Opt in, opt out
There is this very odd notion that seems to flying around some people’s heads that the problems of AUSD lies in mismanagement of funds. One of the recent Letters to the Editor to the Alameda Journal closed with this line:
…Perhaps we need leaders, not politicians or administrators, who can live within their means.
While certainly the writer did preface the statement by saying that he had no kids in school, this then tells me that his information about the school district and its operations is probably pretty minimal. Although honestly, not having children yet in school is really no excuse for not following school district issue, particularly if you are going to critique and criticize as though you come from a place of knowledge.
So I present you this as some “food for thought,” the blog San Francisco Schools has posted a list of headlines compiled throughout the state of California about the state of education. There are about 13 headlines alone that talk about cuts and layoffs from local state school districts statewide, and that was only a one day compliation. If you go to FCMAT’s website, where the information was initally aggregated, more and more headlines about layoffs and cuts appear. Is this a case of serial mismanagment throughout the state from school district to school district? Or is this indicative of a larger statewide financial problem that is landing on the backs of our children? Our reaction locally should be one of trying to solve the problem, whether or not you have a child in school or not. Not arguing about whether or not seniors should be exempted or whether people on state disability (with single family homes) should be exempted as well.
When I first heard about the parcel tax, I have to admit that my first reaction was: “I’m not going to support it if it exempts seniors!” But I quickly realized that there is no other option. There is no silver bullet as other folks have been saying. Suspending redevelopment in Alameda is not going to magically bring more money in for the school district. Bitching about Prop 13 isn’t going to help fund JROTC, or music programs, or sports programs before they get cut.
Remember that this parcel tax also contains a strong commercial and industrial portion which makes our corporate citizens support our schools. There are no exemptions for them. Are we willing to lose that possible source of funding for our schools because you’re pissed off that Granny down the street on a fixed income might not have to pay? Rather than get mad at Granny down the street on a fixed income, instead maybe we should be wagging a finger at those over 65 seniors that can afford to pay and opt not to. For example, hypothetically if one can fund a campaign to the tune of almost $100K of one’s own money, one probably shouldn’t be allowed to opt out of a $120 a year parcel tax.
What the bottom line is, everyone one is going to say they simply cannot afford to pay this parcel tax, but on the other hand, can we afford not to?
Yes, we can … to use a phrase! We can certainly afford to not pay the parcel tax, while the seniors get away scot free. Any argument about Granny on a fixed income is offset by the fact that Granny pays pittance as property taxes due to prop 13.
Comment by Phil S — February 29, 2008 @ 7:39 am
AUSD is certainly living beyond its means. Why don’t we see the administrative staff offering to take a paycut … don’t we ALL need to make sacrifices?
Comment by Phil S — February 29, 2008 @ 7:40 am
Opt different
“There is no silver bullet as other folks have been saying.”
I’m afraid the silver on this particular bullet is losing its luster.
I think it’s time for kemosabe to search his cartridge belt for something a little more creative.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 29, 2008 @ 8:57 am
Jack and Phil….offer details.
Phil what is the admin overspending that you can identify? How is our superintendent overpaid?
Jack, what is a more creative solution that can be enacted quickly to offset cuts that are heading this way now?
Comment by Johnknoxwhite — February 29, 2008 @ 9:20 am
Here are the numbers of parcels that exercised the senior exemption over the last two years:
2005/06 17,341 total parcels 2,083 senior exemptions
2006/07 17,421 total parcels 2,044 senior exemptions
Comment by Mike McMahon — February 29, 2008 @ 9:56 am
To me Phil has somewhat of a point about granny getting over on prop 13 and therefore she should have the comparatively smaller sum for a parcel tax. And when granny theoretically (this is all theoretical) cashes out on her home to pay for assisted living, the good schools will bring a better price for the house.
But then Phil loses me by assuming without citing any specifics (presumably because he has none) that salary cuts could close the gap.
Phil, should the $7.7 in the last 7 years have come out of salaries too? What is it about the teaching profession which dictates teachers should be so altruistic as to work for free? But teacher’s wages aren’t even a central issue in the calculus of this parcel tax because the other bone cutting is so great.
Another letter by Leland Traiman seems to assume, I think a little unfairly, that we should have foreseen the foreclosure crisis and ensuing economic slump, and should have been working on a more intricate taxation since this situation was inevitable. On the part about a more intricate system, I’m willing to listen, but second guessing won’t get us out of this jam.
In the past I have understood the pragmatic reality of trying to sell a flat tax amount to the electorate, especially in these triage situations, but it does seem that there is as much opposition to the mechanism as to the basic idea of a tax.
Comment by Mark I — February 29, 2008 @ 10:29 am
Re Phil S. and “Living Beyond Means,” sometimes I think we might be looking at this in all the wrong ways. Maybe we should be asking what do we think public schools in the (arguably) richest nation in the world should provide: instruction in reading, writing, science, math, music, physical education–support for children who have special needs and support for children who are gifted. If we think that children ought to have these things, that our democracy and our nation is based on educating our youth–future citizens who will one day be running this country–then we might ask how much does it cost to provide real schools? And, because the state is not doing it, the pressure is on, if people want functioning services, to raise taxes locally. Public institutions–just like people–are imperfect, but the bottom line is that AUSD has been making do with very little, and less and less each year, and if we want to live in a place that’s safe and comfortable, and if we want our property values to continue to rise (or fall less) then we need to pay for the services that draw people to live in our community.
Comment by Eve — February 29, 2008 @ 10:52 am
I am glad to see Eve’s comment #7. I am so tired of the good citizens trying to find ways to deal with the extremely unstable system of funding our local governments and public schools that has existed since Proposition 13 and also the court decision declaring property tax funding of schools to be unconstitutional. Since then, we have been on one big slide in public education, with schools trying to come up with new ways to cut costs every year.
As a California native, I was fortunate to attend public schools from 1959 through 1972. My public school in a suburb was well funded and my preparation so good that I barely studied my first two years of college. In my senior year of high school, I learned that though my school district only needed about $1.50 per $100 of assessed value to fund the district to provide excellent education, places like Boyle Heights needed more like $5 or $6 per $100 to fund a marginal one. Of course that was unfair, but the solution of transferring funding responsibility to the state has put us in the current situation.
I don’t know what the fair and equitable solution is to the funding of our schools, not just in Alameda but statewide. I think we are shortchanging our future by continuing to de-fund our public schools. I would like to support changes to Prop 13 as a start, even though I am a beneficiary of the low property tax for my own home, and within not too many years will be on a fixed income. The state’s roller coaster funding has created the problem for our district this year, and so stabilizing the state’s funding seems to be essential.
Changes I would make to the property tax law, in the order I would make them:
1. Change commercial property to annual reassessment at market rate, not requiring an ownership change for reassessment at market rate, with a cap of no change more than 5% in one year (up or down), after initial reassessment from Prop 13 artificially low rate.
2. Change residential property to annual reassessment at market rate, not requiring ownership change, with a cap of no change more than %5. EXCEPT, allow seniors to be excepted from these changes and continue property tax based on the current law (no more than 1% change in assessment per year, travelling exemption).
3. Return to majority rule. Allow property tax rate increase with a majority vote, rather than 2/3.
I would like the insanity of this year’s cuts that will have to be made because of the state’s lack of planning to be the impetus for change, not just local parcel taxes.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — February 29, 2008 @ 11:59 am
I do not think that the third time is going to be a charm for a parcel tax. We have been there before and it has worn thin. (Having voted for the previous two parcel taxes, I do not think that I am alone in saying that.) I would strongly urge another route…perhaps the one that JR suggested. Perhaps a district sales tax…perhaps…???
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 29, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
Yes, the price of housing in California is going down but the quality of life in Alameda helps stablize it somewhat. What do you think the value of our houses will be in 3 years if we don’t have the parcel tax? I am sure Real Estate agents can’t wait till they can tell the potencial buyers “yes, we have a great soccer program for your kids but they won’t be able to read the rules”. Let’s say the tax is $150 per year and you go to sell it in 3 years, do you really think you would regret that $450? I have a feeling it would be the best $450. you ever spent. Want to put in real terms compare the houses on the Piedmont/Oakland boarder streets. Practically the same house will sell for $100K more in Piedmont because of the schools.
The county can do a sales tax for all the schools in the county but then we would just get our portion. We wouldn’t have the say or oversite. If we are going to have to pay it one way or another, shouldn’t we keep our dollars in our town and have a real say where they go.
Comment by Barbara M — February 29, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
YOu beat me to it, Barbara; I was just getting ready to cite the Oak/Piedmont border. It is a most instructive example.
Perhaps second only to Jack Richard, I am against nearly any tax increase in an already overtaxed state, but a school tax is a horse of a different color. It’s not throwing money down a bureaucratic rathole, as our rapacious state income & sales taxes are. Rather, it is probably the only tax which tangibly benefits the people who pay it, as well as the community as a whole.
I’m flummoxed as to why people refuse to pay a few hundred dollars a year that adds tens if not hundreds of thousands to their property value.
Comment by dave — February 29, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
Perhaps people refuse to pay “a few hundred dollars” because they are opposed to handouts of any sort?
The Dow is down 300 today … good luck asking people to shell out another $120!
If Barbara M is so concerned about her kids, why not have all the parents pony up the extra $$$? After all, it is their kid(s) who are going to benefit so why not do the right thing instead of asking for handouts from the entire city?
Comment by Jason Chen — February 29, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
Foodstamps are handouts.
Welfare is a handout.
Schools are an investment which benefit property owners as well as the entire community.
If you don’t understand the difference, maybe your school was underfunded….
Comment by dave — February 29, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Thanks Dave!
The only way to get people off food stamps and welfare is to educate them. If their parents are on assistance they can’t afford to pay for school. So JASON would you like the welfare rolls to grow so your federal and state taxes go up (that is what happens when the cycle continues) You will have no say what-so-ever where that goes or anything, it is just put into a terrible system. The alternative is to pay for education locally and have a real say in how it is spent. How many opportunities do you have to have coffee with the person spending your tax dollars. The truth is these board members are right here and very accessible. On top of that you have a great very active group of about 50 parents/concerned citizens (of course that is just the core group) working on school reform. It will take quite a while but we are aggressively working on the real problem.
Comment by Barbara M — February 29, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
“Yes, the price of housing in California is going down but the quality of life in Alameda helps stablize it somewhat.”
Depends on who you’re asking. It’s interesting that FINALLY, people in the Bay Area are first- admitting that yes, the property boom is over, and secondly and only more recently, that their property values are going down.
For people like me and my wife, whom make well over the area median income, the “quality of life”, meaning the ability to buy even a starter home has frankly been really crappy. There is no reason why homes here or anywhere else no matter how nice it is should be roughly 10 times median income. All it does is drain the pockets of citizens and wreak havoc with the economy as it is now doing.
I hope that by now, most of you now get that higher home prices doesn’t equal quality of life, but in fact, no matter whether you own or rent, actually degrades it.
I for one do not agree with the notion that prices even now are remotely close to being healthy or acceptable. While nobody has a crystal ball, I’m fairly comfortable with a 20-30% haircut, or at least to levels that predate 2003 when the whole subprime mess became paramount to California’s continuing price escalation.I don’t believe that estimate is at all unreasonable, and especially not if Bond insurers fail, which by the looks of things might actually might happen.
Lastly, if many of you here get your wish and prices just keep right on going through the roof… then who cares if your kids get a great education; they aren’t going to stick around here because they won’t be able to afford it.
Invest in your children’s future. Assure them that they too will have a chance versus placing the cost burden entirely on their shoulders.
Comment by edvard — February 29, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
#13
Government programs that benefit you are an investment. Government programs that benefit someone else are handouts. Hungry, homeless and malnourished children wandering the streets in rags could affect property values in the community. Don’t fund welfare and food stamps for them, do it for you and your real estate investment.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 29, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
If you live in Alameda and don’t see any connection between the quality of Alameda’s schools and your own personal quality of life, I don’t know what to tell you, other than you’ve got rocks in your head.
There are surely better ways to fund education than the blunt set of tools we currently have available to us. But I’m not about to sit around and wait for Prop 13 to be fixed, sales taxes to be implemented, etc., while the school district slowly chokes.
I’m going to be campaigning my ass off in support of this tax, imperfect though it is.
Comment by Andy Currid — February 29, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
You cannot keep going back to the same well over and over and over. The last parcel tax barely passed. If I knew that parcel taxes were going to become an addiction, I would have voted against the previous ones. The earlier ones passed during different economic times. It is unlikely that yet another will be passed. The board is in a panic about what to do and is resorting to previous behavior. The board needs to come up with another approach.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 29, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
# 4
John, I did offer my alternative:
“One hundred dollars per citizen, let’s make it citizens 18 and over. Population of Alameda around 74,000 minus under 18 equals about 55,000. 55K X $100 = 5.5 mil. If that would save DK’s social fabric, I’d kick in my hundred a year without qualms.
Should be billed completely separate from property tax. Make it and call it an “A City of Alameda Public School Survival Fee” payable at the beginning of each school year by every well meaning citizen of the city. I’m probably the biggest anti-tax guy on this blog but I’d do it for DK and the kids.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 28, 2008 @ 8:23 am”
If it were done right, even with a high shirk rate the schools would get a good amount. Like Barbara M, I’d even kick in for a shirker. Here’s the pay off. $100 gets you a blue plastic card with your name and the fact that you paid your well meaning citizen for AUSD support. Add a hundred for a shirker and you get a silver card, 2C gets a gold card, 3C platinum card.
As far as I’m concerned, like ANT, I’ll opt out of another parcel tax increase but would gladly pay an AUSD GC fee.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 29, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
Jack,
What about DK and the kids…come on I am begging, please. I promise to vote against next great tax collecting scheme the state comes up with, you choose. This is local, it is for the kids and the school board members I know and Ardella are a great and a smart bunch (just screwed by the terminator), we really need your help. If I could figure how to write yours up so we could actually collect it trust me I would be right there, I’ll even anti-up for the under 18 in my house (so I will take 5 platinum cards please)
Comment by Barbara M — February 29, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
#18
If the district appears addicted to parcel taxes - not something I agree with, incidentally - I think that’s mostly because of a lack of viable alternatives.
The scheme Jack outlined (in #19 and elsewhere) sounds great - hell, your contribution could even be federally deductible, unlike a parcel tax - until you face the reality that without making it a mandatory tax, only a minority will actually step up and pay it. (And that’s not the same as saying only a minority would be in favor of helping the schools; good intentions don’t automatically translate into action, especially where cash is concerned.) The only option for the school district to raise revenues today is a parcel tax.
When I look at the program the Alameda Education Foundation is building, I see some concrete, well-thought out steps that aim to change the long-term funding picture; lobbying for changes at the state level, investigating legal options to force fairer treatment of our district, etc. Maybe those changes will reduce the need for new parcel taxes in future. But all those activities have a 5+ year horizon, they’re not going to solve the problem we’re facing down now.
I think it’s worth noting that while the current budget crisis comes in the midst of a meltdown in the housing market (and perhaps on the leading edge of a recession), those economic conditions appear to be largely irrelevant with respect to how our schools fare. In the past 7 years we’ve had to cut over $7 million from school district budgets, while the California economy has grown through some of the fattest times we’ve ever seen.
It sucks. So sign me up; fix school funding at the State level, fix Prop 13 - but don’t let the patient die on the table while we’re pushing for that.
Comment by Andy Currid — February 29, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
Every time we have tried to fund anything through any sort of a tax the same folks make the argument that it is not a lack of funds, but some sort of profligacy and waste, not to mention graft and corruption that is causing the shortage of money. As a thirty-five year observer of our school district’s struggles, I see that there is a huge state-wide structural funding issue, made more complex in Alameda by the closure of the Naval Air Station, the passage of Jarvis-Gann, the rather crazy court decisions apportioning money we send to the State from our local taxes based on our “before” tax rates (we had a low tax rate partially due to our lovely income from the Feds for our military kids, which dried up), etc. The School Board and Staff have little jurisdiction over the vast majority of our funds - one of the consequences of Jarvis and other laws, and must constantly meet unfunded State mandates with the pittance of discretionary money they control. If you want good schools, you must be willing to pay for them.
We are not Piedmont. We are educating kids from many levels of economics, language proficiency, and special needs, and that takes money.
If you want fewer people on welfare and food stamps, people with healthier life styles, etc., then study after study have shown that investment in a good educational system is one excellent way to insure that outcome. You get what you pay for.
In addition to being willing to pay more tax, how many of those critical of the school’s finance and performance are regular classroom volunteers or out raising money to supplement what the District can offer? How many are participating in tutoring, English as a second language, or adult literacy programs? Methinks too few among the critics and naysayers; it’s easier to throw bricks than to give of oneself to participate in building something.
Comment by Kate Quick — February 29, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
All,
re the comments regarding AUSD taking another route than a parcel tax - we don’t have a choice. While cities & counties can change sales taxes, change fees charged for services and otherwise ‘enhance revenue’ in any number of ways, Prop 13 ties the hands of school districts.
The ONLY way that a school district can legally generate revenue for its general fund is by passing a parcel tax that is supported by 2/3 +1 of the voters. Districts are allowed to place bond measures on a ballot for construction/facilities/equipment that only need a 55% majority, although there are some restrictions on this.
I’d personally be thrilled if we had other avenues to explore but the fact is that this (parcel tax) is our only option. We are not allowed to tax (or try to tax) in any other way ($100 per person, for example).
David Forbes
Comment by David Forbes — February 29, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
I believe that both Berkeley and Albany have parcel taxes based upon square footage. Curious as to why this has not been considered here.
I don’t know if JR’s idea is unworkable. It assumes that the only way people will support local schools is if they are forced to do so. In the end, the district may well have to try it as I believe that the parcel tax measure is doa. Try a mailing to all local households and businesses and request a donation of X dollars to support the schools. I would definitely send in a good-sized one — but not if I am forced to pay a parcel tax. At least I could deduct the donation from my income taxes.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 29, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
The Alameda Education foundation will gladly accept donations … their web site is http://www.AlamedaEducation.org
May I suggest $500!
Comment by Ron M — February 29, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
ANT,
If you give me your address I will have Ardella’s secretary write you a donation request letter.
I think we should be able to write this off as a medical expense as the governor has caused us all undo stress and possible mental illness.
Comment by Barbara M — February 29, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
#26
The check will only arrive if the parcel tax measure is dropped.
In the end you may well have to go this route. What percentage of Alameda households and businesses would voluntarily respond? It would depend upon the appeal. There are about 33,000 households in Alameda and how many commercial property owners and businesses? Make the request graduated depending upon household income, gross sales, rental income…Look at Obama’s and Hillary’s campaigns and how much money they are raising through voluntary donations.
The board has an important decision to make. Are they going to move ahead with a doomed parcel tax proposal or try another approach? This will be interesting.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 29, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
The Board is, finally, suggesting a parcel tax based on square footage for commercial properties, so they are trying a different approach.
To create a budget they need revenue they can reasonably count on, not a “hope” of voluntary donations. Maybe if over this weekend there is a flood of donations they could see, and count on the voluntary route!
In fact, while we’ve already made donations this month, we’ll MATCH your donation!
Comment by Barbara M — February 29, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
# 24
“It assumes that the only way people will support local schools is if they are forced to do so.”
ANT. That’s exactly the opposite of what I’m suggesting, parcel tax is what people are forced to pay.
Has this city no interest in volunteering to support our kids. Framed in the proper way, it could be done. Hangar 1 sold out their first offering of 3500 bottles of Absinthe in six hours at $75 a crack, that’s 270K. Surely AUSD can frame and market the future of their efforts as well as Hangar 1. If AUSD can’t make a case for the good of the citizens of this city derived from educating our kids as well as a liquor merchant, woe is the state of our schools and woe is the state of our citizenry.
# 23
Who the hell can tell us how to fund our schools? If we want to ask our citizens to support a future for our kids by supporting their education, who’s to stop us.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 29, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
I am whole-heartedly in favor of selling alcohol to raise money for my kids education. Ok, Ok so that isn’t what you meant but I am tired and I really want to go to forbidden island and have a fancy drink and forget that people would rather be right than fair.
Comment by Barbara M — February 29, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
#29
“Who the hell can tell us how to fund our schools?”
The State, that’s who. From what I gather by listening to hours (and hours…
of information from the CFO these past few months, the District is not allowed to cover certain types of expenses from non-recurring forms of revenue such as voluntary donations.
Of course, private schools and charter schools aren’t held to the same rules. Nothing like a level playing field, eh?
Comment by Andy Currid — February 29, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
nobody likes parcel taxes. Nobody (including me)wants to spend evenings on the telephone calling people trying to get them to agree to support one, or knocking on doors talking to neighbors about supporting our schools Why do we do it? the alternative is unthinkable. Go to the district’s web site and take a look at what our kids will be facing in 2 years
Property values and income tax deductions aside, there is a moral component to providing an appropriate education for all children.
and by the way- property taxes are deductions
Comment by Barbara Kahn — February 29, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
Which is great, reminds me of something Mark I. wrote about this time last year when the budget cuts were coming down the pike.
I’m too tired to look it up, but I believe that the state requires that money used for operations come from at least a 3-year guaranteed funding stream.
Comment by John Knox White — February 29, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
sorry about that first sentence, edited what I wrote, and mashed some things together incoherently.
Comment by John Knox White — February 29, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
Ok on a much more sobering note. (Sorry I had to say it) When did all this happen, before I was born (all the 60’s drugs), when I was starting school (crazy 70’s), I was in 6th grade when Prop. 13 got voted in (I remember Mrs. Orton talking about it in class)? The schools had money they educated kids and people for the most part came prepared and learned and the schools were funded but weren’t forced to abide by insane rules that restricted what they could spend and what they could get, never caring if the two are in any way cohesive. Other than the prop 13 talk in 6th grade (maybe because schools started having to give the other talk) I don’t remember doom and gloom being a cloud over my schools. Was it there and I was too busy cheerleading to see it (Go Pirates).
The more I think about it the more I am amazed that people like Ardella Daily and educators like Mrs. A, Pam Andrew, Rod, Bill Sonnenman and many more get up each day and say through all the crap “I will make these kids fine adults” (sometimes they even do it in spite of the adults that gave birth to them). They put up with all the emotions that growing up can cause in massive doses, get paid diddly, and have us accuse them of being selfish.
So I will leave fixing the system to all the brilliant people and I will find out who got their rightful education and then squandered my kids. So this is all rhetorical and I kind of know what happened but the truth is we keep blaming the youth for this “I’ve got mind too bad for you” attitude. The truth is somewhere in the past is where that happened. Somewhere in the past we messed up so bad there is almost no way to fix it and this is the generation who has to pay the piper. If someone paid too much for a house in the last few years, sorry but you got caught up in the frenzy and it is only money but you were an adult and paying the piper was your decision. These kids couldn’t make that choice but all these line-in-the-sand grown-ups have decided they should pay the piper (they don’t even know who the piper is). So go ahead and tell yourself about how it’s the principal of the thing and separate yourself from the fact that it is a 5 year old that just got her first chapter book.
Comment by Barbara M — February 29, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
#6, Mark … please don’t get your boxers (or briefs) in a bunch. If you go back and read my post, I clearly said “administrative staff” — which I reckon is separate from the teachers, n’est-ce pas?
#21, right … so we’ve had problems for the past 7 years and all AUSD can come up is a band-aid every time??? How do you say D-u-h?
#35, Puhleeze!!! Ardella Daily isn’t doing this from the goodness of her heart. She is being paid a big chunk of change — so she better be doing what we’re paying her to do.
Recommended reading: Leland and Mark Posner as they make some very valid points.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/alameda/ci_8405002
Perhaps when the parcel tax goes down in flames, AUSD will finally realize it has been asleep at the wheel for 7 long years.
Comment by Phil S — February 29, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
Phil, There are people who make a nice paycheck and still care about others. You just aren’t one of them
Comment by Barbara M — February 29, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
I just heard this on the radio. Apparently, the Govenator has a new plan, and that plan is to buy California bonds for the purpose of propping up schools, rebuilding roads, and so on. Here’s the site:
http://www.buycaliforniabonds.com/
Sort of like what occurred in WW2 when the US almost ran out of cash for the war effort.This isn’t any different. The state is out of money. Plain and simple.If citizens here want a permanent solution to helping their schools, then they’re going to need money one way or another. The bond measure is interesting.
AIG reported a 5.29 Billion dollar loss today. This is one of the largest bond insurer in the country. If these insurance companies fail, then we will automatically become a third world country in terms of what we as consumers can borrow.
The time for action is now folks. On all fronts, the financial situation nationally and in our own backyards has to be addressed and brought under control.We must, as a society learn to rationalize expense with economic stability. By doing so creates the environment conducive to healthier communities, and subsequently better services to complement them. This means sharing, sacrifice, change, revaluation, and restructuring. It means investing in new ideas, questioning old ones and culling those that do not serve the community.
We can bicker here all day long. But the problem remains and it is up to all of us to solve that problem.
Comment by edvard — February 29, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
E_ Is this to fund his plan to help the 100 worst school districts by giving them an average of $500,000 each?
As for the rest of this string;
do we need to resort to hostility and back-biting as we all discuss how to best educate kids in Alameda to try to keep this a nice community?
In a way this blog reminds me of a book titled some thing like “The most important things I ever learned I learned in Preschool” This short but sweet book is quite true as it talks about learning to listen, to share, to clean up one’s messes, and to wash you hands and other social nicities.
Of course not every child gets the benefit of preschool.
I’ve discussed with a PTA president how to evaluate or determine if our youth receive a ‘quality education’. We agree that test scores don’t tell the true story which you can only learn by talking to the students. Remembering geometric theorems probably doesn’t make that much of a difference in the long run. Teaching the student to contribute to society is the grand plan. I agree with many of the speakers at the last BOE mtg - Many of the non-academic school activities may be more important than an “A” in math or spelling. I don’t mean to dismiss the value of academics, but a core of academics alone does not teach values the way the teamwork does. Teams can be sports, or scouts, ROTC or many other clubs. The better we provide for our children the better the community is rewarded. Look at the communities with the most unfortunate children, are those communities we want to emulate?
Chances are even with this little addition to the parcel tax (I think it should be larger and the commercial portion should be more like .25/sqft) AUSD will still have to find creative ways to fundraise.
I REALLY REALLY want AUSD to start using Kofman as a fund raising tool. I would love to see shows there, it is a great theater, and there is a huge wealth of talent in the BA. This would also add to the walkable night life in our downtown business district, and we now have plenty of Parking for the venue. For shows at the Berkeley Community Theater the BHS tennis courts are added parking revenue - a $5 or $10 fee, and ticket prices are 40-$50.
Maybe even the AEF gold cards can get comp tix to a series of shows.
Despite the fact that developer fees and redevelopment funds are to be used solely for facilities, using those fees and funds frees up unrestricted funds which otherwise would help pay for facility and maintenance costs.
Perhaps other new special taxes separate from parcel taxes can be increased – like part of a business license fee going to local schools or to groups like AEF or PTA. It is easy to make the argument that the schools benefit most of those businesses one way or another. That may be another way to get around state restrictions. Obviously fees can be added as all businesses within PSBA must contribute a fee for PSBA whether or not they are members or approve of PSBA actions. (This is not meant as a statement on PSBA, but to show that fees can be added to business licenses.)
I’m sure if given thought other sources more appropriate than bake sales can be conjured up to improve our community through our schools.
Comment by David Kirwin — February 29, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
#36
“right … so we’ve had problems for the past 7 years and all AUSD can come up is a band-aid every time??? ”
Ah, the band-aid argument. We really are damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. Instead of a band aid, we could go for full reconstructive surgery - close half the schools in Alameda, or maybe go for $1400 per residential parcel, 4 years minimum. That appears to work very well for Piedmont, but I doubt it would fly in Alameda.
“How do you say D-u-h?”
I typically say it at the end of sentences where it applies, unlike you.
Comment by Andy Currid — March 1, 2008 @ 12:33 am
Edvard,
I suggest a re-reading of WW2 financial & economic history. Start w/ JK Galbraith’s “Money” for 1 very instructive chapter.
Also, AIG is not a bond insurer. Where did you get that?
As far as the bond insurers failing, which has been headline news lately, that would seem to fit ideally with “healthy crash” scenario you endlessly flog. Worthy debtors can & still could borrow; shaky ones not so much.
Comment by dave — March 1, 2008 @ 7:03 am
re # 38 “Apparently, the Govenator has a new plan, and that plan is to buy California bonds for the purpose of propping up schools, …”
From a school District’s perspective, these bonds can only be used to “prop up schools” i.e. for construction, repair or equipment. They cannot be used for programs and associated salaries. Again, a parcel tax is the only instrument allowed by State law whereby School Districts can increase revenue.
Comment by David Forbes — March 1, 2008 @ 9:37 am
re # 36 “Perhaps when the parcel tax goes down in flames, AUSD will finally realize it has been asleep at the wheel for 7 long years.”
By law, School Districts must use specific statewide assumptions when planning our budgets. As late as mid-December, using these assumptions, AUSD was projecting a healthy surplus into the next two years. Even looking at a smaller COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) than we were being told to use, our budget was still in balance. NO ONE expected that the Governor would take this State budget crisis and expect schools to make such deep cuts in such a short period. If you go to http://www.fcmat.org/ and look back over the past week or so, you will see that School Districts all over California are planning for radical drastic cuts - like Alameda. (You will also find that some, who get much more money per child than AUSD, are better able to weather this storm). I don’t happen to believe that this generation of schoolkids should be held hostage for the Governor’s inability to fund their education at a constitutional level (even now, today, we’re not being given what the State constitution mandates that we are owed).
This parcel tax has nothing to do with our inability to plan and everything to do with being suddenly choked by the Governor - in his ‘Year of Education’, no less.
Comment by David Forbes — March 1, 2008 @ 9:54 am
Mr. Forbes:
In many states, both school districts and cities can enact local income taxes. This is apparently prohibited in CA, but why/how?
Is it a state constitutional issue or a normal statute?
Was it part of the state Supreme Ct’s equal funding ruling?
Comment by dave — March 1, 2008 @ 10:06 am
I’m still waiting to hear why the board favors a flat-tax rather than one based on square footage. Why is a studio condo owner being asked to pay the same as someone with a 10,000 square foot Gold Coast estate?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 1, 2008 @ 10:11 am
# 26
Barbara M, could you have Ardella’s secretary write a donation request letter spelling out to whom the fee (it’s not a donation) check should be written and post it on this blog? I want my AUSD check covering my $100 portion and four shirkers ($400) of the Save Alameda Public Schools fee to be dropped into the same money pot as the parcel tax pot that would have been but won’t be, once it’s voted down.
# 25
With all due respect Ron M, I want my fee to go to AUSD for current operation and maintenance not for supplement.
# 4
Is that quick enough for you, John?
By the way, there are five fee levels of support for “Save Alameda Public Schools”. First is $100 standard fee (green level); Second is $200 (copper level); Third is $300 (silver level); Fourth is $400 (gold level) and the Fifth is $500 and over (the first four levels are the color of money), the $500 level is the “Elite” level which doesn’t mean you must live on the east end, Gold Coast or Bayport, it’s just proof that instead of talking the talk you’re willing to walk the walk.
In return for paying the fee, each proof of paying citizen gets to purchase, from an Alameda merchant, a lapel pin with the letters” AUSD” with sub-script stars corresponding to the level of fee paid (i.e. Elite = five stars, standard fee + fee of four shirkers).
Comment by Jack Richard — March 1, 2008 @ 10:19 am
Whoa Barbara (#37) … that must’ve been one stiff drink at the Forbidden Island, because that comment makes no sense at all!
You know jack about me, so I suggest we stay away from personal attacks and stick to the issue at hand.
Comment by Phil S — March 1, 2008 @ 10:26 am
re #44 “In many states, both school districts and cities can enact local income taxes. This is apparently prohibited in CA, but why/how?”
Prop 13.
re #45 “’m still waiting to hear why the board favors a flat-tax rather than one based on square footage.”
It’s probably a combination of history, simplicity, time and cost. This is what has happened in the past, so like it or not, everyone understands it. $10 per month per residential parcel is easy to explain, as opposed to one number for you and a different number for your neighbor. This has all come together very, very quickly, in response to the Governor’s budget which came out in mid-January. Just retrieving the data for commercial square footage took a great deal of time and expense. Retrieving the residential data would have added to both. Finally, there will be an ongoing administrative cost in monitoring the commercial square footage so that the county knows how much to bill for the commercial piece. Obviously the cost would rise to monitor residential as well.
If this parcel tax had been planned over a long time it’s possible that it might have ended up with a square footage residential component, but in order to generate revenue for FY 08-09, it has to be on the June ballot. In order to be on the June ballot, it must be filed with the County registrar by March 7th.
Comment by David Forbes — March 1, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
My understanding is that P13 is merely a cap on property tax rates. Did that legislation also preclude local income taxes?
Comment by dave — March 1, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
Dave and others;
Two more good sources of info
http://www.californiaschoolfinance.org/Default.aspx
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/welcome.asp
Comment by D Kirwin — March 1, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
#49 Local Income Taxes?
Dave: I did not believe you are going to find local income taxes being assessed at a city level. Certainly, there maybe some out there but I could not readily find them. Most states impose an income tax at a state level. The closest thing I could find was local payroll taxes that are paid by businesses in other states for doing business in a particular city.
Comment by Mike McMahon — March 1, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
Michigan cities have city income taxes – see http://www.crcmich.org/TaxOutline/Income/ucit.html
According to http://dab.nfc.usda.gov/pubs/docs/taxformulas/na-taxseldocs/na-stateseldoc.html cities in Alabama; Colorado; Delaware; Kentucky; Missouri; New York City; Ohio; Pennsylvania and West Virginia also have city income taxes.
Comment by irish — March 1, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
#46 - Quick yes, but can’t be used for the same things as the Parcel Tax (illegal under state law), therefore it’s not actually a solution.
But you get points for quick solution attempts and a willingness to step up, which I’m sure will make you extra happy tonight.
By the way, you can send the cash to AEF right now to their Foundation which will, in the long run, once it gets built up.
http://www.alamedaeducation.org
Comment by John Knox White — March 1, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
In OH I paid both city income taxes as well as school district incomes taxes. With one exception they were very small taxes (btw .50% and 1% of income) and this was balanced somewhat by generally low property & state income taxes.
The lack of these taxes in CA makes me suspect there is some constitutional (or similar) prohibition of them in CA, hence my questions above.
Interestingly, though, it was the better school districts that tended to have such funding. Also interesting was the peoples’ feelings about taxes. People groused a bit about property taxes (which in OH are entirely local, at the county level) but usually voted for school-specific taxes. People bitched loudly & often about state income & sales taxes and penalized politicians who raised them UNLESS the money was specifically allocated to schools. But school district income taxes enjoyed overwhelming support, even from seniors & others w/o kids in school. People were keenly aware that schools mattered to all and paid up for them.
By no means do I believe the people of Ohio are any brighter than the people of California. Rather I believe they were willing to pay up when they had local control of the money & could directly enjoy its benefits.
Parcel taxes’ weaknesses are significant, but they are the only source of locally controlled funding that will benefit Alamedans directly. Hold your nose & vote for them, then fight like hell to restore local control to school funding.
Comment by dave — March 1, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Here is the text of Prop 13 as it currently stands. Section 1 and 2 have to do with property tax, section 3 and 4 all other taxes. Everything takes 2/3 vote except for the bond issues which were recently amended to 55%.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — March 2, 2008 @ 9:24 am
Also Wikipedia has a pretty good article , although short of citations.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — March 2, 2008 @ 9:26 am
#48
Other school districts have managed to put together and pass parcel taxes based on square footage. So what if it is more difficult? Do we teach our children that if achieving fairness is difficult, then it is okay to act unfairly? AUSD has known for a while that there would be budget problems next year. This was not completely unforeseen.
Regarding the current proposal, does rental property come under the category of commercial? If a 100 unit apartment building is on one parcel, does that mean that the owner will be paying $120 a year or some other amount?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 2, 2008 @ 9:30 am
I’m interested in the answer to ANT’s question re: apartments. I know that there’s a commercial SF component, but wonder how that applies to apartments, multifamilies, and parcels with an owner occupied unit.
Anyone know?
Comment by John Knox White — March 2, 2008 @ 11:39 am
With Alameda being 50% rentals #58 is a good question. Because I believe that owner occupied parcels with 3 or fewer units are taxed as residental,(They get treated differently than 4 or more units for many city codes.), what % of the City’s rental market are those 3-unit and under parcels?
Comment by David Kirwin — March 2, 2008 @ 11:59 am
I understand the immediate demand, but the BOE should still “Look before they Leap”. The worst that the County BOE or State could do if we don’t play by all their rules will be less damaging than what we will be doing to ourselves if we don’t take a proposal to the voters that better meets the criteria of good planning which involve adequacy, permanency, and fairness.
How do you evaluate the benefit of quality public education to a parcel of land?
Why do some believe “Sq Ft based” residential parcel tax are more fair? Shouldn’t it be by the number of people living in the home? Isn’t it the people whom benefit? If you are basing the “fairness” on ability to pay rather, than the benefit received, doesn’t it need to be income related?
The local income tax mentioned above could only tax income earned in Alameda, (residents and non- residents alike)- not the income of those living in Alameda who receive the benefit of living in a community that provides quality public education.
Could anyone put together a plan by Tuesday’s BOE mtg on a ‘fair’ way to assess taxation to residents directly proportional to the benefits they receive?
Of course not. That is why the BOE is being rushed to approve the $120 / parcel residential tax for schools. I’m of the mind it is an inadequate amount, and I also think businesses and commercial property owners should pay more than what is proposed.
My understanding is that local businesses pay nothing, unless they own the property of their businesses. Most do not, but they benefit from the quality of this community. The business costs due to vandalism, theft, insurance etc are surly higher in many surrounding districts. An AUSD related fee could be imposed upon the City business license fees.
In my view, the biggest problems with the BOE approving this tax on the 4th is that it is too ‘rushed’, it is inadequate, it could be called unfair, and it does not tax the businesses and renters who also benefit. Most importantly I feel it does not adequately prepare for returning to the voters to again ask for more which they will have to do. It is timed to ‘sunset’ with the previous parcel tax which will leave a gaping wound that will need to be cured with another tax. As Oakland recently did, the BOE will likely ask for the taxes to be combined and made permanent. The best marketing for that will be if it doesn’t have to involve an increase. It is obviously very unlikely that the BOE will be able to come to the voters again between now and then, which is why I think what they are asking for is inadequate and it is a mistake to force this ‘rushed’ plan.
I understand the immediate demand, but the BOE should still “Look before they Leap”. The worst that the County BOE or State could do if we don’t play by all their rules will be less damaging than what we will be doing to ourselves if we don’t take a proposal to the voters that better meets the criteria of good planning which involve adequacy, permanency, and fairness.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 2, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
I’ve been kind of amazed at the battle over the parcel tax here. It seems like such a small amount, compared to property values, a pittance really. People would probably pay tens of thousands to upgrade their homes, yet a $100+ on the schools is too much. (And I don’t have kids in the schools.) It’s also clear that good schools contribute to high property values, and those who want to hang on their gains should be cognizant of that. Look at Albany — the demand for homes there has always been high.
Comment by Darcy Morrison — March 2, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
#61
Add in all of the parcel taxes we pay, plus property tax, sales tax, federal income, state income… One can always argue what is a few more dollars, but those few more dollars are on top of all those other few more dollars.
Also, many of us do not make all that much and we have other obligations. If yet another tax is imposed, it will have to come from somewhere. I would probably be forced to cut back on what I give to my congregation or to the food bank or to the American cancer society. There are many needs. How are we going to support all those who are going to have their Medi-Cal coverage cut? Will that mean another hospital parcel tax?
There are numerous State budget guarantees and that forces even deeper cuts into the unprotected programs. People didn’t vote down Prop 92 because they don’t like community colleges; they did so because they didn’t want yet another slice of the budget pie to become untouchable.
Some of us are facing rising health insurance costs. Gas is going up which means that the price of some goods may also rise. It isn’t that people are stingy; they are simply pressed. I haven’t been able to take a vacation in four years. So, when some say, hey just give up your morning cup of coffee, it doesn’t sit well…besides, do you want to see what will happen each morning if Alamedans are forced to start the day without coffee?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 2, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
ANT,
Do you not understand that a school tax preserves & enhances the value of your property? Can you think of another tax that benefits so directly those who pay it?
Comment by dave — March 2, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
#63
I am obviously too stupid to fully understand what you are saying. You are wasting your incredible intellect on a moron like me.
There are some of us more concerned about being able to afford a new roof than in adding upgrades to our home. Many of the homes in Alameda are in need of repair. Additional taxes take money out of the pockets of homeowners who need to make repairs. Declining housing stock lowers property values and property taxes.
Why are seniors going to be exempted from the tax? This has nothing to do with seniors having less ability to pay, but with seniors voting in high numbers. It is political calculation, not a financial one. Perhaps $120 a year to a homeowner in the Gold Coast isn’t much, but it is to someone living in a modest home on the Northside or a condo at Shorepoint. The proposal puts an undue burden on the already squeezed middle class.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 2, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
I just spent a little too long reading all 64 comments on Lauren’s (lovely) blog post.
I guess for me the choice is very simple and very clear: I can pay $10 a month on a parcel tax or I can watch my local school district cut all high school athletics, cut the JRROTC program, cut music for K-3, and then start closing schools, upping the class sizes, slashing AP classes and more.
To me ten dollars seems like a good deal. It’s a good deal for keeping good programs for local kids. It’s a good deal for providing programs that keep high schoolers engaged and off the street. And it’s a good deal for keeping special ed programs strong, for providing social services to children who need them, for keeping our very committed teachers employed, for maintaining our neighborhood schools, and for keeping the district from being taken over by the state.
It also seems like a good deal for keeping my property value up. In fact, I’ve owned my home for eight years, and I can assure you, while it’s modest in size and amenities, its worth has risen far more than $960.00 (8 x $120.00) in those eight years.
So I have to ask the parcel tax critics: Are you actually saying you’d rather have the district decline (and with it your community) than pay $10 a month?
It just doesn’t seem like sound judgment to me.
Comment by Susan Davis — March 2, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
I have no intention of selling my home. However, if I did, should I assume that since it recently declined in value that this was due to buyers finding out that our schools were doing a poor job? Is the only difference between Piedmont and Oakland a school parcel tax?
The current proposal is for a four-year emergency tax. That is a very long emergency. I would be more likely to support the measure if it were for one-year. The problem is that parcel taxes beget more parcel taxes and emergencies are never resolved, but instead become institutionalized.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 2, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
I work with lots of high-end realtors in Oakland/Piedmont and they will tell you plenty of streets where you can compare almost exact homes. The biggy is some of those streets are even served by Piedmont police for the entire block due to agreements between the cities. So the only real difference on that block is the schools the children attend.
In fact we moved here in 1996. The agent we used was a customer of mine who only dealt with properties in Montclair/Piedmont etc. We bought a nice 4 bedroom 2 1/2 bath in the center of the Gold Coast because it was 1/2 the price of Piedmont. As other cities around the East Bay have had their schools decline greatly, Alameda has seen the schools excel. You will note that although there are many huge estates in Piedmont, you can compare plenty of homes with nice homes here and although they are not as high in value, they are far from 1/2 price.
When you look at the East Bay in general there are not many places that offer the ease to the city as Alameda yet offers a quality FAMILY oriented life. A big part of that is the schools. So lets look around: Oakland NO, Berkeley NO, Albany Maybe (but houses aren’t cheap and they have a school tax plus a new one) San Leandro NO, Orinda & Piedmont Yes (wanna pay what they pay)…name me a town with good schools that doesn’t have a parcel tax for the schools.
I grew up in San Leandro. It used to be a very nice Family town. There were good schools, a cute little down town etc. Homes were very expensive. You can now get a heck of a deal in California terms in San Leandro. That would be because the schools are pretty bad. I have a friend who teaches in their high school and it has been on lock-down lots (more than 5 times) in this school year alone.
Comment by Barbara M — March 2, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
I understand your concerns ANT, but the fact of the matter is, the school cannot use the funds collected by a one-year parcel tax to pay for the things it is needing the money for. It’s not legal.
The minimum, as I understand it (correct me if I’m wrong) is three years. If I had to guess, I’d bet they chose four years because it then lines up with the other school parcel tax.
Comment by John Knox White — March 2, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
Do you want to go through this annually until Sacramento gets their act together and gives us what they are mandated to in Prop 98? Four years gives some time for lawyers and all to get what belongs to us…
Comment by Barbara M — March 2, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
#67
“In fact we moved here in 1996. The agent we used was a customer of mine who only dealt with properties in Montclair/Piedmont etc. We bought a nice 4 bedroom 2 1/2 bath in the center of the Gold Coast because it was 1/2 the price of Piedmont. As other cities around the East Bay have had their schools decline greatly, Alameda has seen the schools excel. You will note that although there are many huge estates in Piedmont, you can compare plenty of homes with nice homes here and although they are not as high in value, they are far from 1/2 price.”
I wish that people from the Gold Coast got their hands out of my back pocket. I remember having a discussion with one of your neighbors who could not comprehend that $298 a year for the hospital district was a lot of money. Until those with a 4-bedroom 2 1/2 estate in the Gold Coast pay more than someone with a 2-bedroom 1-bath condo at Southshore, I will oppose parcel taxes.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 2, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
ANT - Many of your ideas here are correct. If our schools decline, so too will home values.
The cause of the intuitionalism of school funding emergencies has taken place at the State level not the local level. It has been passed to the local school district level because the Stat refuses to balance the income and expenditures as required by law.
Arnold created this emergency when he announced his new budget ideas in January. Schools are required to carry 3-yr budget plans. AUSD had a solvent budget plan until Arnold announced he would not be properly funding schools - not even to the MINIMUM required by law.
Usually the schools are given a COLA - never enough to cover actual increases in labor and utilities but a small COLA is the norm. AUSD’s Chief Financial Officer is very sharp, and based the next 3-yr budget projections w/o assuming that COLA. That was the plan, and no emergency. Why or how, could anyone project the Gov would not provide the minimum school budget required by law? What would happen to us, if we did not make payments required by law?
Could every Alamedan withhold $120 from state taxes and give it instead to AUSD, to whom the State owes the $?
Would one of our tax wizards tell me what would happen if I/we did?
Because the State will never fully fund the type of education system we all want; to enable all our kids to learn to successfully contribute to society, most communities have special parcel tax assessments for education. Oakland and Piedmont, whom you cite, both have permanent special taxes to benefit their schools. Oakland just passed theirs in November.
I agree with anyone who says that more money alone will not solve the education problems in our Public School system.
It is even easier to understand that without more money we cannot provide the same quality education AUSD is known for.
Also, please remember how much more important a good education is today. In the 70’s even a HS dropout could go out, put on a blue shirt, and get a job, and make a decent living with their hands and even support a family. They only needed to be self-motivated. Today things are very different, most mechanics and maintenance workers need to be computer literate. Everything from your car to the schools heating and lighting systems are probably computerized. Workers need to be able to learn new operating systems constantly. There is no aspect of employment that is as simple as it used to be. And there is much less manufacturing and semi-skilled jobs on the market. Even among these jobs there are bidding wars –“low-bidding”.
Many employers to increase profit and now to remain competitive with others, will hire illegals to fill less skilled needs. I don’t want to switch the topic to immigration but it seems that despite growing unemployment more workers at all levels are foreign born, likewise more and more work sectors are moving offshore, further reducing employment prospects. Remember the article for offshore-online student tutoring?
Because we don’t really know what kind of life challenges will face the next generation we must try to educate the whole person, not just to pass standardized tests, but to be positive, open-minded, perceptive thinkers with excellent social and moral foundations. I think a lot of that is learned outside the “3-R curriculum”, and that we want our schools to provide the motive and opportunity to students to become wholesome, well-rounded, contributing adults.
What is the future of the USA? Is it to recognize the importance of preparing the next generation, or is it to sell off everything Americans have built up over the last 230 years so employment can be controlled by foreign-based multinational corporations.
OK my diatribe is getting away from AUSD, but it has to be left to local control to preserve quality education. We will be sold out at higher political levels where our young be come pawns in the agenda of others. The only way to preserve education control is to control the purse strings of public education. The only money we can control is the money we put in. The state will tell us how we must spend most of the money from them. The Feds even think they can tell us what we must fund even if they don’t provide the funding. The only control is our own local money. AUSD has done so well, with so little, for so long, I truly feel any local money we add is an excellent investment. AUSD and our BOE have proven themselves to be excellent stewards of our investments. They have earned my trust.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 2, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
#69, we’ve had 7 years for AUSD to get ready and 2 years since the last parcel tax … tick tock tick tock, the clock continues to tick away while AUSD continues to have a deer in the headlight moment!
Comment by Phil S — March 2, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
#70, well said ANT!!! No surprises that Barbara M and Susan Davis are preaching to us about the extra $120/year … it is easy for them to say that, given that they probably pay a pittance in property taxes due to Prop 13.
So … Barbara and Susan, please tell me why the rest of Alameda should have to share the burden equally with folks who own Gold coast estates?
Given that Prop 13 is one of the (many) reasons for the shortfall in AUSD, it would only be fitting if the Gold coast barons donated their share of the (current) property tax to AUSD. How’s that for equality?
Of course, this will never happen … they will continue to preach while not walking the talk.
Comment by Phil S — March 2, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
I will leave you with this to read about our wonderful government.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/upload/FederalSpendingByTheNumbers2008.pdf
Comment by robert — March 2, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
Thanks robert. That is interesting. It really highlights the comparison of spending between the Democrats and Republicans, or should I say the Clintons and the Bushs.
I look forward to printing it for further reading..
Comment by David Kirwin — March 2, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
Not that I want the world to know my financial status but we moved 3 years ago. So you can imagine what our taxes are. Prop 13 happened when I was in 6th grade and my mother didn’t own a home so it didn’t matter. Needless to say I am not getting much benefit from it.
Comment by Barbara M — March 2, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
By the way Phil S, do you think if you have a large house you get to decide where the money goes….
I will gladly call Arnold tomorrow and tell him that the large portion of my property tax that goes to the prison system should be diverted to AUSD and I will match it. Do you think he will take my call?
Comment by Barbara M — March 2, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
Heavens! It’s my first time on this blog and I’m already being called out by name! Is that a good sign or a bad sign?
Just to reinforce an earlier point: I’m not a “Gold Coast Baron.” I live in a teeny house on the East End. My house is so small and oddly shaped, in fact, that one friend politely called it “quirky” when we bought it– and another called it “the ugliest house I’ve ever seen.” (Yep, those are my pals…
Nor am I a baroness. Like many families in Alameda, we lead a modest lifestyle, watch our pennies carefully and worry about things like new roofs, new cars, and college educations.
So I understand the concern that a flate rate parcel is regressive. I really do. And if the proposed tax was for, say, $800.00 or $1000.00 or $1200.00 a year, I’d also be speaking up about the equity issue, because I know many families cannot add another $60.00 - $100.00 to their monthly budget.
But $10.00 a month? I think that’s affordable for most homeowners.
Besides, if a flat rate parcel tax is regressive, the governor’s proposed budget cuts are way more regressive. Why? Because middle- and upper-class families may be able to buy their children the services AUSD is about to cut (e.g., K-3 music, high school athletics, counseling for middle schoolers, and even private school educations).
Low-income families, on the other hand, cannot. So they’ll suffer the brunt of these cuts.
As such, my willingness to pay (and advocate) for a $10/month parcel tax doesn’t just come from my desire to help my own kids. It also comes from a very sincere desire to help all the children in the district–whether their parents are renters, homeless, low-income homeowners, or Gold Coast barons.
As I said before, doing all that for $10/month seems like a good deal to me.
Comment by Susan Davis — March 2, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
Thus spake the venerable Barbara M:
#67, “we moved here in 1996″
From elementary math, we have:
2008 - 1996 = 12
#76, “we moved 3 years ago”
From elementary math, we have a disconnect.
Comment by Phil S — March 3, 2008 @ 7:57 am
“As far as the bond insurers failing, which has been headline news lately, that would seem to fit ideally with “healthy crash” scenario you endlessly flog. Worthy debtors can & still could borrow; shaky ones not so much.”
Regardless Dave,
The fact of the matter is that as of now, Wells Fargo now requires a 20% down payment on any home at this point.So do most other banks, and often they require more than that. In other words, an 800k home, of which Alameda still has plenty of will require $200,000 up front. On top of that, buyers will have to have PERFECT credit, proof of jobs that support their purchases, and numerous references. Who in the hell has 200k they’re willing to toss out on a down payment? The answer is probably mainly those who can sell their old house first… which they aren’t going to be able to do.
So whether bond insurers, banks, fannie Mae, or whatever fails, nobody is going to be buying homes in Alameda for a long time even if they desperately wanted to. I took a stroll this weekend and already, there’s a nice new crop of homes up for sale with the tell-tale signs of others being cleaned out and prepped for sale along with all the others around me that have been for sale for almost a year. Some longer than that. That just means more supply for me to choose from once these sellers start slashing those prices.
The situation here actually has me sleeping soundly these days. I now really am starting to care less about prop 13, Measure A, and all those other stifling little laws because despite all that, prices are going to be vastly more affordable for people like me and my wife. I look forward to buying and becoming a part of the community here.
Comment by edvard — March 3, 2008 @ 8:17 am
As a mother of a school-aged kid, on the (low-income) side of the Alameda spectrum, I will say this; As I cannot afford to send my kid to private school, Pay for club sports, private tutoring, music lessons,etc. I will GLADLY pay $10 a month for the next four years.And if this “band-aid” helps put my kid down the college path, then it works for me.Heck, I’ll pay 20!
Comment by Becky — March 3, 2008 @ 9:39 am
#79
Phil, I think it’s your command of English that is suspect, not Barbara’s math.
Barbara said, “We moved here in 1996″ - which implies a move to Alameda from elsewhere. Then she said, “we moved 3 years ago”, by which I assume she means she moved within Alameda.
Comment by Andy Currid — March 3, 2008 @ 10:03 am
The parcel tax is a band aid, anyway. The first parcel tax was supposed to address the funding issue and it didn’t. I doubt this new one, if it passes, will solve anything over the long term. A long term solution would have to involve getting our fair share from the state; I think we need to go that route even if it takes 10 years. How about if we create a legal fund so we don’t have to go the pro bono route? I would contribute to that as a step in the right direction.
Comment by Mike Rich — March 3, 2008 @ 10:25 am
#83
Then donate to AEF, because that’s exactly what they are doing - looking at long term solutions to the funding issue, including (but not limited) to legal action against the State.
The first parcel tax (and its subsequent renewal in 2005) addressed funding shortfalls that were in place or within reasonable visiblity at the time those taxes were passed.
This parcel tax is a response to a new funding crisis that, as others have already described, was not visible within the required accounting standards the District is held to in setting its spending plans.
You cold view the proposed parcel tax as a band aid to address the new funding crisis. I’m not clear on why that is a bad thing - unless you prefer the schools to limp along with open wounds. A parcel tax is the only short-term revenue option open to the District, because as you note, the other options (including litigation) will not produce any meaningful results any time soon.
Comment by Andy Currid — March 3, 2008 @ 11:35 am
Having read a number of posts by Alameda Nay Tiff on a number of topics over time I get a composite profile, within the anonymous frame. I can embrace ANT’s arguments as among the most rational and principled against the parcel tax, particularly based on the extended context of his time at Lauren Do.
However, ending with Becky #81 and Andy, and including other important posts like #48 from David Forbes on why this parcel tax now, the cummulative impact for me is to get out push for the tax.
I REALLY dislike the entire process, especially phone banking, since to me it’s a form of privacy invasion. In order to participate again, I would like to be able to assure people who are resistant or on the fence that we do not take parcel taxes for granted, nor deem them as the first line for properly mitigating the funding issue.
In order to do that clearly and succinctly, I hope we can develop a compact set of talking points to keep the message laser focused. They might include emphasis on the NEW commercial element of this tax, honesty about the real systemic causes and a commitment to address them near and long term, and clear dates for the sunset of this tax, as well as the existing tax. I am aware and grateful such strategies are being worked on by others.
Also useful would be a short list of the most frequent objections and suggested responses which don’t lend to endless discussion.
A list of comparatives would be useful to help mix it up. Lauren’s $10 a month and #81 fit well and keep it close to home.
To me facts like California being the 5th largest economy in the world but ranking 46th in funding among states are extremely compelling, but may be an example of wondering from appropriate talking points for this parcel tax.
Comment by Mark I — March 3, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
Shameless plug for those who want to volunteer to Keep Alameda Schools Excellent:
http://www.alamedaschools.org/
Comment by Mike McMahon — March 3, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Re #79
We did what lots of families do when they get too big for the house they are in we moved. We liked where we lived to we moved in the same neighborhood
Comment by Barbara M — March 3, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
I would strongly urge that a square footage component be included in the proposal. The owner of a 100 unit apartment building (which could be home to dozens of children) would pay only $120 under the current proposal. If, as some have argued, school funding means higher property values, then it also means that landlords can charge higher rents. A portion of those higher rents should go to the school district. Otherwise, landlords will be gaining considerable financial benefit with little contribution.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 3, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
#84,
If I recall, Rob Siltanen is looking into getting pro bono assistance, which indicates that legal action is a back burner alternative. My contribution to AEF would not fund legal action, primarily. Also, to be effective, legal action ought to include other districts who have the same problem we do. For that reason, a funding arrangement would need to be separate from AEF, I would think.
Comment by Mike Rich — March 3, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
Yes. Among other things, Ann Casper and I have been working on “the litigation project” for over a year and continue to do so.
I think “back-burner” is an inaccurate description if it implies that litigation is a low priority. If “back-burner” just means that litigation of this sort will take longer to cook than would an emergency parcel tax (e.g., a $10/month parcel tax designed to mitigate state budget cuts that would otherwise end education as we know in Alameda), then “back-burner” is an appropriate metaphor.
Litigation of this sort is a very long-term and extremely expensive difficult, and complex proposition. We are continuing to work on and make slow and steady progress on this front. Unless someone want to make a six-figure donation to the Alameda schools legal fund, the case is going to have to be either (1) pro bono or (2) done in partnership with a large deeply-pocketed alliance. Both of those take a lot of time.
Still, I don’t necessarily agree that “to be effective, legal action ought to include other districts who have the same problem we do.” That is certainly one possibility we are looking into, but there are others as well. Anyone interested in reading the report we submitted to the school board in June can find it under Agenda Item #9 by clicking on the word “report”
@ http://mikemcmahon.info/boe_meeting0612.htm)
Comment by Rob Siltanen — March 3, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
This will be the last tax increase…we’re serious this time!
Comment by Testing — March 4, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
The Oakland vs. Piedmont school comparison is ridiculous. Oakland public schools are only 4% white, while Piedmont’s are around 80%. Get a grip, folks.
Comment by Yes..we can? — March 4, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
The Oakland-Piedmont analogy was about property values on the municipal line, not about race of students. Had you attended a well-funded school, you’d have grasped that.
Comment by dave — March 4, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
#93
And the difference in home prices between the Fernside and the homes directly across the estuary in East Oakland are solely due to school funding? Some of us need a bit more evidence in order to accept that thesis.
Dave, seems that you went to school where insulting and demeaning others was stressed in the curriculum. With your superior intellect and education, how can you bear to be surrounded by us mortals?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 4, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
I plead guilty to having little patience for fools, or hypocrites either for that matter. But if mere snark is demeaning, you doth protest too much.
And no one has suggested that school funding is the sole reason for property values, only that it is a significant factor. The Piedmont case was talking about neighborhoods where architecture, demographics, crime, etc are identical on each side of the line, yet home values differ substantially because of the school district difference. Sole vs. significant; get it?
Comment by dave — March 4, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
#95
“I plead guilty to having little patience for fools, or hypocrites either for that matter.”
Fortunately, the rest of us are more patient.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 5, 2008 @ 5:46 am
Had you been to the BOE mtg last night you would have surly lost your patience- I did.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 5, 2008 @ 6:20 am
Dave Kirwin,
We did the best we can with such a little time line….now it is time to get people to see the light and pass this thing. It is the only way to save the edacation of Alameda children. No it is not perfect but if the state with the highest prison rate in the country can pay for that we can spend $10 per month to keep kids educated. The best part about last night was watching some of the kids. Some of those kids, not just the top students who we expect it from (amazing speech from EHS student body president) but from just regular kids who are really trying to understand what the history is and what they can do. They didn’t do this we did it to them. As I told one of the other people on this blog, I normally vote for taxes but I will not vote for one that is a result of something we did to ourselves because I am trying to see their stance but this is truly about a group that had no say what-so-ever. KEEP ALAMEDA SCHOOLS EXCELLENT!!!
Comment by Barbara Mooney — March 5, 2008 @ 7:39 am
Sorry, no can do! That parcel tax is going down in flames and about time.
Comment by Phil S — March 5, 2008 @ 8:37 am
re #99 on this string (and several others of PS’s comments): I can understand principled and/or pragmatic opposition to the school parcel tax. I strongly disagree with that opposition, but I do understand that reasonable people can disagree about this and other issues.
But I can’t understand the glee you convey at the prospect of eviscerating Alameda’s public schools and the harm that will cause to thousands of kids. Am I misconstruing your tone or are you really feeling schadenfreude?
Comment by Rob Siltanen — March 5, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
#98,
We did it to them? As guess, by voting for representatives at the State and Federal level who didn’t fix the funding formula when the base closed and have neglected to fix it since then. Question: why do we continue for vote for those people?
Comment by Mike Rich — March 5, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
#101- We vote for them because of what they tell us they will do. We keep voting for them because we don’t banish or stone them after we learn they don’t walk their talk. We are too ‘civilized’ or too busy to be direct or take action when we feel wronged and lied to repeatedly.
Despite increasing ‘civility’ we have decreased “integrity” and the expectation of integrity.
#98 Here is an extremely important question for you Ms Mooney - Who is the “we” in “We did the best we can with such a little time line”
Last night, mergers of elementary schools was not discussed - Good God we can’t touch Edison or Franklin - where Don Perata’s grand daughter goes to school, yet this tiny school of about 250 students costs the full spectrum of administration. Last night BOE Member David Forbes did talk about how the delay of the other school mergers cost the District dearly (I think in the millions), and Superintendant Daily did say that we would likely be reduced to two Middle Schools. So why Ms Mooney, why does the language of the new Parcel tax start with the idea that it is for “Minimizing School Closures”?
We should be encouraging school mergers if it will save other programs. These tiny schools mean that the cost per student there is way more expensive than at the larger schools. Spending more per pupil at those schools means loss of programs for the rest of the district. Is that fair? I was told the language of the measure was in a large part determined by you and your husband and a small circle of friends and the consultant, and that the district’s PTA’s and the community at large were not allowed to be part of the process, not even the full BOE was invited to participate.
IS THIS TRUE??
Why does the rest of the proposal sound so much like the past MA’s that recently went so south that Judge Bartalini resigned in resentment, feeling betrayed by what he felt hurt his reputation in the eyes of all whom he sought to support the Measure.
You and the BOE need to call and emergency mtg to clarify in the ballot proposal specifically how the money will be spent. We can afford to lose the tax parcel, and we can’t afford for the money raised to go anywhere except where the voters approve. Whit what recently happened, the present language will not fly.
Let me give you an example which was included in an email I received today”
It was unfortunate that the parcel tax came before the cuts because I know others would have spoken to the request that it be more specific to have proceeds generated go first to reinstate any cuts that were made last night (this morning) to things that have what I’m calling high impact to the students.
For example, athletics/pools, CSR for 9th graders, music to 1st and 2nd graders, AP classes. My read of the AP classes was that there may be some that will be offered 1st or last period at only one of the high schools, but there was nothing about transportation. There may have been others, I’m not sure though.
Music is specified under Measure A. Yet, that’s being cut this time.
We’ve previously cut afterschool sports from middle schools - maybe that could be included.
Regardless of what the things are that are specified (I think the author really meant to say “Unless things are specified…), as we’ve seen with Measure A, money will actually go first to salaries because they’re all there together and given equal weight, and (the $ will go) to small schools because AUSD hasn’t closed them.
Other Districts do prioritize by having a percentage of the funds go to certain things -
• Palo Alto http://www.campaignforexcellence.org/ballot.htm Passed 74.12%
About 43% of the funds would be used to maintain current class sizes. Another 31% would help PAUSD prevent teacher layoffs. The remaining 26% would restore about one-third of the programs cut since 2003, including some elementary reading, art and math programs, middle and high school course offerings, librarian hours, counseling services and instructional materials.
San Fran - ballot measure $128/20 years; 70% teachers 30% technology Agmt between Dist. & Teachers Union
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/13/BA9KV17KO.DTL&hw=school%2Bboard&sn=002&sc=778 About 70 percent of the revenue raised would to go toward the salary increases and other teacher support and training, while 30 percent would be spent on “technology, innovation and equity,” according to district officials.
It may be harder to write, but it will avoid the problem we had with Measure A. In the next 4 years, there will be negotiations, there may also be more cuts from the State, we don’t know. But the way it’s proposed, including small school and teachers and staff, programs will continue to get what’s leftover.
Repeatedly last night there were calls for the community to get behind the parcel tax if we want to reinstate anything that’s cut. But the way this parcel tax is written, we’ll have students and families working incredibly hard to pass this only to find out that within the next 4 years, they may see their athletics, music, CSR back on the chopping block and cut.
In regards to why this is practical, there are people that remember campaigning for Measure A for programs that are not unhappy that the money went elsewhere. This one needs to be written so that we can get those people behind us.
In regards to small schools, I believe the District needs to clearly inform the community of the cost of those small schools. I’m not calling them neighborhood schools because this town is so small in other towns, many of them would be “neighborhood schools.” The cumulative effect on AUSD’s budget of having small schools, is one of the things that have contributed to the dire financial situation the District is in. If Alameda wants small schools, it needs to contribute more to education. The parcel tax must be higher. Because otherwise, we continue to sacrifice “quality education for all” for small schools. There’s not enough money for both. “
Wishing I am wrong, I really feel last night’s meeting was “set up” – the athletic proposal of course would fill the room with high school kids. The room was way, way past capacity – do you know how many hundreds of people could not even get in? With all the students excited about ‘demonstrating’, talking on their cell phones and chatting amongst them selves, it was virtually impossible to be able to participate in the meeting, let alone to be part of the parcel tax discussion. I am certain this came of no surprise and indeed was intended as reveled by the decision to reverse the agenda and to NOT let the kids have their hours in the spotlight 1st. Normally the agenda item with broad student participation goes forward on the agenda to allow students to get to sleep at a reasonable hour.
Ordinarily I am a big fan of our Superintendant, I was shocked to learn last night that it was her decision to include 3rd grade class size reduction on the list to be evaluated by the BOE to be suspended. Not only was this one of the reasons we voted for the previous parcel tax, but it came out in the meeting that it was a reduction of 11 Full Time position Equivalents (FTEs) and the cut would yield only $100K . Goodness, because CSR is partially (mostly) funded by other State and Fed budgets, we would lose the 11 full time credentialed teachers in exchange for $100k? Of course that was a no-go. But why was it even considered except as an inflammatory distraction?
I was also so surprised to hear how much AEF officers are paid, that I heated up my computer when I got home to search out the public records of this non-profit to find out if it were true. I could not find it. Could you point me to a web site with this info?
Is AEF a 501(3)(c) corporation?
Comment by David Kirwin — March 5, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
Several typos – my bad.
You and the BOE need to call an d emergency mtg to clarify in the ballot proposal - specifically how the money will be spent. We can (CAN’T) afford to lose the tax parcel, and we can’t afford for the money raised to go anywhere except where the voters approve. Whit With what recently happened, the present language will not fly.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 5, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
GuideStar is the go to site for information about non profit agencies. The form 990s will give you all the information you need.
Comment by Lauren Do — March 5, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
Hmm strike-thru’s lost formating…Several typos – my bad.
You and the BOE need to call an emergency mtg to clarify in the ballot proposal - specifically how the money will be spent. We CAN’T afford to lose the tax parcel, and we can’t afford for the money raised to go anywhere except where the voters approve. With what recently happened, the present language will not fly.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 5, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
Thanks Lauren - Did it come up for you at Guidestar?
Comment by David Kirwin — March 5, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
Yep, you need to sign up for a login and a password though, then they let you access some of the information for free.
Comment by Lauren Do — March 5, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
That was my go-to last night, but it came up unfound.
ahh, got the ‘help w/ homework call….later
Comment by d kirwin — March 5, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
Awhile back AUSD was going broke because of the Charter schools. I supported AUSD’s arguments against the Charters, but, only because the alternative would have been an attempt to enact a parcel tax to support Charters at the expense of ASUD. Now, it’s the state budget and the new culprits are Arnold and the Legislature.
My problem with parcel taxes is that 1/4 of the population is adding to their tax burden in support of the schools while 3/4 or Alameda isn’t. Make a case where all citizens share the burden and I’ll support paying it.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 5, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
Jack,
STFU. When you start pulling your weight in property taxes, call me back. We should sit down with a botle of Jack when that happens.
In the meantime, though, I’ll happily support the schools — and YOUR property values.
Warm regards,
just plain dave & his massive tax bill
Comment by dave — March 5, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
#102 has a good description of the cronyism and nepotism that plagues AUSD. And Rob S is curious why everybody isn’t rushing out with their open wallets!
Comment by Phil S — March 5, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
I am ambivalent about the parcel tax. I’ve said before that if I vote for it I will do so because many people I know, including many friends, have children that go to public schools in Alameda.
If there is no other alternative to fixing the funding crisis then I will vote in favor of increasing the parcel tax, despite the fact that I don’t think any parcel owner should be exempted.
Also, I am concerned that approving an increased parcel let’s our elected State and Federal representatives, who, by their inaction, have fostered this crisis by allowing the inequitable funding from the State to continue, off the hook. The elected representatives who were in office when the base closed should be called to account for not addressing this issue when the base closure process was discussed in the 90’s.
Approving the tax may be the only way to address the current crists, but can we at least begin to admit that doing so will give our representatives a hall pass to continue to ignore a situation that is fundamentally unfair and inequitable?
If we don’t start to hold people accountable I think we will all be here a few years from now, even if the increased tax is approved, proposing another increase.
Comment by Mike Rich — March 5, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
While I’m at it, how many State and Federal representatives have appeared at the meetings of the AUSD BOE to discuss the funding crisis?
Have they been invited?
If not, why not.
If they were invited, why didn’t they show?
Comment by Mike Rich — March 5, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
#107 Thanks Lauren - Though I too tired to really look at them I do now have the 1999 - 2006 IRS 990’s for AEF. I don’t know what all the problems were last night, maybe too tired, too much irrationality, - too much of that ‘goin ’round. Hope AEF can pick up the K-3 music programs dropped by BOE
I do like their Mission Statement.
“To Support Excellence in Alameda public Schools” - We do need some calm SEAS to keep our island’s schools afloat.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 6, 2008 @ 12:34 am
#102
Close Edison? Tiny school? How many young kids do you want to stuff into a school? It has a waiting list every year for crying out loud - make it bigger if anything else. It is a great school.
Our two kids barely were able to attend it was so full when they applied.
Unlike most bay area towns (the previous place we lived - the roads were way too busy for kids to walk to school on their own) - our kids walked to Edison.
Comment by ChrisO — March 6, 2008 @ 8:07 am
The parcel tax as presented will once again not be equitable. There are more than a handful of seniors in Alameda on more financially stable ground than some of our middleclass families. Why should they be exempt? Aren’t most of them getting enough of a tax break thanks to prop 13? Exemptions should only be for cases of financial hardship. ALL Alameda property owners reap the benefits of good schools via property values thus all should participate in the parcel tax.
It is time to stop this foolish “neighborhood schools” balkanization crap once and for all. I mean come on- you can drive across town in 20 min. tops! I would get my kids to opposite ends of Alameda if it meant more enrichment and choices; “neighborhood schools”(code words for I don’t want my kid to go to THAT school!) be damned! Like Kerwin said these small schools are a subsidized luxury we can no longer afford to bestow upon those in certain neighborhoods. Besides, off the record a long time district administrator acknowledged to me that one of them, (despite calls against charters as being defacto private by one of these small school’s vocal parents.) is essentialy run like a private school via it’s PTA, local political clout, and the disposable income of it’s parents.
Comment by poguemahone — March 6, 2008 @ 11:12 am
116. It’s an age thing, P-man. Under 21 you don’t get to buy liquor, over 65 you don’t get to pay school parcel tax. It’s not equitable at either end.
What you call “balkanization”, others call “local control”.
Comment by anachrofella — March 6, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
116. I’m sorry - I prefer that my kids have the option to walk to school - just like I did - and here they can do that safely to any school on the island.
Comment by ChrisO — March 6, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
#117
Under age kids do not recieve a “contact” drunk after not drinking liquor they can not buy. Nor does the state of California forbid seniors to pay parcel taxes. Poor analogy A-man. Why should seniors, regardless of their income, be exempt especially when it directly benefits their property value?
“Local control”, yeah, of “Not sending my kid to THAT school!” Let’s not mince words here, for the most part it is snobbery and bigotry at play nothing more or less.
#116
There are kids within each school boundary that I am certain live a bit far to walk depending on their age, ability and their parent’s comfort level. So, let me get this straight….you would rather gut programs and staff so that your kid can relive part of your youth? Why not buy an old console television and forbid you family’s use of cell phones while your at it?
I’ll probably hold my nose and vote yes for this turd as many others will.
Comment by poguemahone — March 6, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
119 - You need to chill a bit - I’m not sure where your insecurities are coming from.
I’m not saying sacrafice anything - our schools already have.
What do you want - one big school with a drive through?
And yes I think it is an important part of youth to be able to walk to school - hang out aftwards with friends. Sorry if this seems old fashioned.
Anyhow - back to work - I’m saving for that 8 track adaptor for my mp3 player.
Comment by ChrisO — March 6, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
Sorry about typos. You=your, Ther’re=there and so on. Wish there was an edit option.
Comment by poguemahone — March 6, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Should I refer to you as Dr. O now Chris? Thanks for the diagnosis. Perhaps I’m all insecure since I wasn’t breast feed due to the fact my mom wanted me to be bottle feed just like she was, and only those nutty hippy moms were breast feeding and well, we all know what they were smoking right? I’m very thankful my dad made me walk uphill to school both ways in the sleet and snow, I’ll have you know.
I do not think it is extreme to ponder the necessity of keeping open the present number of schools in a district with long term financial problems and declining enrollment for the foreseeable future. Never talked about a single drive through “super school” but that sounds too “Jetsons” to me anyway.
Comment by poguemahone — March 6, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
Queen Anne don’t give a rat’s behind whether or not somebody places a value on her roof and buttress. Increasing taxes don’t affect her a bit. It’s the dwellers who’re affected and it’s they who should be targeted to support schools and none of them should be exempt, whether or not they own the queen of lath and plaster.
Comment by anachrofella — March 6, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
#123 So what? A sales tax?
Comment by poguemahone — March 6, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
Maybe with a sunset on this tax and the existing tax we can agree to try and work to some consensus about more equitable solutions before the sunsets expire, that is if this tax passes and we have not achieved radical change at the state level in five years.
If this tax fails, people can launch recalls and all sorts of stuff, but when the dust settles and we have barely any school infrastructure left, I think folks will turn their torches and pitch forks to the governors mansion and the legislature.
From the vantage point of the TV screen, Vallejo seems to maybe not be so well run, but their school is in trouble none the less, and Dublin is having their knock down drag out BOE meeting tonight. Maybe we are reaching a critical mass of discontent, which would be apropos for the year Arnold dubbed to focus on education.
Comment by Mark I — March 6, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
We NEED to merge the smallest elementary schools. It will save us MILLIONS.
We NEED those MILLION$. Don’t we know that? Our Superintendant said we may also end up closing a middle school.
Perhaps the “specially selected” authors of the June parcel tax measure will remove the offending idea that the tax is to minimize school closures. WE need to run the district efficiently. BOE Member David Forbes reiterated the fact that waiting on the last mergers cost the District dearly.
DON’T USE THE PARCEL TAX TO FORCE INEFFICIENCY INTO DISTRICT OPERATIONS!!
WHY THE HELL ARE WE WILLING TO REPEAT THE MISTAKE OF NOT BEING EFFICIENT WHEN WE KNOW WE HAVE TO BE???
HAVEN’T WE LEARNED? (By “we” I mean those who wrote this TERRIBLE ballot measure. IF the authors from FRANKLIN SCHOOL are PLANNING to force AUSD to be inefficient to protect “their” little school - why would , or the other ‘we’ offer more money?
ARE YOU BLOODY CRAZY OR SOMETHING?
I am certainly not alone in these thoughts - It is the talk of school principals, PTA presidents and parents alike.
There are only hours left to correct the “make or break language” of the proposal. I advise the Mooney’s and the BOE to call an emergency mtg which would be exempt from standard meeting notice requirement. Failure to correct the proposal before submitting it Friday will surely cause the parcel tax to fail.
THE PROPOSAL MUST BE SPECIFIC IN WHAT IT IS TO FUND similar to what was posted in post #102 of OPT IN, OPT OUT.
While I truly, truly, truly appreciate EVERYONE who has volunteered so much time to learn about, and act on AUSD funding issues, I am sickened whenever positions of power and authority are perverted for self interests. It is very telling that there has been no attempt to defend their actions (which lead to the ballot language) to the people who have been posting these concerns since the BOE mtg 3/4/08.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 6, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
126:
Staff has estimated closing an elementary school savings at $300,000 not MILLIONS.
With class size reduction in place, 7 of the 10 elementary schools are at capacity. In order to close elementary schools we would have to eliminate class size reduction or build larger elementary schools.
With existing charter laws, schools closed in other districts simply apply for a charter and those students disenroll from the school districts and the “savings” from school closing disappear.
Comment by Mike McMahon — March 6, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
127-
We also have elementary schools not at capacity like Washington, we also have elementary schools that are serving non-residents. We do have the ability to house all our elementary school students.
How many years does it take $300k/yr to add up to millions, how many years will the district go on?
AUSD offers a better product than other districts. Our largest elementary schools receive the highest honors, offer more and at a lower cost per student.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 6, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
On the debate about neighborhood schools, I’d just like to point out that people don’t only support them out of snobbery or a fear of sending their kids to “bad schools.” (See, e.g., #116.)
I’m a big supporter of small, neighborhood schools because I think they build strong school communities, which creates a secure and friendly social environment for the kids. My children have thrived at Otis, in part because the community is so close-knit and so welcoming.
Being able to walk or ride to school also provides children with opportunities for exercise and fresh air. And walkable schools certainly make sense if we’re trying to create a “greener” city–one with less air pollution, less surface run-off and fewer CO2 emissions.
I understand the financial rationale behind merging schools, but other factors are also important for our children and our community. Neighborhood schools are just one of factors that have made AUSD a really strong–and attractive–district for many years.
Comment by Susan Davis — March 6, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
BOE Member McMahon,
While I more often than not agree with yo, there was 1 motion you passed Tues night that horrified me. You were right that the BOE lacked ‘best reasoning’ , trying to creatively re-align cuts on the fly, past midnight or 1 am.
The creativity of exhausted minds will of course have unforeseen consequences, as you stated. I wish you heeded your own advice.
The BOE members get a minimal stipend and some insurance benefits. The cost to the district is about $5k/yr for each member. This of course is meaningless to our millionaire board members, especially one who pays more for each of their children’s private school than the entire BOE is paid per year. As the least affluent BOE members stated; it is respectable for a BOE member to return to AUSD those funds, if un-needed, but that should be a choice. Other BOE members, now or in the future may rely on those funds to cover “sitter” costs so they can attend meetings, or spouses may have to give up needed income to allow research or meeting time to future BOE members. Being wealthy should not be a prerequisite for being a Board member. Your vote actually appeared more as a personal barb, and has as an affect to further make the BOE an aristocratic club. It was the only thing I heard you say that night that I found offensive, or a ‘bad call’. Then again until all the kids had their say and left, most of us toward the back of the gym, or the hundreds who could not get in the room really could not hear anything going on.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 6, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
Susan, I don’t disagree with you. Even our largest elementary school is a close knit community. Most students walk or ride to school at Earhart, at least after K-1st grade. There is not 100% total family involvement in the school, but it is hugely significant and wildly successful, because it is welcoming, fun, and the parents with the time to participate really get to experience how their involvement makes a very positive difference. Merging schools is a change - no one likes change, but we will adapt, each year new comers will not know a difference, after 5 years a new generation of families will have been involved, and will not have known a change in routine, and the district would have saved $1.5 million or more for each school. It is not like families would have to take their kids from the neighborhood school miles across the island. The stumbling block is the politics before intelligence. I understand that, and I too would not want to have to make that vote, even knowing it is the right thing to do. I do not envy those we entrusted to serve our children and city. It is not an enjoyable time to be on the dais, not even close
Comment by David Kirwin — March 6, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
#129
I said, “….for the most part it is snobbery and bigotry at play…..” Not “only”. I also did not say, “bad schools.” I think at the elementary level the education available is fairly equal and there are no “bad schools”, only bad perceptions based on faulty assumptions gleaned from STAR test scores (a reckless sham) and little else unless your a bigot and or elitist.
Although somewhat important, I do not see how the things you sell as value in regards to small neighborhood schools trump fiscal responsibility that may be necessary to better educate our children and enrich and expand their learning experience(s). Would you send your child to College of Alameda over Cal because of size and distance given the choice? That’s just a tad illogical.
Comment by poguemahone — March 6, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
How many non resident students attend Alameda schools and where are they percentage wise per school?
Mike?
Comment by poguemahone — March 7, 2008 @