan, Henry David Thoreau, Lionel Trilling, Booker T. Washington, Evelyn Waugh, Simone Weil, Thornton Wilder, and Woodrow Wilson
Comment by poguemahone — February 13, 2008 @ 11:50 pm
54 - you forgot Hans Augusto Rey.
Comment by D Kirwin — February 14, 2008 @ 12:16 am
Seems wing-nut has yet to finish school since he can’t even manage to spell weren’t with proper punctuation.
Wing-nut, the apostrophe in a contraction goes where the missing letter would be…. Think of it kind of like thin air and your own brain.
Comment by poguemahone — February 14, 2008 @ 1:22 am
Now, now, boy’s. Let’s not throw too many English usage stones at one another, at least until we are beyond reproach in our own language skills.
Mr. P, kindly examine your # 26, 33, 34, 46, 47, 52, 53 and don’t obviate the obvious.
Comment by spinster — February 14, 2008 @ 8:54 am
Spinster,
Didn’t you get the apple I left on your desk?
Comment by poguemahone — February 14, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
Bottom line: we live in the wealthiest, most productive state in the country. The richest people live here, and bgy the amount of Bimmers, Mercedes, and Land Rovers zooming past me on my commute, there’s a crapload of people here who are rolling in it… unless in reality they’re simply maxed out like so many in the enlightened Bay Area are.
So in essence, the money exists in massive quantities. Find ways to extract that money, prop up your schools, and as we asy in my neck of the woods: Git Er’ done.”
I’m serious. I’m simply blown away that the richest state in the country has one of the worst-ranking school system with some of the worst paid teachers in the nation. Does anyone else see the total idiocy of that?
Comment by edvard — February 14, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
When our political reps earn as little as the majority, or the average of those they represent (which makes sense to me) maybe will will be able to “git ‘er done”
Comment by David Kirwin — February 14, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
59 So the purpose of your elected officials is to extract money, from whomever has it, in order to prop up whatever your, “Git Er’ done” broken bureaucracy needs are?
As I recall, you indicated that you want to pay more for schools. Have you written that check to the school district yet….well have you?
Too bad we’re all not as rich as you
Comment by Jack Richard — February 14, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
After reading the below from a news clip, I hope everyone will call or write every state rep. they can. Does the Journal still list them all in each week’s paper? I haven’t noticed it recently.
Communicating to your reps is easier than shelling out more money on property tax to AUSD. Presently we are paying almost $600 above and beyond what we pay for the guaranteed education that the state is not providing for us.
How many other services do you pay for, and then pay another $590 per year, and still not receive? If your cable company did that to you, would you sit idly by and say nothing to those responsible?
Democracy is not a spectator sport - get active or we all pay more.
—————————————–
-On the gov’s proposed budget:
“As for Governor Schwarzenegger, his assistant Secretary of Education said every department had to be cut in order to not wipe out other programs, such as health care. That the governor made a leadership decision to cut 10 percent across the board of all departments, because he had to deal with a $14.5 billion dollar deficit and he said can’t tax the problem because its going to continue to pop up because of what he calls automatic pilot spending — something that the state mandates he has to do every year.
That is not acceptable to the educators in Alameda County. They are asking for the public’s help. The educators say the legislators are not hearing from the public, so they want the public to write and call your state representative. They hope that hearing from the public will put wind at the back of lawmakers.
Comment by Dave Kirwin — February 14, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
Before any additional taxes are forced upon us, I would first like to see each family with children in the public schools pay $500 per child into the district. Those with children eligible for the school lunch program would be exempt. The rest of us have our own family issues, like how we are going to pay the rising cost of health insurance. I would love it if everyone in Alameda would help to pay for my family’s insurance. Don’t even think of trying to get yet another parcel tax.
Comment by AlamedaNaytiff — February 14, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
#63
Did your parent’s pony up $500 in addition to their taxes or the (equiv. for the times) while and if you went to public school? As a Gen-xer I am sick of some older Americans basicly telling me that my children and I are not entitled to the same “benifits” they had in years past and that “Oh well you are screwed but I got mine!” attitude. I mean a state university education in Ca. used to cost near nothing in the ’50s and ’60s, social security was a non issue, the G.I. bill allowed for a FULLY funded college education even allowing study abroad and enough $$ to the extent that a single G.I. in the ’50s could study in Paris and not have to work!
Comment by poguemahone — February 14, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
What is most ironic, and would be amusing if it were not so critical, is that the old folks who are screaming about taxes are enjoying shocking subsidies from those of us who actually pay the freight.
-Prop 13 shields their untaxed and hugely appreciated real estate wealth
-They can opt out of parcel taxes, which are a pittance to a property owner but essential to schools (which btw, HELPS their property values)
-All while they enjoy a mind-boggling one-two subsidy of Medicare and Social Security.
I suppose it’s only human to say “tax the other guy, not me.” But it does take some mighty brass chutzpah to ride the gravy train and THEN preach that others should pay the way.
Comment by dave — February 14, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
#63 ANT;
As a school district maintenance worker who has 2 kids in AUSD, and has only received 1.5% COLA in the last 6 years combined, while having all health care co-pays increase, (monthly premiums; in person visits; and prescriptions; plus having to pay for dental when that was dropped by provider), why would you want me to pay more for our city’s schools when statewide, we all pay enough for our educational system already?
Your priorities are as skewed as the Governor’s and his over-paid budget dept.
Please, if you don’t want to see the District try to raise additional local taxes for schools, call your representatives – the overpaid ones you help pay for, and tell them to represent you and our educational needs. You shouldn’t have to pay more for our schools – the budget must meet the State Constitution’s educational requirement as the voters mandated by Prop 98. Tell your reps to require a budget the meets the educational funding demanded by law.
Voters also just passed a new set of Indian Gambling agreements because it will raise about $9B over the next 20 years. Do you think an increase of casinos in CA will not bring an increased social cost? Even the $9 B unencumbered by the social cost will not cover the cost of a mere 10% of the State’s Corporate Welfare plan of just our Redevelopment Law’s amassed debt alone. Who do you think is going to cover the $100’s of BILLIONS of bond service debt when those dollars are diverted for the payment of redevelopment debt instead of refilling the state treasury?
Tell yer reps you want the state to pay for benefits to society, not benefits for corporations adding more to the growth we already can not afford!
Comment by David Kirwin — February 14, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
#64 & #65 THANK YOU!
Comment by poguemahone — February 14, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
OOPS! I mean 65, 66.
Comment by poguemahone — February 15, 2008 @ 1:23 am
#65
Ah yes, those greedy geezers. Somehow I recall making 40 years plus of payments into social security and medicare.
AUSD has been in decline for years. When enrollments increase, the district needs to expand — and when they decrease, the district needs to shrink.
Parcel taxes are extremely unfair and regressive — especially the way that Alameda implements them. The owners of large commercial properties and apartment buildings pay the same as the owner of a studio condominium.
Many people are struggling to keep their homes right now. The likelihood of a two-thirds vote in these times is not high. There are only so many opportunities to come back and back and back to taxpayers for more money. Talk of entitlements or greedy geezers will likely not produce more money for the district.
Comment by AlamedaNaytiff — February 15, 2008 @ 7:01 am
#64
Are you also willing to take on the benefits of ten years of depression and five years of world war? The inheritance is not just of the fat years, but the thin years as well.
Comment by AlamedaNaytiff — February 15, 2008 @ 7:09 am
Yes, greedy geezers. I’m standing by that.
Nationally, the wealthiest age- group demographic receiving huge subsidies from the taxpaying (and much less wealthy) younger generation. Funny how one regressive tax offends you, but another delights…
Locally, vast long term property appreciation shielded by Prop 13. Their wealth lightly taxed while others’ wealth is taxed heavily.
You don’t have to like it, but it’s true. Admit it & you’ll gain credibility. But if you’re not after credibility, then by all means, continue to beg for others’ money.
Comment by dave — February 15, 2008 @ 7:22 am
Dave - you are of course correct about Prop 13.
However I doubt it can be repealed for the same reasons it was created. Many, like me are financially on the edge. While I can control how much I purchase a home for, knowing what the associated costs are; like mortgage, taxes, insurance, etc, I cannot control the insanity of others that created the housing bubble. Why should I lose my home because others act out their insanity and irresponsible borrowing practices to artificially inflate everyone’s paper value and real life tax liability?
Prop 13 does require property tax to increase annually; it just protects us from the wild insanity of others. Given that the higher tax burden helps to dampen the over-inflationary home price escalation, I shudder to imagine how the bubble could have been worse without prop 13.
There very fact that CA – the birthplace of “re-development Laws” has such a budget problem shows the fallacy Re-dev benefit. We must halt additional ‘Re-dev debt’ – Financial hell is coming to CA just to repay what is outstanding.
There is one city in LA County (Industry) whose “CIC” has created Re-Dev debt of $1.5 Million per capita of their cit! Who will pay for that? – All the rest of us. There are a couple cities in CA (Fairfield & Palm Desert) that exceed 2 Billion in Re-Dev debt! Remember that of every dollar of ‘tax increment’ that goes to pay the non-voter approved Re-Dev bonds, over 80 % would otherwise be going to the State coffers.
These thoughts are so upsetting I have to go hide my head in the sand. I’ll stay off the computer for a few days. Dave - I do respect your knowledge, but I disagree with what I assume your position to be on prop 13.
Comment by Dave Kirwin — February 15, 2008 @ 8:23 am
DK,
Almost all of the other 49 states tax property at assessed value and update these values as mkts change. Almost all of those other 49 states also have better funded and better perfroming schools than CA. Think there’s a correlation at work?
Voters in those states keep their taxes managable by voting.
P13 is not only counter-productive, it is also unjust. Your only defense is personal, ie that YOU may have to pay more. Can you come up with a valid defense of that actually holds logical & rhetorical water?
Comment by dave — February 15, 2008 @ 8:35 am
Yes Jack,
I’m perfectly happy accepting more in taxes or whatever to support local schools. Also- the fact that you might have less disposable income to put towards something like this I imagine comes from your heavy mortgage, which as I pointed out isn’t anyone’s fault except for those who bought. That’s the besides the point. If everyone is now too “poor” to support what I would envision as a small tax in order to help schools, then we’re in seriously deep doo-doo.
As for the comment that:”Many people are struggling to keep their homes right now. The likelihood of a two-thirds vote in these times is not high. ”
-Screw these people. They bought and knew the consequences. That’s not my fault, the government’s fault, or anyone else’s. It also isn’t the school’s fault, or the kids that go there either. I’m tired of people acting like adult children. I have zero sympathy for any of them.Cry me a river. boo-hoo-you paid 650k for a small crappy house.Am I, a person who stayed out of it because I saw that this whole thing was stupid and rented supposed to feel bad about it?
I find it sad that people paid so much for these houses in the first place and now can’t afford to support the schools of which many paid so much to live near. That’s really, really sad.
I also agree totally with Dave and have all along: Prop 13 is a waste of paper. Get rid of it.
Comment by edvard — February 15, 2008 @ 8:47 am
P13 may seem unjust but it’s only unjust to those who recently bought property and pay property taxes on the value of the property when it was sold. After that, the taxes increases are ceilinged under P13.
# 73 “Voters in those states keep their taxes managable by voting.” Isn’t that what we did in California? As I recall, 13 was a Proposition passed by the voters (and upheld by courts). The remedy for unfair taxation is revolution, perhaps through the ballot box, sometimes through other means.
I did not vote for Prop 13 when it was on the ballot because I believed what was written back about its harmful impact on public education. However, had prop 13 not have passed, I could not have afforded to live in this state much longer at the rate property taxes were increasing.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 15, 2008 @ 9:05 am
Again, a personal, not a sensible or defensible reason to support P13: dear old Jack would have had to pay.
Property values were increasing in the 70’s due in large part to the high inflation of those times. Anyone who had a mortgage on their home was benefitting doubly: home value increasing while inflation eased the debt burden. You’d have done just fine w/o P13, Jack.
Comment by dave — February 15, 2008 @ 9:17 am
The corporate welfare programs, (most notable to me is CA’s re-dev Laws) are a bigger mistake, and have a larger impact on CA education & financial situation than Prop 13.
Don’t cry a river - open yer damned eyes - the $$ is there - CA’s problem is not a lack of income - it is the systemic problem of outgo in the wrong direction.
Dave - “P13 is not only counter-productive, it is also unjust.” - I don’t believe this is a true premise.
Comment by Dave Kirwin — February 15, 2008 @ 9:24 am
77
Splain
Comment by dave — February 15, 2008 @ 9:34 am
First of all, sorry I used some rather strong language. I come from a family of teachers, and education is important to me. Secondly,I fail to see how that the times we’re in now are any worse than if Prop 13 was never passed. As it is now, millions of people are being forced out of the state anyway for much of the same reasons all those old farts moan about their precious prop 13: home prices got too high. So pick your poison, or as elementary science teaches us, an action creates a reaction. Prop 13 is just one such law that creates instability, and I’m not the only one who believes this: I would wager that most CA senators in Sacramento do too.
I think we should take a “pain reading” of how much people would be willing to contribute to the school system. Regardless, the money has to come from somewhere.
Comment by edvard — February 15, 2008 @ 9:51 am
#69 & #70
“Somehow I recall making 40 years plus of payments into social security and medicare.”
My point was that those “entitlements” will either be bankrupt or drastically cut by the time I would like to retire. Is that justified since I did not suffer WWII and the Great Depression? It is so predictable that you even bring them up. They are not carte blanche to screw your grandchildren and great-grandchildren over.
Comment by poguemahone — February 15, 2008 @ 11:00 am
I worked and voted against Prop 13 when it was on the ballot 30 years ago. I also voted for the previous school parcel taxes in Alameda. I don’t think that making rude remarks about those of us over 60 is really going to be of much benefit — nor will scapegoating any one particular group for the current economic situation. Many of those who are in financial difficulties right now also have young children at home. If the biggest problem the next generation faces is larger class sizes, they will indeed be lucky. Far worse could be ahead.
Comment by AlamedaNaytiff — February 15, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
This has less to do with age and more to do strictly with policy and legislation. I also agree with you: pinpointing a specific group over the economic situation doesn’t do any good since the reasons for it’s demise were spread across the entire spectrum.So if I said such, I apologize. I was wrong for doing so. I’m not directing anything to you or anyone in particular. These problems aren’t just for Alameda… it is for the entire state, and nation for that matter.
In other words, everyone drank the kool-aid and bingo- the reason we’re in such bad condition is because everyone bought into the “American dream” a bit too much… especially people with kids who had to stretch in order to do so.Yes- I feel sorry for kids who have parents who are struggling. But if it is only because the parents bought a house, well I’m sorry, but while it is sad, the parents should’ve thought about that in advance. I wish them all the luck in the world. I think there is a dire need for consumer education when it comes to life-altering decisions like buying a house, borrowing money, and financial management. This alone would have probably prevented the malaise that we now seem to be in.
I’m sorry if I sound nasty, but seriously- I can’t tell you how many people I met during the boom who took out every penny they had, borrowed from parents, or some other crazy plan to get into a home. My HOPE is that this time around, people learn their lessons and realize that you should never spend more than 29% of your income on housing, understand that there’s way more to living expenses than just the mortgage ( ie: education costs) and that just as we’re seeing now, prices do not go up forever and in fact came come down almost as fast as they went up, and lastly, the term: “we’re special here” has zero to do with economics
I’m in favor of a more balanced, healthy, maintainable community. That means better access to schools, affordable housing, better infrastructure, better communication between community leaders, and measures that serve to maintain the health of the whole.
The good thing is that during times like these, people really tend to come up with good solutions-mainly out of necessity.We are in one of those times. Let’s think and come up with some ideas. There’s a lot of smart people here. Ready? let’s get crackin!
Comment by edvard — February 15, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
ANT,
Do you not realize that a parcel tax is a microscopic invesntment in your home’s value? School taxes are one of the few if not the only taxes which yield direct & tangible benefits to those that pay them. Better schools = better property values.
WRT to Prop 13, I’m bright enough to know it won’t change soon, if ever, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is most definitely a subsidy that is largely age-based. Feed at that trough if you must, but be a mench & admit you are taking welfare when you do it. What you call “rude,” we who pay call “truth.”
Comment by dave — February 15, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
#83
I am obviously too old, greedy, senile and demented to even dare match wits with you. Education is a good thing? Who knew? What I perceive to be an opinion offered in a rude manner is actually the truth!
My medication is starting to kick in now and the fog is lifting a bit. I have a hazy recollection of a subsidy that especially benefits younger homeowners just beginning to pay off their mortgage. Are you willing to forgo your mortgage interest tax deduction? Just how much money did you cheat the community out of last year you welfare bum? Take that you whippersnapper!
(God, I’m brilliant)
…Time for my nap now… zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Comment by AlamedaNaytiff — February 15, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
ANT,
I will never get snippy with you as I think you are so right on about most things…this one we will part ways but I will agree to disagree and still admire you.
The one thing I will tell you that if you we did what you suggested in #63, we wouldn’t even be close dollar wise. Even if every family put in $500 we wouldn’t even be at half of what we need to maintain the pittance we have now.
I wish I could take a nap now, I’m jealous
Comment by Barbara M — February 15, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
I voted against the community college initiative not because I dislike community colleges or don’t think that they need more money, but because I thought the measure was not good public policy. It set the college fees in stone and took yet another slice out of the budget pie. A cause could be a good one, but the policy measure a bad one.
There is infinite need but finite resources. We may well need to raise taxes to maintain public health and safety. We cannot cut police or fire. Would we want to close the animal shelter? There are many priorities and education is but one of them. I put forward the idea of parents paying a “use fee” as an idea. While we all pay taxes to support transportation, those that cross the bridges also pay a toll. The idea is not far-fetched. My guess is that if you put forward another school parcel tax it will not pass because, a: We’ve already increased the school parcel tax and b: Declining enrollment also means declining support.
Cuts are inevitable. Several schools will probably have to close if the Governor’s budget goes through. We are in lean times and no one really knows how bad it will be nor for how long. I think that once reality sets in people will be more open to compromise. I think that we really need to keep an open mind and consider all options. What if AUSD merged with another district like San Leandro?
Comment by AlamedaNaytiff — February 15, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
85, Very interesting. The pit is indeed bottomless. Even if each family put in 1000 dollars, the schools could not operate. You got what you voted for…live with your democrat leaders.
Comment by anachrofella — February 15, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
San Leandro is in big trouble as a district for so many other reasons than just the budget. I know a teacher in their high school. They have been in lock-down 6 times this school year alone. My uncle lives there in one of the nicer old neighborhoods, he said that his home appreciated about 25% less than it would have if it was in Alameda, because the schools are so bad. I am not always proud of our city’s actions but we look like a bunch of geniuses compared to them. I went to school there and it has become quite a dump. Besides bigger districts don’t mean better.
If closing a couple of the schools were all it would take that would be one thing. We are talking 2-3 elementary schools, 1 middle school and all 20-1 in the classroom. Not to mention no counselors and libraries and we would only be at 1/2 the cuts. I can tell you for sure that these cuts will leave the schools so bad property values will decline. Housing crisis aside, in general people have and are willing to pay more to live in Alameda because there is a very good education available.
Comment by Barbara M — February 15, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
84
Due to AMT (10 grand this year) and other such screwage, it had very little effect on our aggregate tax bill, which approaches half our income.
Comment by dave — February 15, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
#89
You need to defer more of your income.
BTW, parcel taxes are not deductible as they are not based on the value of your property.
Comment by AlamedaNaytiff — February 15, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
YOu need to pay what the rest of us pay.
Imagine a co-worker being taxed at a fraction of your rates because he had been with the company longer. That is essentially the gravy train you are trying (and failing) to justify.
Comment by dave — February 15, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
#91
What do the rest of us pay?
Deferred income is a government incentive to save for retirement. Does this mean that you also oppose 401Ks in addition to the mortgage interest deduction? Are you a flat tax advocate?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/Magic8Ball.gif
Comment by AlamedaNaytiff — February 15, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
#91 Geez Dave - imagine a co-worker doing the same job as you, but making more money than you just because they have been there longer.
Imagine others who you think aren’t so wise or educated as youself who make more money than you.
Then what about the others who never had to work and live on what they inherited - why isn’t everyone entitled to the same?
Life is so unfare
Comment by Self — February 16, 2008 @ 9:31 am
#93 I think taxes and wages are like apples and oranges. There is also a difference between the perception of the unfairness of life (nature) and that of actions (by individuals or groups) which are unjust and imoral.
Comment by poguemahone — February 17, 2008 @ 3:56 am
#94
Taxes and wages are like fruit?
Are you saying that if someone is stuck with an apple they don’t like, they plant oranges?
You have simplified this beyond anything rational or meaningful.
Could you also explain the “nature” vs “Human action” you are refering to in post 93?
Comment by Self — February 17, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
#95
Well there is this little thing called metaphor;
Metaphor-(from the Greek: μεταφορά - metaphora, “a transfer”, in rhetoric “transference of a word to a new sense”, from μεταφέρω - metaphero, “to carry over, to transfer”) is language that directly compares seemingly unrelated subjects.
So, it is obvious that one can not compare taxes to wages as they are two entirely different things although are both money related. Apples, oranges, fruit. Get it? How is that not rational?
The unfair in nature: A baby born with a heart defect dies.
Unjust, immoral action(s): A baby is born and it’s mother kills it.
Comment by poguemahone — February 17, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
96. A more apt metaphor would be comparing taxes and wages to asses and kissing. And since you’ve chosen yourself as chief editor, you might remind yourself that “immoral” is incorrectly spelled in your early Sunday morning # 94 declaration of sagacity.
Comment by Hmmm — February 18, 2008 @ 9:02 am
If you are reading this, you already know AUSD finances (and so Alameda schools, Alameda kids and Alameda’s quality of life) are in big trouble and that we’ve got some horrible days ahead of us.
If there is any good news in all of this, it is that a significant number of community members are already working to fight to stop or at least to mitigate the harm coming our way. I have to believe more will join us as the full dimensions of what confronts Alameda becomes more clear to more people. For anyone interested, here are ideas about what we are doing and could/should be doing. I know we’ll all be hearing much more about all this in the coming weeks and months. To put it bluntly, we have to do everything we can at both the state and local levels to prevent a catastrophe.
**Local: Parcel Tax/Private Fundraising**
Locally, it is quite likely that there will be a very tough but critical campaign this spring to expand/extend the AUSD parcel tax culminating with a vote on June 3. At its next meeting on February 22, the AUSD school board will have its first discussion about parcel tax options to offset loss revenue. Among other things, we must also continue to expand private fundraising locally.
**State: Advocacy Day to Stop Budget Cuts**
Although we have much less control over what happens at the state than local level, there is much to be done there a well. For example, I know a fair number of Alamedans are heading to Sacramento for “Advocacy Day” on February 27. There does seem to be a relatively high level of mobilization statewide against the Governor’s proposal to cut/gut $4.5 billion dollars (which, as you know, translates into roughly 4.5 million dollars from AUSD) over the next 15 months or so, though mobilization statewide certainly doesn’t guarantee results, especially since passing the CA budget requires a 2/3 vote.
**State: AUSD’s Low BRL**
Most of the media coverage of the statewide education budget battle has been about the overall size of the “education pie” (e.g., “Don’t shrink the pie below its Prop 98 constitutionally mandated size!”). I want to remind you that, among many other things, we could and should also continue to fight agsinst AUSD’s unfairly small slice of the pie, however large or small the pie turns out to be. We now have the lowest Base Revenue Limit (“BRL”) in Alameda County. Moreover, our BRL is below the state average, even though (a) the cost of living/doing business in this county is approximately 118% of the statewide average and is among the very highest in the entire state and (b) the percentage of English language learners here is higher than average.
**State: Litigation**
As you may recall, last spring Ann Casper and I led a group that investigated litigation as one approach (among many) that we might pursue to improve the financial condition of AUSD (either by expanding the statewide education pie or by expanding our slice so we would get our fair share). Both Ann and I are (1) lawyers, (2) parents of AUSD students, and (3) teachers at Alameda High. Last spring, we spent a very large amount of time and energy researching and seeking advice about the prospects for litigation from some of the very most experienced, expert people in the field of California school finance. We managed to obtain what amounted to thousands of dollars of (free) legal analysis and advice on whether (and if so, when and how) litigation might be viable. Among the many people we talked to were Goodwin Liu, Professor of Law at Boalt Hall (U.C. Berkeley) and Mike Kirst, Professor of Education and Business Administration at Stanford University. (Professors Liu and Kirst recently have begun to push a school finance reform plan in Sacramento that I’ll explain below and that I think we should join).
In June Ann and I concluded that, subject to many caveats, litigation *is* potentially viable, though the barriers to success through litigation would be truly massive and could prove ultimately to be insurmountable. We also concluded that, even if we were to find allies, funding litigation would likely be prohibitively expensive unless we were able to secure pro bono representation or allies with very deep pockets and that this could all take as long as 8-10-12 years. Anyone interested can link to/read our report under Agenda Item #9 from the June 12, 2007 school board meeting, a summary of which you can reach here (scroll down to agenda item #9 and click on the word “report”): http://mikemcmahon.info/boe_meeting0612.htm
Ann and I have continued to work on this “litigation project” since June and have continued to make slow but steady progress towards the very difficult and delicate process of finding counsel willing to take this case pro bono. We don’t yet have anything major to report, but I want to reassure anyone interested that we are still working slowly but steadily on the “litigation project.” Late last week I also learned/confirmed that other groups are also considering the viability of an “educational adequacy case” and that those groups may be referring to our analysis as part of that consideration. So, the “litigation project” is alive and we’re still working on it. On the other hand, I don’t want anyone to count on a lawsuit to bail us all out anytime soon. As I said above, I really believe we have to do everything we can at both the state and local levels to prevent a catastrophe.
**State: Liu/Kirst/Bersin Plan**
Last spring I did talk extensively with both Professor Liu and Professor Kirst, whom I mentioned above. Along with Alan Bersin (former California secretary of education and current member of the State Board of Education), Professors Liu and Kirst are right now pushing a school finance reform plan in the legislature that (a) would be good public policy and (b) would likely benefit AUSD by expanding AUSD’s slice of the pie, however large the state pie might end up to be. The main principles of their plan are that (1) the state finance system must systematically provide greater resources to districts with more disadvantaged students, (2) revenue allocations should be adjusted for regional wage differences so that education dollars have similar purchasing power across the state, (3) the system should be simple, transparent and easily understood and (4) to promote stability and political feasibility, reforms should apply only to new money without reducing any district’s current revenue, and Proposition 98 should be left intact. The plan they are pushing would enact legislatively NOW roughly the best outcome/remedy we could hope to achieve from any lawsuit years from now.
I realize that relying on the state legislature hasn’t been a winning strategy very often, but this looks like a great plan and these guys have a significant amount of “juice” among the “players” in Sacramento. So, in addition to whatever other lobbying we might undertake in Sacramento, please consider bringing this up with any legislators/aides you might encounter at Advocacy Day or anywhere else. For those interested in learning more about the Liu/Kirst/Bersin Plan, you could read this Sacramento Bee story: http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/628541.html and/or this article from the website of U.C. Berkeley School of Law - Boalt Hall (where Professor Liu teaches and where I went to law school): http://www.law.berkeley.edu/news/2008/liu20608.html
There’s plenty more than this going on, of course. But that’s my two cents for now. Happy President’s Day!
Comment by Rob Siltanen — February 18, 2008 @ 10:04 am
96 Pogoschtik -
Your fruit methaphors and your your opinions of distinction between unfare and immoral have nothing thing to do with the topic of Prop 13 which was the topic of #91 & 93.
If you think they do, please explain.
Comment by Self — February 18, 2008 @ 10:35 am
98
What are the teacher’s union position on all and each of these proposals? Do they play any part whatsoever? We constantly read about the power of the prison guard union, yet very little about the unions which represent teachers.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 18, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
#96
If you are trying to be witty and clever you have sadly missed the mark and fumbled into stupid and pathetic. Good job on finding a typo though. Congratulations!
#99 Selfabuser-
Obviously the thread has devolved and gone off topic to some degree. In #91 dave made a comment about taxes on wages to illustrate how property tax under prop 13 was unjust. You then made an unsuccessful analogy between his reference to taxes and tried to compare it to how wages are paid. I have since been attempting to illustrate that you can not compare taxes to wages just as you can not compare apples to oranges. You also said “Life is so unfare.(sic)” To which I tried to point out that acts of nature are more precisely characterized as unfair but that human action(s) are perhaps better described as unjust and or immoral rather than unfair.
Follow?
Comment by poguemahone — February 18, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
re #100: I’m curious too, but I don’t know. Yes.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — February 18, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
Voice your concerns. Call and write to those that represent you.
___________________________________
Senator
Don Perata
District Number 09
Offices-
1515 Clay Street
Suite 2202
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 286-1333
300 S. Spring Street
Suite 8501
Los Angeles, CA 90013
(213) 620-3000
Capitol Office-
State Capitol
Room 205
Sacramento, CA 94248-0001
(916) 651-4009
___________________________________
Assembly Member
Sandre Swanson
District Number 16
Office address-
1515 Clay Street
Suite 2204
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 286-1670
Capitol Office-
State Capitol
Room 6012
Sacramento, Ca
94249-0016
(916) 319-2016
___________________________________
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160
San Francisco Office
455 Golden Gate Avenue
Suite 14000
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: 415-703-2218
Fax: 415-703-2803
Comment by poguemahone — February 18, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
Re: #101 For clarification- I was referring to comment by Hmmm at #97 and obviously not my own at #96.
Comment by poguemahone — February 18, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
Pogo - I’m still puzzled by your posts 94 & 96, I will not bother with them again after this, but here I’ll try to explain the obvious again to you
Prop 13 is neither unfair nor unjust – even by your terms; as voted in by a majority of society; it neither falls as an unfortunate natural occurrence, and I doubt even you would claim that democracy is “immoral.”
Buying a house, for a home or for profit, is also neither unfair nor immoral. It is a choice. Property taxes are part of the deal when you buy property.
Starting or changing a career is also a choice. If you start a new job, say as a teacher in Alameda, you may be working alongside others who solely because of their length of time on the job are making perhaps $20 - $30k more per year than you. You may be a better teacher while they have remained in the position long enough to achieve more step/column increases. This is not unfair (you may say immoral). This is the way the system is approved to serve the greater good. It wouldn’t work out best for you, and in the same way Prop 13 doesn’t work out for people who like to keep moving.
Another new home buyer may lament the ‘unfairness’ of Prop 13 because they are just now entering the home buying market. To that I would respond that indeed life can be unfair, as I know many people who have never had to work for a living. In other words, in life we all have different starting points, different challenges, and different milestones. The advantage to the new home buyer now lamenting the unfairness of Prop 13 is that in future years the buyer’s ownership of their home will remain protected by Prop 13.
Comment by self — February 18, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
Selfabuser,
1st point-
“Prop 13 is neither unfair nor unjust-” Your OPINION not a FACT.
Proposition 13 disproportionately affects coastal areas, such as Los Angeles and the Bay Area, where housing prices are higher, over inland communities, where housing prices are lower.
Cities and localities have become more dependent on funds from the state, which transferred to the state more power over local towns and cities than they otherwise would have had. Local governments have also become more dependent on sales taxes for funds, which has resulted in poor land planning and encourages cities towards more retail stores and “big box”-type outlets and the jobs and ongoing sales tax those stores provide, rather than encouraging the growth of other sectors and types of jobs that may provide better opportunities for residents. In addition, cities have turned to an increase in fees to make up for the shortfall.
California’s Proposition 13 has introduced major problems of equity and efficiency into the state’s tax structure. An analytical approach to examining a tax policy is to apply the traditional principles of taxation, including equity, allocative efficiency, revenue yield/elasticity and administrative and political feasibility. Equity reflects the basic values of how our society determines different groups should be treated; these values include horizontal and vertical equity, ability to pay and benefits received. Allocative efficiency refers to the ways in which a tax policy influences changes in private consumption behavior. Revenue yield and elasticity refer to whether a revenue policy has the capacity to increase in the future in order to continue enabling government agencies to meet the demands of its residents. Lastly, administrative and political feasibility refer to whether a tax policy can be implemented and enforced with relatively little effort and is politically possible.
Proposition 13 freezes the value of properties at the time of purchase with a possible two percent annual assessment increase. Therefore, properties of equal value have a great amount of variation in their assessment, even if they are next to each other. Assuming that the price of a house is somewhat a determinant of a person’s wealth (and therefore ability to pay) and benefit received, this feature would lead neighbors or business owners who purchased a property at different periods of time to pay a different assessment, without any relationship to ability to pay or benefits received. Overall, these qualities create serious inequities and potentially introduce some amount of repressiveness into the tax structure.
Proposition 13 contributes to an inefficient housing market because it provides dis-incentives for selling property in favor of remaining at the current property and modifying or transferring to family members in order to avoid a new, higher assessment. California has more rigidity and friction in both its housing market and in renting due to the policy; one study comparing California’s market to that of other states found that it increased tenure in owned homes by 10% and in renting by 19%. D.R. Mullins points out that “prospects of increased property tax liabilities triggered by residence or business location changes likely constrain mobility and filtering in the housing and property markets.” If these policies favor remodeling or modifying over buying, the policy would have efficiency implications because it limits individuals’ mobility from one community to another and other private economic activity.
Because homeowners keep their homes for longer, young households often rent for longer before buying a house. Because Proposition 13 is a disincentive to sell, there is less turnover among owners near the older downtown areas, and prices have appreciated fastest in these areas. Young people who would be wealthy in other states are “house poor” in California, and are forced to live dozens of miles from their workplace in order to afford a home. Thus, the Proposition can be seen as a transfer tax from the working classes to the retired class, as retirees are subsidized and the young have fewer working hours in their day because of long commutes.
Immigrants are another class of losers under Proposition 13, since they come from other states where real estate is more affordable (due to property taxes being a larger fraction of the overall tax base) and their real estate equity buys less in the California housing market. However, Proposition 13 is not the only factor working on California’s housing market to create these conditions: as it grows, fewer places available to build new housing result in higher prices for existing housing. Because of geographical limits and enacted environmental and growth legislation from cities and counties, new development is increasingly expensive. California also has high rates of migrants from other countries and a high birth rate, which has contributed to higher demand for housing, and it has low amounts of moderately priced housing due to the increased property tax liability after a sale. In effect, because the different tax treatment makes real estate more valuable to the current owner than to any potential buyer, selling it makes no economic sense. This same policy has had a higher effect on migrants and African-Americans than whites, with both groups staying longer in their homes or renting for longer than whites.
Similarly, Proposition 13 greatly benefited homeowners whose homes have appreciated in value since it was passed, particularly those (such as the elderly) whose incomes have not risen as fast as property values. In cities with many older residents, this has led to a severe shortage of affordable housing, since new developments must often be far above the state’s median home price in order to provide enough tax revenue to pay for the services they require. Impact fees have offset this problem somewhat, but are limited by developers’ ability to go “jurisdiction shopping” for localities with low impact fees.
One other complaint of young couples that are trying to buy a house is the fact that people that have retained their houses for several years have not only had the benefit of paying low property taxes but also are able to sell their property for a big premium. This a double “whammy” for these people. In order to afford a house, for young couples, both the husband and wife have to work. In essence, young couples and home buyers are subsidizing the real estate investment portfolios of those who have owned for longer periods. This is analogous to the same situation that was used as an excuse to push Prop 13 in that taxes from one district were being diverted to other districts. In this case, higher taxes from recent buyers subsidize the more established people in the district.
Owners of commercial real estate have also benefited: if a corporation owning commercial property (such as a shopping mall) is sold or merged, but the property stays technically deeded to the corporation, ownership of the property can effectively change hands without triggering Proposition 13’s provision that fixes the amount of tax based on the property’s resale value. Since many properties owned by large companies are nominally owned by shell companies whose sole assets are the properties in question, this has led to situations that have struck many as absurd and unfair, with companies taking a lesser percentage of the overall tax burden than private homeowners. Smaller property owners do not have the “shell company” advantage that large property owners do. As an example, the Times has reported that the property tax bill of the historic Capitol Records building in Hollywood is approximately five cents per square foot, while a small house assessed at $300,000 may pay up to 60 times that on a per-square-foot basis. This situation unfairly benefits commercial property owners and should be changed.
2nd point-
Uh, yeah you buy a house you pay property tax. So?
3rd point-
Why are we comparing the tenure system of pay that is common in the teaching profession to property taxes? Again apples to oranges. It has nothing to do with lame property tax schemes such as prop 13.
Comment by poguemahone — February 18, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
Thanks for #103
this makes it easier to make the calls.
Comment by Dave Kirwin — February 19, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
poguemahone,
Thank you! That pretty much sums it all up. I’ve been thinking about this for a few weeks now. Admittedly, what bothers me the most about the whole Prop 13 and the raucous property booms and busts in this area is the sort of incredibly disproportionate disparities between generations of homeowners. As poguemahone pointed out above, young people in this state who would be deemed as wealthy in others- even with fundamentals adjusted for each- are poor in comparison as to what their incomes will buy in the form of a home. On the other hand, talk to any number of older homeowners here, and you’ll likely find many who work or worked at such jobs as teachers, insurance salesmen, mechanics, or in the case of one gentleman I met- a welder. None of these people would come close to affording what they live in now. While this isn’t “wrong”, it also doesn’t seem right.
In other words, California has turned into the modern equivalent of what used to be called the “Landed Gentry”. I’m actually reading a book about the history of New York at the moment, circa 1840’s and 1850’s. The book discusses at length the class of New Yorkers called by that same name- landed gentry- as those who moved there prior to the escalation in home and land prices and subsequently enjoyed a high degree of comfort from none other than the marked appreciation of their land. At the same time, many of these same people also vehemently opposed new development, bridges, water works, housing developments, and streets. Just like we find in the Bay Area, this covered legislation in miles of red tape. Just like the Bay Area, this naturally caused the cost of development to rise, which in turn made these same class of people extremely wealthy, whom I assume didn’t complain once the price became too sweet to resist.
Again, there’s nothing ‘technically’ wrong with making laws that benefit one generation over another. But it also begs to ask what good does this do for the future of others?
Comment by edvard — February 20, 2008 @ 8:37 am
If you are suffering from Measure A forum fatigue and want to change of discussion then I offer for your consideration: the February 26 Board of Education meeting at City Hall.
Agenda items include:
G-1 Denial of Charter Application for Renaisannce Leadership Academy
G-2 Changes to Elementary School Capacity
G-3 Budget Reductions Totaling over $1.3 million for 08/09 including eliminating athletics -and Music for grades 1-3
G-4 Proposed Emergency Parcel Tax Resolution for June Ballot ($120 per residential parcel and 15 cents per square foot for commercial/industrial)
More details and background:
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/agenda.htm
Comment by Mike McMahon — February 24, 2008 @ 5:34 am