A video is worth a 1000 words
Sometimes I think that when it comes to the education of our kids — and yes I say OUR kids even though my child is not yet of school going age because I feel it’s the responsibility of the community as a whole to educate children — it may be good for adults to stop talking (or writing) — yours truly included — long enough to hear what the kids have to say about their education. During this whole process I have been so impressed with the student leaders from Encinal and Alameda High Schools (to Kevis, rereading my post, I was trying to make a point that the most visible student leaders that have pushed themselves into the fray have been those kids from Encinal and Alameda High, not that ACLC or even BASE kids didn’t participate in the rally itself).
And so I offer to you all a chance to hear them speak themselves, we already have a taste from Ian Merrifield from Encinal High School who I think holds to record as the first poster to this blog under 19. Hurray! While some will argue that our youth are young and impressionable and may have been “sold” a line of thinking, I would say that young people these days are a lot savvier than us old folks would believe them to be. Simply because we may have been naive at 17 or 18, doesn’t mean these young people don’t get it, nor should we doubt their abilities to think critically simply because they disagree with our own personal positions.
From Light Generation who filmed the Board Meeting at Chipman, the Protest Rally, and the meeting with Jack O’Connell, three videos with the words of our kids about the impact of the state budget on their futures.
AUSD Board Meeting at Chipman on March 4, 2008
Student Protest Rally on March 5, 2008
Student Meeting with Jack O’Connell on March 7, 2008
Thank you, Lauren, for this post. I could not for a second take any credit for this, however. We, as students, are all hopping mad about the state of affairs in this state, and we are all vocal about it.
Public education, as Ms. Dailey said at the Board Meeting, is in my belief an unalienable right. That means that we, as a society, have a duty to support it.
So rest assured, members of the Alameda community, that I am not alone. The students of Alameda need, if there education is to survive, support and commitment from this community. That is why it is time for us to set aside differences and work together for the good of our children.
Comment by Ian Merrifield — March 12, 2008 @ 11:23 am
Sorry, slight typo. “Their” education needs to survive, not “There.” See!!!!! Help me learn better grammar by passing this parcel tax!
I hope the readers of this blog are ok with a little self-depricating humor.
Comment by Ian Merrifield — March 12, 2008 @ 11:25 am
# 1
3. Would you be so kind as to point to the source of this belief that public education is an “unalienable” right
Comment by Jack Richard — March 12, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
#3 Read before posting
He is commenting on a statement made by Ms. Daily.
Comment by ChrisO — March 12, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
From the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education:
Comment by Lauren Do — March 12, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
# 4
ChrisO, Not to quibble but the person (Ian) posting #1 states, “Public education, as Ms. Dailey said at the Board Meeting, is in my belief an unalienable right.” There are no quotation marks surrounding “, is in my belief an unalienable tight.” Even though he attributes the statement to Ms. Dailey, the lack of quotation marks means it’s also his belief that public education is an “unalienable” right.
I had hoped that he could point to the source of this belief, since he used it.
The Brown v. Board of Education decision Lauren Do quotes, says nothing about “unalienable” rights. It merely speaks to the importance of education. The quote, in fact, implies education is not an “unalianable” right because: “…it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.” If it can be denied, it can’t be “unalienable”.
“Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
“You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.”
“Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.”
Comment by Jack Richard — March 12, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
In response to #6,
Not to quibble with you, but as I understand it, Ian stated his personal belief that education is an inalienable right. Why does he have to justify his belief to you or anyone else?
I’d also direct you to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal 3d 584, in which the Court held that education was a “fundamental interest.” The opinion concluded as follows:
“By our holding today we further the cherished idea of American education that in a democratic society free public schools shall make available to all children equally the abundant gifts of learning. This was the credo of Horace Mann, which has been the heritage and the inspiration of this country. ‘I believe,’ he wrote, ‘in the existence of a great, immortal immutable principle of natural law, or natural ethics, — a principle antecedent to all human institutions, and incapable of being abrogated by any ordinance of man … which proves the absolute right to an education of every human being that comes into the world, and which, of course, proves the correlative duty of every government to see that the means of that education are provided for all….’”
Comment by Page — March 12, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
#7
I can not fault the kid for trying to be envolved in his and his peers education, but let’s keep the facts straight. He wrote and or Ardella said unalienable, not inalienable. There is a difference.
Comment by poguemahone — March 12, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
I regret my error. I note that Mr. Richard referred to “inalienable” rights in the last sentence of the post to which I was responding.
And in any event, whether the rights involved are unalienable or inalienable, my point remains the same.
Comment by Page — March 12, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
I think the quotes in both #5 & #7 are worth including in the next set of letters we should all be sending to all our State reps.
Comment by Dave Kirwin — March 12, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
Alright.
Although I have vowed to participate in this blog without getting personal with anyone, the mama bear in me has been triggered by what I see as an unfair attack on Ian.
Mr. Richard, were you actually tearing apart Ian’s argument because he used the word “unalienable” instead of “inalienable”? Did you not know what he meant?
That would be a shameful way to treat any teenager who ventured into this forum — even if said student could barely put together a literate sentence. But to do it to a student who has shown such maturity, such leadership, and such dedication to helping his fellow students is just really, really low.
I have spent a lot of time teaching my children to be open-minded, to be fair, and to be respectful of other people’s opinions–while learning to identify and stay true to their own convictions. I would love to see more grown-ups in this district start behaving the same way.
This is truly a time for the adults and the kids in this district to work TOGETHER to solve our problems, not to be wasting time tearing each other apart.
Comment by Susan Davis — March 12, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
Just to clarify, dictionary.com offered me these definitions:
UNALIENABLE: adj. Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable
INALIENABLE: adj. not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated, unalienable.
As you see, they are synonyms. So in my opinion, public education is both an inalienable and an unalienable right.
I only meant to say that I believe that public education is an intrinsic part of our society and that we must continue to work to keep it excellent.
Comment by Ian Merrifield — March 12, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
Ian,
Your mother is an outstanding executive director and although I can’t imagine AEF without her, she should write a book on how to raise an articulate child with good manners and amazing debating skills.
For those of you who would argue the merits of paying this parcel tax dispite the unfair game plan of our state government. Please re-read Ian’s posts on this blog and realize that is what a public education can get you. That is too valuable to throw away.
Comment by Barbara M — March 12, 2008 @ 9:49 pm
Ah momma bear - I am very sure Ian does not mind being corrected, as none of us should presume to know all. I did not know the difference between an inalienable right and an unalienable right, but it is clear that the best education possible is neither. That is what we are witnessing in CA. We want the best for our kids; we believe that is best for society.
Presently I wonder how direct a relationship a quality education has on society. It seems that CA had a reputation as one of the best education systems, and among the cheapest college systems in the 70’s. So why are we here now? Did education lessen the burden on the criminal system, or do we just have smarter criminals? Did a smarter population in CA improve our lot? Are we better off socially or environmentally than 30 or 40 years ago? Some say the neocons have wanted to eliminate an educated society since the 60’s and 70’s when it was apparent that an informed society is harder to control.
(hmmm, is that why it is so hard to get info about AUSD actions? Berkeley Unified has the BOE packets available on-line. The city of Alameda has servers that have most public meetings live and archived, including the packet material. – Where we can search meeting videos by agenda item and jump to what interests us. Why not AUSD? – Why can’t we be better informed of public information by our education system who just spent $5 million of Measure “C” funds upgrading their technology dept?)
A good education has always been as available as the students who want it. Unfortunately no amount of money spent on education will make all the students forced to attend school want to remove their ear buds and receive the education the State provides. Not all students are like Ian. BTW – Ian, like last year’s Encinal BOE rep - you really do speak volumes about the quality of education provided for students who want to take the education offered .That is your advantage. It really makes me proud to see you and your fellow students be active, participate in our Democracy, and to do so in a positive way. However not all students are like you. Actually many of the students going to the BOE meetings the last few weeks are more about making a scene, than looking to make sense of a crumbling system. At the meeting on the 4th many students seemed more interested in their iPods and cell phones than the fact that over a thousand people were there to try to save the system designed to provide them with an education that would help enable a better life for them. I could not help but think the same behavior is exhibited in the schools – where the info on the iPods and cell phones gets more attention than the info in the books and in the classroom. Some kids may not be willing students – what do we do with them?
Face it, we don’t know how to educate, to motivate and teach, all students. Just as every parent will tell you; kids don’t come with operating instructions. We, as a State try all kinds of programs, but we are still failing. How can we possibly have a single system of education that works for such a diversified range of students? CA needed to study how to achieve more successful education. We knew we needed to try lots of new ways and methods. Into the ED Code went Charter Schools. There are all kinds of ways that the State has enabled Charter Schools to operate more efficiently, rules they can bend or that just don’t apply to them like the rest of the system. They are set up like experimental programs. They will not all work. They will not be good for those who attend them. They will all be different. But hopefully, they are watched, successes can be duplicated (or attempts can be made), failures can be curtailed. It is for this reason that I support Charter Schools, at least in theory. Why argue with efficiency when we so dearly need to be more efficient since the State clearly is saying that the population does not have an inalienable right or an unalienable right to the tax dollars we want for education.
Tea party anyone?
Comment by David Kirwin — March 12, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
With all due respect Mr. Kirwin, I do not believe it is fair to characterize the students who have been, as you say, actively participating in our democracy, in this fashion:
“However not all students are like you. Actually many of the students going to the BOE meetings the last few weeks are more about making a scene, than looking to make sense of a crumbling system. At the meeting on the 4th many students seemed more interested in their iPods and cell phones than the fact that over a thousand people were there to try to save the system designed to provide them with an education that would help enable a better life for them.”
This is simply untrue. Sure, not every student got up and spoke their mind at the meeting. Sure, not every student picked up the megaphone or the microphone. But the possibly very small number of students who may have been listening to their ipods (which they certainly could have done more easily in the comfort of their own homes, they didn’t have to be there) the great majority of students were there, walked out on Wednesday, and are continuing to participate, because they believe in the power that public education has to change their lives.
As I said earlier, I am by no means the only student who has been vocal. I am by NO means the only student who understands the issues and is willing to work.
These students are not attempting to make a scene. They are not attempting to simply get attention. They are fighting tooth and nail, the only way they know how, for a quality education, which is something that, frankly, they deserve.
Comment by Ian Merrifield — March 12, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
Ian, I wish those students had acted in a way that could have been characterized in a more positive light. Maybe it is the lack of self discipline or lack of courtesy that so many students could not “shut up and listen” so they, and the others around them, could achieve the education they wanted from the March 4th meeting. Many it seemed, were there for the ‘social aspect’ rather than as a way to learn the challenges and opportunities facing the BOE. The numbers were cool - whether they spoke or not is not an issue, in fact the repetition ad nauseum of desires does not provide a solution to the lack of resources.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 13, 2008 @ 12:01 am
#14
Why will throwing more schools (charter) at Alameda help the financial situation? Closing Schools? Which schools in Alameda are so poor that a Charter school should come in and replace them? What evidence is there that Charter Schools are better than public schools? Don’t quote that Harvard economist - her published report came from faulty data.
Both Public Schools and Public Charter schools will have to live by the same test standards and meet the same requirements to receive funding. I’m not even sure this last point is true - that they will need to meet the same requirements - I’ve heard otherwise (I’ll need to research this a bit further.)
Why are we even having this charter school debate - if there is not enough money for public schools - why would there be additional for charters?
Comment by ChrisO — March 13, 2008 @ 7:34 am
I’m re-posting #17 to the charter debate thread as to not sideline this thread.
Thanks
Comment by ChrisO — March 13, 2008 @ 7:55 am
#16 DK not to set the bar low, or be demeaning to people under 18, but they are teen agers. They could have slipped away to Park street and skipped Kofman all together.
Comment by Mark I — March 13, 2008 @ 8:18 am
I thought I had essentially heard everything already so I was not in a hurry to watch these tapes. I had heard Ian, Becky and other student leadership speak live before and they were and continue to be very articulate. But I expect that.
Especially after hearing rumors that some parents of athletes were considering a recall campaign for BOE, I wasn’t anxious to hear from disappointed student athletes. No law says “jocks” can’t be articulate, but in my day the high school quarterback reached his apex in life in 12th grade and these days is no longer a big fish, even in that little pond. I was barred from crew for long hair and rather than call the ACLU my parents shrugged, so I went and smoked a joint. But I digress.
At minute 20 of the Chipman meeting, Eli’s (#10 in yellow shirt) piece on the importance of sports blew me away. Eli got our younger son involved in baseball seven years ago and Eli is absolutely passionate about every aspect of the game. The originality of what he had to say really bore out what all these kids were saying about sports spurning them to academic achievements. The creativity in Eli’s speech was obviously directly inspired by what he derives from the sport. I knew the boy is that smart but never saw him drawn out in this way.
The three speakers following Eli, particularly the two African American boys from Encinal, were compelling in telling the real impact of being student athletes. All wonderfully articulate kids.
At this point if we don’t make cuts to sports we might as well cut 12th grade. The law requires the budget to be balanced, period. But in turn, we HAVE TO pass the parcel tax to keep sports and AP and the whole lot.
So thank you Lauren and students., On tape and in their posts these youth have actually re-inspired me to do what I REALLY DID NOT want to do which is lobby the community to vote for the tax.
Comment by Mark I — March 13, 2008 @ 8:32 am
# 11
Gee whiz, all I asked in my # 3 was the belief source for a statement which the use of by Mr. Merrifield in #1 seemed odd to me. Particularly since he attributes the belief to Ms. Dailey.
Whether it’s inalienable or unalienable, the work we Americans primarily associate the word with is our Declaration of Independence (which uses the word “unalienable”). However, as near as I can tell, Public Education is not called out in that document as being one of the self-evident truths.
The word is important to me and to use it without primary source context, in my view, tends to diminish the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. Public education may be an adjunct to, but certainly is not on the same level as “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”.
Lauren Do in # 5 and Page in # 7 cited court decisions in support of the statement in # 1, however neither decision cites the actual word. It’s also interesting that Lauren Do, in citing Brown V. Board in support of # 1, fails to note that in the 1940 case of Minersville School District v. Gobitis the US Supreme Court permitted the expulsion of Jehovah Witness children from a public school in Pennsylvania for not saluting the flag or reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The majority opinion was written by no less than Felix Frankfurter, that icon of the liberal court. The expelled kids’ parents were later forced to enroll their kids in a private school under the threat of incarceration.
I would be the last person to diminish the importance of education (public or private) and I do not think my # 3 question was either, as Susan Davis breaks her vow in declaring, an attack on or a shameful way to treat Mr. Merrifield.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 13, 2008 @ 9:39 am
Mr. Richard,
For what it’s worth, I was not at all offended by your question. I was mildly offended later by everybody else deciding to argue semantics about what seemed to me to be nothing more than a difference of a single letter.
But I do believe that public education is an unalienable right, and I happen to agree with Ms. Dailey on that belief. Now I’m not necessarily drawing that word directly from the Declaration of Independence, although I do believe that from “the pursuit of happiness” comes a pursuit of knowledge.
The philosophy of John Locke, from which that phrase was modified, said that our government had a solemn responsibility to protect our “life, liberty, and property.” I believe that public education, while not only being a means from which to eventually obtain property, is also the path to knowledge, which in my opinion is a property in and of itself.
If you define unalienable in this manner: “not to be separated, given away, or taken away” then I believe that that definition certainly applies to public education.
Comment by Ian Merrifield — March 13, 2008 @ 10:24 am
Also, Mr. Kirwin,
I’m simply curious, and I don’t mean this to be disrespectful, but how long did you stay at the Chipman meeting? I only ask because I stayed until it was adjourned, almost at 2 AM. And I was not the only student there, there were probably between 10 and 20 of us there, forsaking the sleep that we so desperately need. In fact, the group of us that was there was instrumental in persuading the school board to keep ROTC off the list, as they almost put it back on.
Now certainly there were many students who left earlier than I. Certainly there were students who may not have been completely absorbed by the meeting. But I must respectfully say that if you honestly expected hundreds of tired, angry teenagers to sit at rapt attention while we watched the school board’s endless nitpicking over the placement of individual words in the parcel language, then the problem is in your own expectations, not in the students.
And as for how their behavior was characterized, frankly, you’re the first I’ve heard to portray their attendance as such. Every schoolboard member, community member, media outlet, and educator that I have talked to since, including Ms. Dailey, gave us immense praise and thanked us for the work that we have been doing so far.
Comment by Ian Merrifield — March 13, 2008 @ 10:33 am
#17 Chris O. –
You have real questions – here are some real answers.
Charter schools do not operate by the same set of rules and standards as the ‘conventional’ schools in CA’s districts. This is intentional – the state BOE set it up this way. I truly feel they are intended to be ‘experimental’. Our education system is changing, it will have to change. One of the purposes of the Charter school laws is to sample education delivery options. They are still part of the district, but their “pot ‘o funding” is separate. The ‘conventional’ school “pot ‘o funding” for the District is reduced proportional to the ADA of the # of students who opt to move to the “Charter style” of education delivery. This is the fiscal difference that concerns many, yet because the funding is proportional to the students, it is the best way that the State has come up with to divide the operating costs. Some of the facilities, activities and courses can be shared. I doubt lunch, or gym, dances, sports, etc would differ, for the different education styles, but maybe they are. I am not attached to any particular Charter school; the day for that investigation is years away for my family. I do support the concept of Charter Schools. I do imagine technology will be playing a larger role in education, and will be used to lower the labor costs of education. I do imagine the ‘experimental’ styles inherent in Charter schools will help us learn to develop the education system of the future.
The point is that it is cheaper to educate thru the Charter system, but equally true that there is no net savings designed in the Charter laws for the host District.
I’ll bet my reputation that there are good and bad Charter schools, some that do a much better job, and others that are a sham. ACLC seems to be the former, but I am sure that is not so for every student there. As I said in a previous post – how can a single system be the best for everyone in such a diversified community? Seems obvious we need more that one system.
Schools aren’t closed because they are “poor”, in either sense of meaning. Clearly it seems the smallest elementary schools remaining in AUSD are in the wealthiest neighborhoods. I am sure the students at those schools receive excellent education, and obviously those neighborhood parents have the most clout in the fight to prevent the District from taking steps towards making financially justified decisions.
So please understand both promoting elementary schools to the advantaged size of 500 -600 student size, (like AUSD’s highest achieving elementary schools), and making use of Charter school options and both financially advantageous steps.
There are probably as many reasons students and their families would opt to change, as there are students applying for the openings. Some may be good students who aspire to find an ‘easy way out’ to suit their lazy unmotivated selves. Some may be good student who aspire to pursue their goals instead of being bored and frustrated in the conventional system. Some may be less scholastically advanced students who are frustrated with their inability to “get it” when taught in the conventional system. Some may just think they will more easily get away with being a ‘slacker’ – as some posts seem to imply. (Although this may be the goal of a young slacker, I doubt this is motivation supported by the adults responsible for that child.)
Having two boys in elementary school, I would happily support a policy banning iPods and cell phones in all AUSD facilities, both for conventional and charter schools. I am also sure the MOF dept has banned skate boards on district property to prevent destruction of low walls, steps, benches etc. I think enforcement is the issue. Don’t our middle and high schools now have uniformed cops on campus? What does it take to get kids to follow the rules and abide social mores?
Comment by David Kirwin — March 13, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
#23
Ian,
#23 - I stayed until the end of the meeting, mainly because I was so upset at the change in agenda. I felt and still feel, that the budget should have been discussed prior to the parcel tax. That is the way the agenda was posted. It made sense. It would have allowed the students to ‘air their issues’ after which those uninterested in the parcel tax could have left, fulfilled by participating, in time to complete homework and / or get to bed at a reasonable hour. It is not unusual to change the sequence of items on an agenda to allow large groups of students to go first. Forcing all the uninterested students who were obviously not paying attention to stay to the end made it impossible for many of us to hear what was being discussed about the new tax proposal. The students obviously did not know how to behave in a public meeting nor did they respect others who were constantly ’shushing’ them because we could not hear the meeting. I have no reason to doubt that the decision to keep the distraction of the students in the room was made with intent, knowing the tax discussion would be marginalized. When members of the audience called out to turn up the PA no action was taken. Besides not being able to hear there were so many people in the room - (approx 50% over capacity as posted in accordance to the fire Marshall) - it was impossible to move in the back where there was no seating, and aisles where choked. It looked as if hundreds of people never even made it into the room, so none of those people could hear either.
Without hearing you cannot participate, without being able to enter the room you can not participate. Without being able to participate Democracy is failed. Prior to the meeting where so many of us could not participate, where was the call for participating in the framing of the tax proposal? Do you begin to understand why so many of us feel democracy was short changed? All of the people I know who were allowed to contribute to the formation of the parcel tax proposal are Franklin School parents. Some I’m told are known to pull their kids out of AUSD after finished at Franklin elementary. And the handouts at that meeting on the Parcel tax moved avoidance of school closure to the top of the list to be served by the new tax. Is that the best democracy our school district can teach? Schools are merged solely to save money. Doesn’t the District need to save money? Didn’t we recently ‘close’ 3 small schools with the opening of Ruby Bridges? Do you realize that saves the district nearly $1 Million every year? The BOE is promoting that the parcel tax would generate $15.6 M over its lifespan. 25% of the proposed parcel tax would be needed to maintain those small schools had they been left open. Isn’t it important to consider closing the small elementary schools prior or while considering to close Wood or Chipman?
Long story short - I stayed to vent my dissatisfaction with the BOE for their decision to hold the meeting at Chipman, and to flip the item sequence on the agenda.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 13, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Mr. Kirwin,
I, again, have to respectfully disagree.
You seem to be unwilling to acknowledge the benefit of the presence of the students at the meeting. You seem to only be willing to complain about the fact that they may have been too loud. To be honest, I don’t know what to say that I haven’t already said. The superintendent and the school board, as well as many members of the community, praised the students for attending. Again, you are the first I’ve heard to detract from that.
My mother is not a Franklin parent, so there’s one, for starters. And there were certainly others. I know for a fact that both my mother and Barbara Mooney have said that they believe that Franklin absolutely should be closed. So again, please do not accuse my mother or anyone else of being self interested (not to mention the fact that even if my mother was intent on saving Franklin, she was a non-voting, not participating member who merely facilitated the meetings.)
As I don’t know the full list of people who participated, I can’t tell you what other parents/ community members were there. But rest assured that the school board would never have agreed to put a parcel tax on the ballot that had been created only by parents at one school.
I agree with you that at least one or two elementary schools in Alameda shall be closed, so there is no need for more argument there.
I can only speak for students, but if you are concerned about whether or not people were able to participate in democracy, I think that you can be nothing but proud of Alameda students. Because regardless of whether or not you agree with our opinions, you can not deny that we have absolutely participated.
Comment by Ian Merrifield — March 13, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
Typo in paragraph 6.
I meant that I think one or two elementary schools in Alameda SHOULD be closed. Whether or not they shall remains to be seen.
Comment by Ian Merrifield — March 13, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
Just chiming in here from TN. I mentioned that I would discuss how the education system works in the state of TN as well as how their tax collection standards function.
First of all, as I previously mentioned, TN too is also experiencing a slowdown in their property market. But despite that, their school system seems to so far be untouched by this. In fact, all the public schools in East TN still retain all extracurricular programs including a few that are quite interesting such as a program where college professors and professionals come into the high schools and offer advanced classes that in turn count as college credit. All in all, the system is very healthy.
Secondly, I asked my Dad about how the tax system works here. Property tax is basically setup on an assessed value and re-evaluated every 5-6 years. The percentage owed works out to be less than 1% per grand total of the assessed value. My parent’s property has an assessed value of around 180k. Their tax works out to be around $1,200 per year. Putting that into perspective, the median Alameda home would require an annual tax payment of roughly $3,600 per year, or roughly 1/3rd the amount more recent homeowners currently pay.( correct me if I’m wrong)
Additionally, anyone over a certain age and under a set income can qualify for some form of tax relief. But this isn’t an all or nothing type program. Instead it is more on an individual basis. So it isn’t as if a older person with a limited income would automatically be tossed out into the street.
There’s a number of things to be gained from these observations. First of all, property taxes that are spread over an entire population would enable the overall tax for everyone to be less ( except of course for those who’ve lived here for a long time) But let’s say that California were to adopt a similar assessment tax system with slightly less than 1% of the property value being due annually. Even for those who claim that they cannot pay today’s tax rates, the amount would be fairly small and manageable. If it were in fact too much for someone to bear, then just like TN, anyone past a certain age and having such financial difficulty could qualify for state assistance in the form of a determined tax discount.
I’ve been saying for years now that much of California’s budget problems come from it’s dysfunctional taxation system. The biggest problem is the lack of flexibility the system has as well as its inability to function with tax legacy legislation that continually degrades the amount of available funds. This calls for a progressive stance on tax reform. But as I mentioned above, I believe these changes do not need to be drastic or necessarily costly to anyone. What it does take is a change in attitude. In other words, if a law changes, it cannot be a ” Hey- you changed that for them, so now you have to change it for ME” type of conversation. The rhetoric much rather needs to be one of cross-benefit for the health of the community.
The kind of school system I’m seeing here is the kind that parents in California seem to consider as a luxury when in fact here they are expected to be the standard and the exception. I am not saying that “Oh- TN is better than CA” But what I am saying is that good schools come with change, and since there are other states that are actually doing quite well with theirs, perhaps it is time for some of you to step back and see what they are doing and learn how you can make the changes necessary to make schools in California better.
Comment by edvard — March 14, 2008 @ 5:30 am
Edvard,
You are forgetting an important part of the taxation equation while comparing TN and CA. I have long said CA’s budget problem is not one of lack of income, but rather the system of outgo.
Here are a few questions:
What are the avg amounts of State taxes per person of each of the States, and the amount of outgo per person?
Many development friends here try to talk of the benefits of higher density and want to accelerate growth. Does your research show whether larger populations increase or decrease individual tax burdens?
Comment by David Kirwin — March 14, 2008 @ 6:21 am
edvard, any chances of:
1. You staying back in paradise on earth, aka TN?
2. Going on another sabbatical anytime soon?
Let us know.
Comment by superintendent wannabe — March 14, 2008 @ 8:03 am
Perhaps if AUSD did something similar we wouldn’t be in this mess. But given their short sightedness, planning for the future has never been a strength of AUSD — as we’ve seen over and over again.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/14/MN6UVJBJH.DTL
”
San Francisco Unified, which is facing a $40 million deficit, is in a more enviable position. The city stashed away $122 million in a rainy-day fund, and city officials have promised up to $30 million of that to the schools to help reduce or avoid layoffs.
“
Comment by Phil S — March 14, 2008 @ 8:19 am
# 22
Mr. Merrifield, first, thank you for answering my simple question. Also thank you for mentioning that great libertarian, John Locke, as the source for your deep feelings about public education.
As you stated, Locke maintained an underlying belief in the Individualistic view of private property: “The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.” (Locke, “Raison D’Etre of Government”
Be warned, though, you tread in treacherous waters linking Locke’s beliefs in the rights of the individual, on one hand, to own property and to be protected by government in that ownership and then, on the other hand, determine that it’s fine and dandy for that same government to take that property through taxes.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 14, 2008 @ 8:48 am
re # 31
Two points:
1. AUSD planning. As late as mid-December, using State-supplied numbers we are required to use by law, AUSD was projecting a $1.6 million surplus in the 08-09 school year. We should have been having a discussion right now on what to do with that surplus - give employees a raise, fund magnet programs, increase reserves, start funding ‘Other Post Employment Benefits’ - any of the above. We had also discussed receiving less money from the State than forecast and how we wouldn’t, in that case, have as big, or any, of a surplus. Again, we were required to plan using these numbers. It was not until after the Governor unveiled his proposed budget in January that the revenue numbers changed. We are now required to budget using these numbers, regardless of what the State budget finally looks like.
2. The City of San Francisco (not the School District) placed a parcel tax on the ballot many years ago. Part of the ballot language was that a ‘rainy day fund’ would be set up which, if certain conditions were met, SFUSD would be able to tap into.
Maybe Phil S would like to lead a campaign for a similar tax here in Alameda. Future citizens would then be able to commend him for his “planning for the future”.
Comment by David Forbes — March 14, 2008 @ 9:47 am
David Forbes, the question is why AUSD did not have the foresight to plan ahead rather than use the parcel taxes as a band aid and also to give itself more raises. Looks like we could be seeing Vallejo by the island all over again.
If SF had the brains to place a rainy day wording in the ballot, surely AUSD could’ve learnt from its neighbors rather than adopt an insular approach.
Comment by Phil S — March 14, 2008 @ 10:15 am
Unfortunately or fortunately for you all, this will be my last post on this blog. I apologize if this may sound hostile, but this is only directed toward a couple of specific people that have been posting the last couple of days. For the most part, you all have been supportive of Alameda students, and I thank you for that. And for the few of you that have been able to disagree with me respectfully, I thank you for that as well.
I have very quickly come to realize on my less than 72 hours posting on this website that this is a place where people come to share, not to listen.
I have the utmost respect for many learners at ACLC, many of which are good friends of mine. I know them well. I don’t know any of the facilitators at ACLC, so I’m not in a position to judge them at all, good or bad. I, as some of these people would like to paint me, do not think that ACLC students are lazy. I don’t think that ACLC facilitators are inept. Those were simply not my words. Poguemahone, you have put insipid, vengeful, and simply false words into my mouth for the last time.
I also will state one final time that the students who you have heard speak out in the last couple of weeks have been speaking absolutely nothing but their own words. You can certainly disagree with what we’ve been saying if you’d like; I would never for a second attempt to restrict your ability to do so. But to be honest, I can’t feel that you believe in children and that you are truly working for them if you’re small enough people to assert that their words are not their own. Honestly, shame on you. Shame on you that a high school student has to ask you to be civil. Take a step back and think about how old you are.
I’m very saddened when I think about what this blog could be. I thought, when I first posted here, that this could be a place to have respectful discussion about Alameda issues. Where we could, as many of you have pointed out, actively participate in Democracy here in Alameda.
So I’m signing off. I’ve realized that my time can be much better spent actually going out into the community to fight for what I believe in, rather than arguing with brick walls. I would encourage you all, whether you agree with my opinions or not, to do the same. It’s not difficult to make your voice heard and to make your voice count.
So I will continue to fight for the parcel tax, if for no other reason than to make sure that my two younger brothers will be able to receive a public education that is as empowering as mine was. And if, in my volunteer work, I happen to meet someone who is against that tax, I will say, “Thank you very much for your time,” and I will walk on.
And as for the charter, I will continue to work to support my beliefs. I will not be able to attend the next county meeting, because I will be in Washington D.C, but rest assured that I will be preparing something for a fellow student to read for me.
Thank you very much to those of you, regardless of whether or not you agree with me, who are able to engage in respectful, civil discussions on this site. That is what democracy truly is all about.
Thanks again to those who have expressed their support for Alameda students either through this blog or out in the community. As a student, I can’t tell you how empowering it has been to have community support. Thank you.
Comment by Ian Merrifield — March 14, 2008 @ 11:10 am
Thanks Ian, Becky for joining - this is good experience for the two of you as you both will be faced with this type of harsh responses, especially in email, in the real world. I come across this all the time in high tech industry. It usually comes from someone that is insecure in their technical ability - they like to send flaming emails & put people down (they use cc quite a bit.) You just have to let it slide off, don’t play the game their way as you will usually win in the end.
Comment by ChrisO — March 14, 2008 @ 11:22 am
DK,
Actually there’s more that I learned about the tax system here that I find rather interesting. Believe it or not, TN doesn’t have any income tax, but instead has higher sales tax. But this isn’t spread evenly over all salable goods. While durable goods might have say- a 7.5% sales tax, food is generally around 5%. What’s more, the state adjusts the taxation on various items such as food, gas, and other necessities to accommodate changes in the economic situation. So when food started going up due to more recent inflationary influences, the state lowered the tax on food to counteract this cost.But at the same time, other taxes on certain goods are raised to compensate and thus keep the flow of income normalized.
To answer your question regarding tax burdens per population, as in the state of TN’s case, the taxation system is spread evenly amongst the entire population. This is nothing more than an example of simple physics: since everyone is taxed on a similar basis regardless of income in this case, the more population that occurs, the more taxable dollars come into the state which -like the population- would be evenly incremental and thus logically fulfill the needs of the state’s infrastructure as it has been for years.
I think this even tax structure is what California lacks. One generation might be paying significantly less than another, which is clearly the case of Prop 13. Due to this uneven taxable base, the taxable income scale is jagged and irregular, which in my opinion has lead to many of the financial woes the state currently suffers from.
Clearly from the many discussions you, me, and others have had on this board, this is more of a entitlement and legacy problem. People who have become reliant on certain measures that benefit from them will be extremely reluctant to let them be changed while people like myself who receive no benefit will have an equally compelling reason to see these laws change.But to say that one way or the other has to occur in an equally dramatic fashion wouldn’t be solving the problem.
The answer to all of this isn’t to make attempts to patch it and hope the problem will go away. This is a money management problem. The better approach would be to completely level the playing field. In this way, perhaps you might be paying “x” amount of dollars, but so will I and everyone else. Hence the eradication of the fear of being either being in a position of advantage or one of disadvantage.
With a more even approach to taxation and a more reliable, and likely stable form of taxable income, the state would likely more dependably manage this income and appropriate the funds more reasonably for vital state programs like public schools and so on. Unfortunately, these are all mere pipe dreams. But I believe it will take basic, down to earth conversations that disregard what has been in the past and instead focuses on sound, reasonable, and equally fair solutions. It really isn’t that difficult.
So I would be curious to know from people like yourself if we all were paying the same tax, or thereabouts, would this alleviate the suspicion of change?
Comment by edvard — March 14, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
Becky and Ian. Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful posts. I’m sorry you could not get the constructive and civil discussion you were looking for. It is our loss (the adults) in so many ways. Best of luck to you both.
Comment by TMW — March 14, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
Ian, there’s always a good percentage of grand-standing and hot air associated with blogs. Don’t let the “adults” get you down.
As a teen during the 60’s, we faced the haughtiness of those who would argue semantics over issues. You and your fellow students are on the right track. See you at the front!
Comment by Stickarmz — March 14, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
#37
Edvard – TN sounds amazing. I know little about TN, but I remember it fondly from when I hitched from PA to CA in the early 80’s. Half the duration of my trip was in TN. I was impressed by the natural beauty, and the friendliness of the people. I wasn’t sure I wanted to continue to CA. From the historic grounds of Chattanoga, to Nashville and Memphis, it was amazing what I learned and enjoyed, courtesy of those I met on the interstate. Of course it was a lovely spring when more people are eager to smile, but I was really wondering if CA would be as nice.
So tell me – what do the citizens of Tennessee NOT get? What are property taxes like? Really – curious minds want to know how a less dense state can offer a more superb education system without income tax, operating on a sales tax which is almost 15% lower than the sales tax I pay in CA, a state with income tax.
I will make some bets – If you have time, tell me if I am right or wrong, and expand where you can…
1. TN takes better care of its State treasury; money spent almost always directly benefits its people.
2. There are fewer social entitlement programs.
3. There is higher employment. (fewer entitlements creates more need to work)
4. There is no “Redevelopment Law” Or this program is brand new or vastly different from the giveaway program of CA that is over $80 Billion in debt now.
5. There are fewer laws and codes enacted that created waste, or are designed to create profit for ‘cottage industries”, or that require a broader bureaucracy to maintain.
6. The State government employs a much smaller % of the population
7. Law makers, politicians, etc, earn less money, closer percentage-wise to their constituents.
What about gas taxes, PUC taxes, vehicle taxes etc? Where else does TN get funds?
How’s the water, the local food selection, the job market? Where’s the Holiday Inn?
Kidding aside -if you have time, it would be valuable to know where we went wrong in CA.
I don’t believe it was Prop 13 – To me that really protects everybody’s property equally even though it results in differently assessed valued for similar homes.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 15, 2008 @ 12:25 am
Ian , Becky and others, I certainly did not mean that ALL the students at the BOE meeting 3-4-08 were loud, distracting or lacking the principle of public meeting decorum as you perhaps inferred. Of course I am glad that so many came to be heard on an issue that so clearly affects them. I am sure it was a minority that created what I (and others) perceived to be a negative affect on the meeting. It would really be exciting for young people to be more involved in reforming society. I believe that is what politics is at the core – the deciding who, gets what, when, where, and how. High school and college kids are developmentally ready, are smart enough and have a lot more future at stake. Before this year is out, I will have a half century in this mortal coil. Like others on this blog, I’ve more experience, and likely I am less impressionable. I will not even say that these must be positive attributes, after all it requires experience to build bad habits.
Unlike Laruen, I doubt you students who “risked” participating on this blog need to be coddled and protected from the words of others. There really is not much ‘risked’ other than your time. Lauren closing of the thread “Charters, Cuts, Budgets” because of ‘attacks on students’ is really stretching hyperbole beyond reason. After all, what 4 year old hasn’t chanted the “sticks and stones” line.
I did like your line “People come here to share, not to listen”. That was very astute, but it cuts both ways. You too have to participate in a debate. As Monty Python phrased it; “An argument is not just simply repeating a contradiction.” I was really looking forward to hearing your perspective on the issues I was trying to raise. I am not the most educated or eloquent, but I thought I was able to coherently (minus some misspellings or typos) ex press issues relating to both the parcel tax proposal and charter schools since you “entered the fray” of laurendo.com. I encourage you (where your time permits) to continue to participate – learn to ignore the ridiculous, or develop tougher skin. This is very mild compared to the ‘real’ world, where I know you also participate. Think of this as practice – it itself has value, as does sharing your issues with us – Even if we disagree, and always, always someone will disagree. Be okay with it. I for one, am interested in the positions of those who AUSD is trying to educate. I would like to hear your positions expressed clearly and with integrity. I DO believe many high school kids are at least as bright as many of our elected leaders. (I should try to not make a comment on the White House, or the governor of NY, but what kind of fiduciary responsibility should be entrusted to a man who thinks spending $3,000 / hour to get his rocks off is a good investment?) Let me just say your opinions are just as important, and you have an equal right to make them public here.
That said I would like to know your opinion of how you expect the nature of education in CA or the US to change, what it may become, or how it should, would, could serve society. Almost none of us heard you speak at the county office of education. I don’t know what you feel about Charter Schools in general, or why, or why you feel ACLC or the others now petitioning are without merit, or without enough merit to be approved. – It is tough when you can’t use funding as a reason. It has been said the technologies you will be using when you enter the job market after college (if I can make the assumption that you will attend college) those technologies have not yet been invented – How should we prepare students in these conditions? What is really important?
As far as the parcel tax – my final comment;
I want it to pass and in that regard I am also glad for your commitment to it.
Have a good kick-off party today.
I think with very few exceptions everybody reading this blog is going to want that tax to pass.
As others in our PTA say “It’s all we have at this point.”
For me and others the real problem is exactly that - It’s all we have. We would have a much more appropriate proposal, but for the fact that democracy was not invited to the table, and that is a serious breech of trust, resulting in a flawed proposal, but now it is all we have – until 2010.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 15, 2008 @ 12:37 am
David,
I am really curious, who would you have liked at the table?
Comment by Barbara M — March 15, 2008 @ 6:16 am
#42 Barbara-
A variety of people, perhaps PTA presidents or ways and means reps from various schools throughout district and PTA district council; How about blog discussion on a site such as this - heck AUSD just spent $5 M on bringing high tech services to our schools, they could set one up. The district could use their email system to send an invitation to EVERY district family to a public discussion/debate at Kofman prior to sitting at the table with the lawyers to structure the wording.
Now Barbara, I am still curious - who WAS at the table?
Please understand I am not trying to be mean or nasty, I am curious, I consider who was there to be pertinent information, why are you withholding?
Sorry to be so brief - I have to leave for work now. – I was just checking weather to see if our painters could work outside today at King MS
Comment by David Kirwin — March 15, 2008 @ 6:34 am
“- who WAS at the table?”
David Kirwin
The silence is deafening.
Comment by poguemahone — March 15, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
I will answer tomorrow. I only have 5 minutes. I have to to th the EHS crab feed to support school sports.
Comment by Barbara M — March 15, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
Maybe I can start the ball rolling… It is easy to admit to service if you are proud of what you do, if you stand by your actions.
I serve as a “Parent Member” on the Measure “C” Citizen’s Oversight Committee for the AUSD bond measure which enabled the District to sell $63 M of bonds for construction and modernization of AUSD facilities…
My fellow committee members are as follows:
Chairman - Richard Bartalini, representing ‘business’
Dick Rudloff ; representing Senior Citizen Org.
Basil Shiber – representing Taxpayer org
John McCormick - Parent Member
Daniel Aljoe, At-Large
Michael Lane, At-Large
For a period of time the District ran public notices in newspapers, websites etc, to seek applicants to serve for the purpose of meeting the oversight requirements of the bond.
We have been meeting on a quarterly basis since July, 2004.
I believe I could speak for all of us, as far as saying we are proud to be doing a duty to serve our community, and we were pleased that we were selected by the District to serve in this capacity.
I imagine the members of the committee who decided upon the direction of the new Parcel tax are also proud to be doing a service for their community. I would like to commend them for that despite the fact that I am not in full agreement with the outcome. Certainly there are some points I completely agree with, such as the need for a parcel tax.
I also have several questions about the committee which I think should be public record, even if you refuse to list the names of those volunteering their time for the District. I would like to know how they were selected, the basis upon which the decision was made, if it was in partnership with the district or separate from the District. By what authority was it established? Who is maintaining the records and minutes of those meetings?
Is it too much to expect answers to these questions ?
I hope you enjoyed great turn out at the informational “Kick-off party” and if you give me a call I will certainly support the campaign with posting lawn signs for ourselves and others I know in highly-visible lots. (We are listed in the book.)
Comment by David Kirwin — March 15, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
Dave, I got your address and number off 411.info. I’ve signed you up for a lawnsign. If you’d like to help out with the campaign in other ways, let me know via our website at:
http://www.alamedaschools.org/volunteer.shtml
Thanks!
Comment by Andy Currid — March 16, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
We’re famous — but not in a good way. AUSD’s troubles are mentioned in an article in Monday’s New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/us/17fiscal.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1205727647-Ck/TPSO6T+XQtJP2KajHGw (registration may be required)
Comment by Page — March 16, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
Barbara - Aa well as the response of #43, an aditional answer to #42 might be to include the PEE task force. See http://www.mikemcmahon.info/BOE092507G6.ppt#265,6,HOW? Community & Staff Involvement
Comment by Davidn Kirwin — March 16, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
“I will answer tomorrow. (Re #44) I only have 5 minutes. I have to to th the EHS crab feed to support school sports.”
Comment by Barbara M — March 15, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
We are still waiting.
Comment by poguemahone — March 16, 2008 @ 11:53 pm
“I will answer tomorrow. (Re #44) I only have 5 minutes. I have to to th the EHS crab feed to support school sports.”
Comment by Barbara M — March 15, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
Two days- still waiting.
Comment by poguemahone — March 17, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
Level of integrity = the value of one’s word.
This core principal is more important for our students to learn than anything on a standardized test. I often remind my own children on the importance of “being their word.”
It takes practice to say what you mean, and mean what you say.
-Hey is that a line from a Dr Seuss book?
Adults too sometimes need to be reminded of what is really important. And although we have different viewpoints it is best we remember that we are all in this together.
Sitting facing a keyboard and a one-eyed monster, it is easy for me to allow myself to “beef up” the wording as I debate or argue a point against the paragraphs I see on a computer screen. Although this actually seems normal for “blog-battles”, it may send the wrong message.
Perhaps my thoughts are ‘wired’ differently, perhaps not, but I want to be clear with any readers out there that by my perception as I sit here, is that I am arguing against written words, not people. I personally know very few people attached to the names I see on blogs. Remember this is a new form of communication for many of us who grew up with face to face low tech / no tech experience. At the same time I don’t feel a need to be ‘overly’ sensitive to how someone else might perceive or attach a ‘feeling’ to my words. It may a sentiment instilled in me at an early age as a native New Yorker that if you are too sensitive, you’ll be a wimp, and a likely candidate to get rolled down a hill in a garbage can, just because your pals want you to buck-up.
The reason I want to know who put the parcel tax package together for the BOE is for context, not to verbally malign or embarrass those who were volunteering to do what is best for AUSD. If however those involved were intent on using the tax to preserve the District’s smallest schools in their neighborhoods for their children at the cost to the rest of us, this needs to be brought to light.
Although I assumed the District was working on a tax proposal, my (apparently mistaken) belief was that it was the District staff putting it together. Since it was put together by members of the public – where were the public notices to enable participation, why did the District not use the “Pathway to Excellence and Equity Task Force” that it formed in Oct/Nov to act as community sounding board’?
Comment by David Kirwin — March 18, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
“I will answer tomorrow. (Re #44) I only have 5 minutes. I have to to th the EHS crab feed to support school sports.”
Comment by Barbara M — March 15, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
Three days- still waiting.
Comment by poguemahone — March 18, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
Barbara M.
You are losing credibility by the day. It’s a simple question please answer it.
Comment by john piziali — March 18, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
Post #54:
John,
Sometimes I like what you say too.
Maybe we are not all bad, maybe we all are not bad, maybe even, we are not bad at all.
At any rate - it is good we can appreciate each other’s comments even though we often disagree.
Edvard- My questions to you in post #40 were real questions – if you can find the time and info on TN.
…But as far as I can see, we will have to agree to disagree about Prop 13.
I see how it benefits all homeowners equally. (Maybe for my argument it could only apply to home owners, and only for principal residence.)
To assist responsible home ownership Prop 13 establishes the actual home value as the price paid for the home, and only increases that value at an inflation rate of 1 or 2% per year for the basis of tax valuation.
Believe me my property taxes are still increasing dramatically. All the ‘special assessments’ and bonds add up to increase my property tax more than my income has increased, due to the BUSD union contract that provide insufficient COLA increases for my bargaining unit. (1.5% over the last 7 years, though I have only been with BUSD for 6 years.) I also now pay a lot more toward health care premiums than when I started at BUSD even though we allowed office visit and prescription co-pays to more than double. So that 1.5% is gone before I get my paycheck. Now add the actual cost of living increase for our family for food, clothing, fuel energy, and entertainment and you can begin to understand the importance to be protected from the insane values some buyers place on other homes. My wallet should not be forced to compete with other peoples’ crazy perceptions of value. I am not alone in this dilemma, many of us who do the actual work of building and maintaining your world, (the working class) don’t earn even half the income of others who seemingly only compare and rearrange columns of numbers for a ‘living’.
The way I view your attitude toward Prop 13 is like that of a wealthier card player who eliminates competition by raising the bet beyond what others can afford. Prop 13 allows more responsible budgeting. Prop 13 enabled home improvement and preservation of structural integrity, and decreased the level of “blighted” homes because the owners could no longer afford required upkeep even with unchanged mortgages and modest increases of income.
I might ask why our tax dollars are going to assist those that chose to gamble on ARM’s and “Zero interest loans” – the irresponsible home owners who borrowed against an imaginary home value to buy new cars, wall size TVs, and to perpetuate credit abuse against themselves?. Why are my tax dollars going to bail out owners and lenders who gambled on gossamer dreams and lost? Is it more important to support gamblers and fools than to support our schools?
Our school district is now accepting the input of citizens as to how the tax expenditures should be prioritized. That sounds very democratic of them. Perhaps our state government should learn from them. One day perhaps these new-fangled communication devices will enable the State budget to be voted on by the public at large and we can eliminate an expensive layer of bureaucratic middlemen and have an actual majority decision on what we want to fund and how we want to balance our wants and needs to the taxes they require. Did Arthur C. Clarke ever write a story about that?
Comment by David Kirwin — March 19, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
Post 55, no one is bad, we just tend to disagree. I don’t think you are bad or anyone else here…just different opinions. (Bush is bad…my opinion.)
Comment by Joel — March 19, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
“Now Barbara, I am still curious - who WAS at the table?”
Comment by David Kirwin — March 15, 2008 @ 6:34 am
“I will answer tomorrow. (Re #44)
I only have 5 minutes. I have to to th the EHS crab feed to support school sports.”
Comment by Barbara M — March 15, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
FIVE days- still waiting.
Comment by poguemahone — March 20, 2008 @ 8:22 am
55
I always find self-serving defenses of Prop 13 amusing, but coming from a tax activist like DK it’s downright jarring.
Ilogical economics:
In a P13-free world, your taxes would rise because your home valuewould be rising. That means the Kirwin family’s wealth would be increasing. In an inflationary environment your mortgage would be shrinking in real terms. You wouln’t lose your house while your wealth is increasing, would you?
And then there’s fairness:
Even more significant is the inequity of taxing different rates based on seniority. Check your workmates’ W2 slips: are they taxed based on their years of service?
Don’t forget hypocrisy:
Just a few inches above this post you suspect, even accuse, people of using the tax system to benefit themselves (your small school conspiracy theory) while you blithely declare that you deserve to do the same.
Finally, we have puzzlingly disconnected ideas:
Bitching about your school district pay pkg while singing the praises of that which crimps school funding. Make up your mind. Or join the private sector where productive workers’ wages rise much faster.
Comment by dave — March 20, 2008 @ 10:40 am
Another obvious example as to the unfairness of prop 13.
How can one justify the owner of realestate/land-lord reaping the benifits of the free market that he/she rents at (unless within the vrey few rent control municipalities in this state) but then pays a pitance in property (owned for a number of years) tax in relation to its freemarket value which as I said they are benifitting from by renting at?
Comment by poguemahone — March 20, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Dave #58:
You and I also have some ‘disconnects’ on this issue;
1. In real terms - my mortgage is not shrinking.
2. I believe we would lose our house if we cannot pay the bills for keeping it. My wealth is not increasing if you or someone else says my home is worth more - only your perception of my wealth changes. Your perception doesn’t buy me a cup of coffee.
3. There is no inequity of tax rates with Prop 13 - we all pay the same ‘rate’ and all the same ’special assessments’.
BTW, although it is not related at my workplace co-workers ARE paid at different rates and receive different benefits based on seniority.
4. The only thing I’ll “blithely declare” is that the price you or any property speculators are willing to risk on property does not change the real value of my home. It doesn’t change my home at all - why should I have to pay more for it? It is the same house, and my property taxes ARE being adjusted up at a consistent rate to cover reasonable inflation, and all the other tax add-ons also get included.
5. The BIGGEST disconnect is that p-13 crimps school budgets. It does not. Sac decides state funding for schools. This administration simply puts less value on education kids than prior administrations. It’s not a lack of state revenue; it is the administration that is lowering the priority on funding education.
Look at the Feds last weekend. Overnight the feds come up with $30 Billion to cover bad gambling debts of fools and morons. The leaders of the lending institutions and those agreeing to false property valuations to increase lender profits should be jailed, not rewarded. In a big way the housing bubble was planned and orchestrated by lenders for their profit, and then they risked staying at the trough too long. Since our government allowed them to greedily guzzle all they could, the gov’t should allow them to choke on the situation they created. This is what caused home prices to be less affordable, not Prop 13.
People have a right to know what they are going to pay for the homes they buy - that is why we have Prop 13.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 20, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
# 59
P-man, I can see you haven’t paid your syntax lately. Get a grip man, you’re breaking up.
Comment by anachrofella — March 20, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
D.K. post 60 # 5
I couldn’t agree with you more. I’m with you on this and on our schools, even though I am very unhappy with the way the school parcel tax is written I will support it.
I have a real serious problem with multiple units paying paying the same parcel tax as a single unit. It is so illogical.
John P.
Comment by john piziali — March 20, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
>>> Look at the Feds last weekend. Overnight the feds come up with $30 Billion to cover bad gambling debts of fools and morons.
Glad to see SOMEBODY on this board is paying attention here in zombie nation.
Comment by Jack B. — March 20, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
#62 I know, but I was in a rush and listening to my three year old explain someting while writting. It’s a mess, but I hope you get the gist of it. Sorry.
Comment by poguemahone — March 20, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
60
Kirwin
1) Real maens infaltion adjusted, constant dollars, not nominal. Unless you are adding to your debt load, inflation reduces the value of fixed rate debt. Think about it: inflation means a dollar is worth more today than in a year or 30 years. A mortgage that seems large now will seem a pittance in 30 years.
2) P13 came about because inflation was sending assessed values up. When the price of a home rises while its mortgage depreciates, the homeowners assets are growing while his liabilities are shrinking. That it’s not cash flow doesn’t mean it’s not wealth.
3) and 4) You are being obtuse on these points.
5) You have a partial point here it is most directly the state, but consider for a moment what P13 does to gross state funding.
It’s human to dislike taxes. You’d gain a lot of credibility if you simply said that you like riding a gravy train while others do the work. But trying to justify your sucking the P13 nipple makes you look foolish.
Comment by dave — March 20, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
# 65
“You’d gain a lot of credibility if you simply said that you like riding a gravy train while others do the work.”
Duh, count me in on this one. First suggestion you’ve made sense on.
Comment by anachrofella — March 20, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
I am so proud to have seen my older son ‘bridge into’ Boy Scouts tonight. He achieved the ‘Arrow of Light’ - the highest possible achievement of Cub Scouts and the only obtainable symbol of Cub Scouting which can be worn on a Boy Scout uniform. We also learned this week he was selected by his school for a Citizenship Award. Having him accompany me to so many public meetings is having a positive effect. Perhaps one day he will be as active for his world as Ian Merrifield is today.
#65 Dave – (Not to sound mean…)
You’ve spoken like a true economic professional. You have a sense of “real” that is obviously beyond my world. I must be doppelganged in some odd parallel universe where you and I are taxed at the same rate on homes which we chose to buy at a given price, knowing what it would cost us and how we would be taxed, a world where my property taxes go up exactly like everybody else’s in the state, and just like everybody else, special taxes are added to my property only when they are approved by a majority vote; yet you and a few others claim that the way I am taxed is unfair. This is indeed a strange world.
2. In your “real” terms my mortgage has increased, because inflation has been outstripping any increase in my wages. Therefore the ‘value’ of my mortgage dollar is greater than it used to be. You seem like such an extreme professional because your intellectual and esoteric plane of knowledge has lifted so far beyond this real-world version of reality where I live – where cash flow IS the economic reality.
3&4. If by “obtuse” you mean my ‘angle is more than right’, I agree, and I am glad you are FINALLY beginning to see my point.
5. “consider…what P13 does to gross state funding” – Prop13 clearly has an impact on state funding, but does nothing to either restrict or control spending. It does not affect education budgets.
P13 keeps property tax ‘voluntary’, if we stipulate that ‘voluntary’ means we choose whether or not to buy a property for which we will pay a known tax. As a responsible home buyer, I chose to buy a home for a price consistent with my ability to qualify and purchase a fixed rate loan. I’ll assume you also chose to buy a home within your means. We pay the same property tax rate, we both benefit from Prop 13 in the same way. The fact that you pay more property tax is because you chose to pay more for you house. THE KEY WORD IS CHOICE. Isn’t this by definition a form of “progressive tax”? (Maybe not since the tax rate is the same. In fact it may be more like a recurring sales tax.) But usually prices of home purchases are proportional to income levels.
You buy what you can afford. (Not “you” you, but you in general) Or you’re stupid and you buy what you can’t afford with a loan you can’t maintain, through a company too greedy to maintain a sense of fiscal or fiduciary responsibility. It is not MY choice that morons over-inflate home values beyond ‘real’ value. I have not achieved any real ‘wealth’ just because someone’s perception of value inflates what they think my home might be worth. Likewise I will not have lost any ‘real’ wealth as home prices drop and that again changes “perception” of the value of my home. Again, reality is the cash flow. When someone buys my home, - that is cash flow, and that will create a ‘real’ change in value either up or down.
As for your last paragraph in post #65 – I don’t love what paying taxes really costs me morally or asset-wise. While Oliver Wendell Homes said “Taxes are what you pay for a civilized society”, I think he has likely turned in his grave at what our gov’t is doing with our taxes. Trillions of dollars thrown away at murdering hundreds of thousands and causing unknown grief – not just the gross loss of life, but the de-stabilization of societies and destruction their national infrastructures, incomprehensible destruction and waste, just to support our oil barons – who are not even “our” oil barons. Even here within our own borders the waste of tax dollars is immeasurable. “Riding a gravy train, while others do the work”? – No Dave, you are way off base, and not reality based. “Sucking the P13 nipple”? Please Dave, It really sounds to me that you are whining about the choices you made. Just remember – you made the choice to buy the property of your choice, and I shouldn’t have to pay for your choices. Frankly, I can’t afford to. The sadder part of the story is how our gov’t at every level – Fed, State, even our City, are spending our taxes to assist these ‘morons and gamblers’ of the great housing scandal to such a degree that we will see it happen again, just as we have in the past with the S&L scandal – also featuring high loans without ‘real’ collateral, just ‘milkin’ the appraisals of your make-believe “professional world.”
Comment by David Kirwin — March 20, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
Barbara M:
“- who WAS at the table?”
David Kirwin
The silence is deafening.
Comment by poguemahone — March 15, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
I will answer tomorrow. I only have 5 minutes. I have to to th the EHS crab feed to support school sports.
Comment by Barbara M — March 15, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
Think you could spare a minute to answer before you get busy this weekend?
Barbara, since you are the vocal representative of the tax proposal writers, what should we think after 6 days of waiting for you to do what you say you will do in 1 day? Will you possibly resurrect your credibility, or will you let your failure to keep your word reflect on your whole group?
Comment by David Kirwin — March 21, 2008 @ 6:24 am
“I will answer tomorrow. (Re #44) I only have 5 minutes. I have to to th the EHS crab feed to support school sports.”
Comment by Barbara M — March 15, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
Thirteen days- still waiting.
Comment by poguemahone — March 28, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
# 69
Maybe the crabs ate her.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 29, 2008 @ 9:11 am