From Tuesday’s Alameda Journal, regardless of what happens with the Parcel Tax or with the state budgets, it’s clear that the work already started by the district regarding elementary capacity will need to continue and will in the form of a K-12 ”restructuring task force.” Which means that the district will probably take a good serious hard look at closing smaller schools such as Paden, Franklin, and Wood.
Some of the major hurdles will be determining if these closures will be cost effective in the long run. After all, if you are only going to save $300,000 to close a school like Paden and shift the students to Washington and/or Ruby Bridges, will the need to add capacity at the two schools eliminate the savings gained from the closure?
It’s amazing that when we talk about closing our smallest schools in order to save money, the conversation never turns to the issue of charter schools like ACLC which serve less students than our smallest elementary schools. Are Franklin’s API scores any less impressive than ACLC’s as that seems to be our only means of judging how “good” a school is?
While it will be disappointing to many families to see their neighborhood schools go away, it is definitely an important issue for the district to examine to see if there will be significant savings gained from the consolidation of some of our smaller elementary schools and possibly our middle schools.
However I think that the last thing that should be up for consolidation would be the high schools. While consolidation of high schools might gain more AP classes, more electives, etc… as a product of a massively large high school that did not have the capacity to support the 3,000 students it served, it is very easy to get lost in the shuffle of things at an overly large high school.
Just as Lauren mentioned,It would be interesting to see what the cost and operational savings would be for developing larger, consolidated schools. When I first moved here, I was surprised that a small town like Alameda has so many schools.The thing is that if you live on the Island, nobody is all that far from a school period. A student of even modest physical condition could easily ride their bicycle or even walk to school if they had to anywhere on the island.
That really contrasts to the experience I had as a kid, where as a kid living out in the sticks, me and the rest of the “country bumpkins” had to be bused in 45 minutes out and into the large middle and high school located centrally in the area. There was absolutely no way that any of us could’ve walked or biked to school because it was way too far away. That’s definitely not the case in Alameda.
So from that perspective, even if all the schools in Alameda were consolidated into three- a large elementary, middle, and high school, it isn’t like the parents or students are going to have to make huge drastic changes to their lives in order to accommodate. It might mean say- an extra 5-10 minutes getting the kids to school, but that situation would still be a lot less problematic than what the majority of parents in other areas have to deal with.
While the high school I went to was one of those gigantic, massive 3,000+ student campuses, it was actually fairly well laid out. The classroom sizes were small. On average, the classes were around 15-25 students each, which at the time was considered a very good student to teacher ratio. The building itself was energy efficient, using lots of natural lighting. So while the idea of sending kids to a huge school might not sound appetizing, the size of the building has less to do with the quality of the education inside and how the classrooms and programs are developed.There is such a thing as a “good” large school.
As a self-supporting community, having a public school system here is going to be a given. With that in mind, perhaps one possibility for ensuring more security in the school system would be to put the idea of centralized consolidation on the table…which I assume has already happened. Show the state that there is a way to reduce costs and efficiency without entirely sacrificing education at the same time. Additionally, if all the schools were combined into one system, how likely could it be that the state would force the city to close it’s one school system? I doubt it. In that light, perhaps consolidation would place a degree of security on the schools.
Another idea- of which I know I’ll get clobbered for- is to suggest the idea of building a consolidated school system out on the former military base. In this way, perhaps the government would accept deep discounts on the land which in turn would cut the cost of building and make way for things such as classroom planning, program development, and architectural enhancements. This would also perhaps get the ball rolling on developing the military base into a new section of the community. Building a school first, then libraries, maybe a few parks or followed by a number of different housing developments including condos, small homes under 800 Sq feet, as well as larger homes would flush out the development even further.
Anyhow, just my thoughts.
Comment by edvard — March 27, 2008 @ 8:08 am
edvard, your post is lacking info on the housing prices and how you are a smart renter. Please fill in the details (and also add references to TN).
Comment by Bob Wilson — March 27, 2008 @ 8:23 am
Whatever process, formula or algorithm is decided upon, you can bet that it will result in the closing of schools in poorer neighborhoods and the continuation of schools in the wealthier ones.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 27, 2008 @ 8:26 am
Other than some elementary zone tweaking in the West End where excess capacity may exist, consolidation would require a fair amount of new constrcuction. Funds don’t exist for that. It may be a good idea, but the dollars cart is way ahead of the reality horse.
Comment by dave — March 27, 2008 @ 8:46 am
Transportation is an issue. When I grew up back east every school had buses. (Where would that be in our budget?) Having parents drop off even more kids at Alameda High would make the morning crazier, and similar effect for open campus at lunch.
I am unclear on how consolidation of elementary would effect numbers of classrooms. There were some great teachers at Paden who taught both our sons ( now both in high school) and who are still teaching there. The idea of laying off great staff makes me sad.
Comment by Mark I — March 27, 2008 @ 8:55 am
duplicate post
Comment by Mark I — March 27, 2008 @ 8:56 am
Went I went to compose #5 there were no comments. Now that I read 1-4, my thought for #3 is that previously Paden and Franklin were closed Washington is large, though I’m not clear how large. I’m not sure what you contend would automatically occur because to do so would defy all practicality.
It’s not rocket science to count rooms and kids. I’m really curious to know what’s out there in terms of population and options. At a glance it wouldn’t occur to me that there is enough room anywhere to accommodate a closure unless the classroom populations are pushed to 37.
Comment by Mark I — March 27, 2008 @ 9:04 am
“Sounds like private school applications are up this year, possibly due in part to the uncertainty around the public schools.”
http://theislandofalameda.blogspot.com/2008/03/going-private.html
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 27, 2008 @ 9:13 am
8
No surprise. Piss of your customers, they shop somewhere else.
Comment by dave — March 27, 2008 @ 9:31 am
Edvard:
Another great post. Keep them coming. And don’t let the haters drag you down. I agree with your consolidation ideas. Excess school district real estate could be sold for a handsome profit which could be plowed back into education.
Comment by happyrenter — March 27, 2008 @ 10:23 am
In the interst of facilitating discussion without influencing the conversation with my personal bias, here are links to background presented at various meetings held by AUSD:
http://mikemcmahon.info/Demographic07b.pdf 2007 Demogrpahic Study with 5 year enrollment projections
http://mikemcmahon.info/taskforce.htm Overview of the various task force created since September, 2007
http://mikemcmahon.info/TaskForceWorkshop1212.pdf Elementary Task Force Workshop on Capacity and Enrollment
If there is additional data that helps separate fact from fiction/rumor that the Board has received, I will be happy to provide it.
Comment by Mike McMahon — March 27, 2008 @ 10:24 am
To balance #8 – I would not be surprised to see public school enrollment increase due to sagging or “troubled” economy. Republicans should be proud that I did not use the “R” word – The Bushies have done such wonders for this country.
A brief comment on rooms – It is not just ‘counting rooms’ – it is evaluating how the rooms are being used. Such as how many ‘could-be rooms have been converted to other uses – extra teacher prep-rooms, copy rooms, storage, lounges, conference u rooms, day care rooms, after-school activity rooms, etc. Of course every school wants more room – just like everybody wants a bigger home, especially if someone else cleans and maintains it at no cost to you… The reality is that schools are being given too much responsibility for raising our children, and maybe, too much budget is going to non-educational efforts such as day care, extended day care after school activities etc. Although eliminating these services my be difficult for parents and may hurt many of the more needing families these services shoui8ld be funded by other than “education budget”. Not just in term of dollars, but space has value too. If AUSD should continue these and or other services, use of space may need to be adjusted. Using school libraries, art and music rooms, (some music rooms probably already in use after school esp middle school) computer labs may offer better alternatives than dedicating rooms for before and after school child care than potential classrooms. Younger more active kids can be supervised in the great outdoors, or in gyms and multi-purpose rooms.
Although some local writers have disparaged the district’s copy center – in reality it sounds like an excellent tool if teachers were instr4ucted how to make user of it.
Our PTA has poured tens of thousands into the school copy room funding copies at about 3 cents apiece, and bought or leased additional machines. –What a waste! I understand that teachers can e-mail their copy needs to the district copy center who can print and deliver the needed copies to the teacher the next day. The central copy center has contracts for copies at a tenth of the price, and it saves the teacher valuable prep time, which is always a contract consideration. Teachers could learn to use this, but they prefer
the hands-on social time in the school copy room.
Truly Ardella is correct – it will take many changes in the education system to match budget changes, technology, the changing demands and services of the school systems. Blending students in early grades also makes sense. Kids develop at different rates. I’ll also put in another plug for homework elimination at early grades – I like that it ‘force’ parents to know what their kids are doling in class, but I regret the daily frustration of what should be happy family time. Some of the work is such mindless busywork I just have to let my kids ignore it, and instead try to find fun ways to work on math skills.
Comment by Dave Kirwin — March 27, 2008 @ 10:38 am
Please excuse all the typos above, my clumsy fingers are having a hard time with this little key board.
Comment by Dave Kirwin — March 27, 2008 @ 10:45 am
I don’t believe consolidating schools either for Elementary, Middle or High is the answer, fixing the inherent problems with school funding would be a better long term goal and not just looking at prop 13.
And as far as selling excess property, if you haven’t been here a while there was once a school called Mastick now the Mastick Senior Center enough said on that.
Comment by Happyhomeowner — March 27, 2008 @ 10:57 am
The recession we’re has been brewing for more than a decade. The cards were on the table even back when Clinton was in office. The tech bubble that got blown during his tenure was subsequently re inflated by the Fed, which created the housing bubble. So I’d almost consider what we’re dealing with as a double-bubble burst ( woulda’ sounded better if Trouble could’ve been slipped in there) I don’t blame either party, but rather blame the general reckless attitude most Americans have towards debt and financial responsibility. I seriously doubt that if the depression era folks were still the majority of the buying public that we would be in the situation we’re in. They knew the value of the dollar and knew not to buy things from mere peer pressure ,bubbles or to purchase something they had no business in the first place.
As far as transportation for children getting to schools, well let’s just say that on a leisurely day, I can easily ride my crappy old non-carbon fiber framed 10 speed bike from one end of the Island, our to Bayfarm Island, and back to the other side in less than 40 minutes. I don’t buy that getting kids to any school in Alameda is a problem… because it isn’t. When we’re talking about a 7-8 mile strip of an island, the spatial differences for travel simply do not add up to anything more than a short drive.
As far as consolidation, Most states have adopted this approach because it is ultimately more economical. I found a link that I thought did a good job of explaining both sides. Here’s an excerpt.
“School consolidation is the practice of combining two or more schools for educational or economic benefits. A consolidated school can offer an expanded curriculum and a more prominent identity in the community while reducing costs through economy of scale. On the other hand, consolidation can incur numerous liabilities, especially if the schools to be closed are the sole providers of community services.” -http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-925/school.htm
The biggest problem for Alameda and California in general is the lack of budget to keep the current education system running. Logic would suggest if that other states have proven that consolidation is more economical, then this approach would make more sense.
Comment by edvard — March 27, 2008 @ 11:24 am
Oracle CEO to get refund after appeal of property assessment
“An official with the Portola Valley School District says the lower assessment means the district will probably receive about $250,000 to $300,000 less annually.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/03/27/state/n092407D53.DTL
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 27, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
DK,specific responses to #12
On Rooms. Paden might be first to close as opposed to adding kids but if memory serves, it has ONE staff room and across the hall are one or two rooms for special education.
We paid Girls INC. for after care which was housed in portables on the playground at Paden. I am assuming Girls Inc. leased the space from AUSD, so it’s not clear what the cost to the district was, if any, from having that on site service. My point is that I never had the impression this was paid for with the “education budget”.
Mixed ages: When our elder son started at Paden in the early 1990s they had mixed aged classrooms and the place was touted as a magnet for “developmental” teaching methods, including mixed aged classes. In addition to 2nd and 3rd grade kids being in one classroom with one teacher for two years, in reading and math, children were swapped to different teachers according to their ability, so a child could in theory have been schooled on reading with kids two years older, if they were that precocious. Pretty cool.
Mixed age classes were eliminated a few years back, not primarily due to budget restrains, but to requirements to teach to various tests. The teachers were too stressed covering such a spread in one classroom.
So Paden had a program comparable to what NCLC appears to be pitching and money seems to be the bottom line for cutting back. Also, the ethnicity was that of the district at large and there was no self selecting process resulting in any elite group being served.
The copy room: I apologize to my spouse and readers for constant reference the teacher in our home, but I think there is value in first hand anecdotes. My impression is not that the copy rooms are a primary social hang out, but that there is a mad frenzy to get to the machines in the morning and when machines break it can be a minor catastrophe. That is the source of my comment to ANT about our household paying out of pocket copy costs on paper and ink for public education. This is purely a convenience factor. If one is running to keep up with grading papers and class prep it is not always possible to submit material for copying days in advance. And this is not a product of disorganization as much as the need to tweak various parts of curriculum on short notice so that tests match what is actually presented in the classroom, etc.
Comment by Mark I — March 27, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
The hater hates me, too! I’m sooo flattered. ; )
(The only happy homeowners should be those that bought so long ago that prop 13 is keeping their property taxes a fraction of their neighbors…and especially if they can claim a “senior” exemption from additional parcel taxes.)
Comment by happyrenter — March 27, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
My first reply got eaten. Let’s see if this works…
The recession we’re has been brewing for more than a decade. The cards were on the table even back when Clinton was in office. The tech bubble that got blown during his tenure was subsequently re inflated by the Fed, which created the housing bubble. So I’d almost consider what we’re dealing with as a double-bubble burst ( woulda’ sounded better if Trouble could’ve been slipped in there) I don’t blame either party, but rather blame the general reckless attitude most Americans have towards debt and financial responsibility. I seriously doubt that if the depression era folks were still the majority of the buying public that we would be in the situation we’re in. They knew the value of the dollar and knew not to buy things from mere peer pressure ,bubbles or to purchase something they had no business in the first place.
As far as transportation for children getting to schools, well let’s just say that on a leisurely day, I can easily ride my crappy old non-carbon fiber framed 10 speed bike from one end of the Island, our to Bayfarm Island, and back to the other side in less than 40 minutes. I don’t buy that getting kids to any school in Alameda is a problem… because it isn’t. When we’re talking about a 7-8 mile strip of an island, the spatial differences for travel simply do not add up to anything more than a short drive.
As far as consolidation, Most states have adopted this approach because it is ultimately more economical. I found a link that I thought did a good job of explaining both sides. Here’s an excerpt.
“School consolidation is the practice of combining two or more schools for educational or economic benefits. A consolidated school can offer an expanded curriculum and a more prominent identity in the community while reducing costs through economy of scale. On the other hand, consolidation can incur numerous liabilities, especially if the schools to be closed are the sole providers of community services.” -http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-925/school.htm
The biggest problem for Alameda and California in general is the lack of budget to keep the current education system running. Logic would suggest if that other states have proven that consolidation is more economical, then this approach would make more sense.
Comment by edvard — March 27, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
Anyhow, let’s see if this works. My last reply got eaten.
The recession we’re has been brewing for more than a decade. The cards were on the table even back when Clinton was in office. The tech bubble that got blown during his tenure was subsequently re inflated by the Fed, which created the housing bubble. So I’d almost consider what we’re dealing with as a double-bubble burst ( woulda’ sounded better if Trouble could’ve been slipped in there) I don’t blame either party, but rather blame the general reckless attitude most Americans have towards debt and financial responsibility. I seriously doubt that if the depression era folks were still the majority of the buying public that we would be in the situation we’re in. They knew the value of the dollar and knew not to buy things from mere peer pressure ,bubbles or to purchase something they had no business in the first place.
As far as transportation for children getting to schools, well let’s just say that on a leisurely day, I can easily ride my crappy old non-carbon fiber framed 10 speed bike from one end of the Island, our to Bayfarm Island, and back to the other side in less than 40 minutes. I don’t buy that getting kids to any school in Alameda is a problem… because it isn’t. When we’re talking about a 7-8 mile strip of an island, the spatial differences for travel simply do not add up to anything more than a short drive.
As far as consolidation, Most states have adopted this approach because it is ultimately more economical. I found a link that I thought did a good job of explaining both sides. Here’s an excerpt.
“School consolidation is the practice of combining two or more schools for educational or economic benefits. A consolidated school can offer an expanded curriculum and a more prominent identity in the community while reducing costs through economy of scale. On the other hand, consolidation can incur numerous liabilities, especially if the schools to be closed are the sole providers of community services.” -http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-925/school.htm
The biggest problem for Alameda and California in general is the lack of budget to keep the current education system running. Logic would suggest if that other states have proven that consolidation is more economical, then this approach would make more sense.
Comment by edvard — March 27, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
Whoops! It posted it twice. Sorry about that,the blog ate my post.
Comment by edvard — March 27, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
Post 16, as for lowering your property tax…we bought our house 3 years ago and the property tax has risen every year. I am appealing our property assessment as well as my Mother in Law. We should save several thousand between the two houses. I think everyone who has bought in the last 5 years should think about doing this.
We will vote for the parcel tax though. Get rid of prop 13 let everyone pay their fair share
Comment by Joel — March 27, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
#22
Of course, if everyone does that the schools will be in even worse financial shape. This reminds me of the vehicle license fee revolt. Think about it. If everyone who bought in the last five years asks to be reassessed, the schools are doomed regardless of the parcel tax vote. We purchased our current home three years ago. If the parcel tax passes, I’m jumping on the bandwagon and asking to be reassessed. If it fails, I’m leaving well enough alone.
The situation is really starting to tear apart.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 27, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
#23,
between the 2 houses we are paying close to $20,000 per year in property taxes, with no kids…let some of those who benefit from prop 13 step up to the plate…as we step our taxes backwards.
Comment by Joel — March 27, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
16. Portola Valley is only one of 65 ‘basic aid” districts where the property taxes directly funds the schools. The remaining 900+ school districts rely on the State revenues supplement property taxes to fund schools. Here is an explanation how it works:
http://www.edsource.org/sch_fin_basicaidfund.cfm
Comment by Mike McMahon — March 27, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
That’s OK edvard we all make mistakes – in fact the original post went up on the ‘chorus thread”.
MARK;
I like that my younger son is currently in a mixed grade class at Earhart.
During the many years we were looking for an affordable home in Alameda some of my friends were very involved in the school district in San Raphael, or maybe it was Fairfax. They wanted to have some of the improved education modalities in their system. I remember my friend’s wife keeping an eye on Paden holding it in high regard. That was somewhere between 12 & 17 years ago. I don’t know the actual history of what happened at Paden. Wasn’t it a magnate school? Didn’t they have an enrollment situation that also required a lottery?
Then what happened? Did the teaching system at Paden change? As I recall a significant number of the students from Paden were transferred to Ruby Bridges – isn’t that correct? But by then was Paden no longer using ‘new’ teaching methods?
Comment by Dave Kirwin — March 27, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
#11 Mike,
If I read it correctly, even though Paden is one of the smaller schools, it has the largest excess capacity, averaging around 80. It seems that nowhere is there enough excess capacity for a sizable portion of even a small school like Franklin to be absorbed in any other school. At least without a major re-dedication of classroom use, which I couldn’t extrapolate from the charts.
In the charts for numbers of classrooms for K-3 and 4-5, the numbers of rooms for K-3 seem disproportionately larger than 4-5, even after accounting for 20 kids in K-3, and 29 in 4-5. Three 20 child K-3 classes could become two 29 child 4-5 classrooms, plus two extra kids. That is a 2 to 1 ratio, yet the chart appears to reflect ratios of 3 to 1 or more, if I read it correctly. Are we looking at another bulge of enrollment similar to the class of 2008 just graduating, which will roll through the schools? From Lauren’s numbers on new births at Bayport it seems we might see that effect.
While the forecast for enrollment and calculations for balancing districts over all is very complicated, when it comes to possible closures, it looks to me like there is simply not enough capacity to close any one school by redistributing those students, even with reassigning use of rooms.
Reviewing this type of material is not my strongest suit, so I am curious to know if these observations are correct.
Comment by Mark I — March 27, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
The point of post #26 is that if AUSD understood what people are looking for as they seek charter schools maybe the district could hold on to those families with such schools as Paden used to be.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 27, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
#25
Are you saying that lowering our assessment will not have a negative effect on our schools? If so, then I’m first in line. Please explain. Are you saying that we can lower our property taxes and the State will make up the difference in school funding?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 27, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
As a parent and educator, I am sick over the process AUSD administration has decided to use to address this issue. There does not exist the expertise in our district to facilitate this process and many of the best minds from the classroom did not toss their names into the hat to be “selected” to participate in the process. I have a feeling that some decision makers already have a sense of what they would like to see.
While I know we can’t afford small schools, I am not sure that we can afford to not have them either. As soon as the buildings open up, charters will apply fo the space.
Since we closed Longfellow and Miller, the west end has already taken a pretty good hit. Think other neighborhoods will be hit similarly before any more heads role on the west end?
Comment by sylvia kahn — March 27, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
#27 I just sat bolt up right this a.m. and realized my fundamental math error in my ratios of K-3 to 4-5. Sorry. No math after 8pm. That aside, still don’t see how to take Franklin kids for example and spread them through other schools.
Comment by Mark I — March 28, 2008 @ 7:30 am
Joel, what is the difference (in %) between the assessed value and your estimate of the current worth?
Comment by Bob Wilson — March 28, 2008 @ 7:41 am
$20,000? Holy crap. That alone is more than double what I pay in annual rent. I can’t even imagine.
Not to sound nasty, but if property taxes were so high due to the rise in RE prices, then why didn’t anyone complain about it then? It’s sort of like how when the boom was going on and their property values were rising, nobody called it a “crisis” when in fact it totally was. Now that we’re in a “crisis” ( at least for homeowners) nobody wants to belly up the consequence of a runaway housing bubble which many bought into and now don’t want to pay the piper. On another extreme, many homeowners are walking away from their homes simply because they are worth less than what they owe. That’s total nonsense and just comes to show how the whole “crisis” has seemingly given some people a sense of entitlement.
But to come to the defense of Mark, he is indeed correct that much of the reason for paying such high taxes is the result of the proposition who’s name I won’t mention. Again- this is the fallout from a legacy law that has outgrown it’s original intent.
I agree with Naytiff that if everyone clamors to get their assessments lowered, then yes- there will be less money to go into the pot.
What a quandary of a situation!
Comment by edvard — March 28, 2008 @ 7:46 am
Here is more on how to reduce your assessment:
http://www.acgov.org/assessor/prop8review.htm
People buy homes for many reasons. Homeownership is more than just a financial investment. An individual does not determine what the market rate is for a home or what the current interest rate is. (I remember when home mortgages were over 15 percent!) It is no more possible to lump all homeowners together than it is to lump all renters together.
I have no idea how the current real estate situation will eventually play out. In the meantime, I enjoy my home.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 28, 2008 @ 8:06 am
# 22
Great idea Joel. Appealing the property assessment I can understand but how do you appeal your mother-in-law? Is there a special form or something?
Comment by anachrofella — March 28, 2008 @ 8:55 am
#30 – Sylvia, is it possible for AUSD to offer alternitives for ‘other learners’ as the best of the charter schools do?
Why can’t we learn and use the methods the charters researched and tried with great success?
Comment by David Kirwin — March 28, 2008 @ 8:57 am
Geez Joel – Your house not worth what you paid? Whose fault is that? Didn’t YOU decide what you were willing to pay? Isn’t the real decision of what it is worth the value of what YOU decided to pay?
Oh you are of the crowd that feels OTHER people should pay more taxes because some like yourself make the mistake of over paying for their properties. Like I should pay more for YOUR decision! (Being plural “properties” it looks like you were trying to ‘make a killing’ in the RE market – but just like gambler who stayed in the game too long you are now holding the short end.) We all have to live with our mistakes. Hopefully we can learn by them too.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 28, 2008 @ 9:09 am
#29
Yes, property taxes level at the city level for non-basic aid school district did not affect funding for school districts. The school districts receive their funds based on “base revenue limit” per student. For more:
http://mikemcmahon.info/finbaseada.htm
Comment by Mike McMahon — March 28, 2008 @ 9:23 am
BTW : link to 2007/08 Informal Request for Reassessment on County Assessor site
http://www.acgov.org/forms/assessor/2007_2008_informal_request_decline_market_value.pdf
Comment by Mike McMahon — March 28, 2008 @ 9:27 am
Not everyone would qualify for a reassessment this year; the current reassessment is for 2008 and is based on value as of Jan 2007. For 2008 value you would have to apply in 2009 and so on, you can access the form on the counties site. Property values would have to keep going down in double digits before many in Alameda could even think about an exemption and I don’t see that for most of Alameda.
Although every bit helps I don’t think few who would qualify would make or break our system, we have problems beyond a few reassessments.
Comment by happyhomeowner — March 28, 2008 @ 9:37 am
#37
I wish we could say the same for police, fire and public works funding.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 28, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
# 36
Dave –
It is possible for AUSD to offer alternatives. That said, I used to teach in one of the alternatives and was part of the team that decided to take it apart. It was very similar to a charter in that parents had to sign their kids up although the difference was that a kid could sign him/herself up as well. The problem is that regardless, you end up with a population that self selects and therefore the success you claim is really skewed. The charters may be on to something but until a charter takes a homogenous population (and that means no sign ups to get in) and keeps all the kids who exist in in the HALO (High, Average, Low and Oh my)and then can show success, we won’t know if it is the program or the prouduct that arrived at the school. I have had great success with kids who come from homes that are literate, care, the kid is hard working and motivated, etc. Big deal. Who can’t teach those kids? Ok, so not everyone is a great teacher but if you like kids working with it is like being paid to eat dessert.
What the charters have that is no doubt superior is that they get about $1,000 more per pupil in ADA and they do not have the legal requirements that non-charter schools and the district have to deal with, i.e. they don’t have to abide by seniority transfer policies so they can hire newer and much cheaper labor, they don’t have to use the district custodians, secretaries, etc and that has a huge cost savings,they can structure their programs as they see fit (not that that is always a good thing but could be quite interesting)…. they have the legal right to take anything from the district that the district provides but don’t have to give the same back in return. It is a pretty interesting system that we need to learn how to use to our advantage in AUSD.
So, back to the original question, can we do something better here? Yes, yes, yes!!! Chipman is starting an enviornmental/green focused schoolwide program for Fall of 2008 and there is a green construction trade academy that is going to have a pathway through both EHS and ASTI.
Should we be doing more? Yes! I do not see eye to eye with our district administration because while they want to lead the work, I believe that we need to identify the teachers in the district who are hungry to build something and provide opportunities for them to work with the community and the administration should be the foot soldiers who respond to the teachers and serve versus what they perceive to be “lead”.
Comment by sylvia kahn — March 29, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
We are not appealing my Mother in Law’s house she is…we just help her out with her property taxes so it is a saving for us.
DK, I still would have paid what we did for this house. We have one of the nicest houses and best lots at Bayport and it has lost value because they are building the large homes at Bayport at this time and not all of them have sold. The smaller houses are keeping there values now because there is no more supply.
I am not saying you should pay more taxes because my house is worth more, but everyone should pay taxes based on what your house is worth. (prop 13 just isn’t right). If your house goes down in value have it reassessed. Mine hasn’t gone down much more than we paid for it, but the taxes have gone up every year. We may save $500-1000 per year on our house but my mother in law (who bought her house at the same time) house which is not at Bayport but closer to Bayfarm and it has decreased quite a bit.
DK, you may be happy to know I have 2 more relatives who are most likely moving from SF to Alameda in the next month or so. I just found this out today. Gosh, more liberal, college educated open minded attitudes…wow…
Comment by Joel — March 29, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
Yes, yes, yes. Thank god they’re finally trying to teach the kids how to make money (green). That really is a turn for the better. Although, making the green in the construction trade is a bit iffy right now (because of the economic turndown and all those pesky do-good environmental restrictions), I’m sure it will pick up. Keep up the good work.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 30, 2008 @ 9:23 am
You’re right, Jack: Ignore the environment, it’ll go away.
Comment by dave — March 30, 2008 @ 10:07 am
I doubt it’ll go away, dave. It doesn’t have a pull date like we do.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 30, 2008 @ 10:56 am
Sylvia – Which alt school did you teach at & why was the decision made to “take it apart”?
Why do you say that Charter students get about $1000 additional ADA? Is it for the same reason that students at small elementary schools get a fatter slice of the pie than the students’ at large elementary schools?
I suspect you will soon be more ’seeing eye to eye’ with the administration because AUSD needs to learn better & cheaper ways to increase the relevant education delivery. Hard part is deciding and achieving a quality definition of what a “relevant education” is. I doubt that what I consider are the most important qualities of education are considered in NCLB testing.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 30, 2008 @ 11:28 am
Joel,
“liberal, college educated open minded attitudes” – gimme a break! You sound more like a typical neo-con. “Let’s raise taxes so people have to abandon their homes.” That is what you justify as fair-minded. That is why we HAVE Prop 13. Prop 13 did not cause the unfortunate housing price bubble, but the price bubble sure reinforces why Prop 13 ain’t about to go away. Get over it.
The housing price bubble inflated the amount of property tax the State collected. Property values did not inflate the costs for services provided by CA. Our short-sited, overpaid representatives increased the spending, starting with their own salaries. If they were paid what they were worth, they would owe us money. They should be paid an average of their constituents.
As for your family leaving SF – I am not at all surprised that more people would choose Alameda over any other BA communities. Are they raising a family or planning to? Why did they Choose Alameda?
Comment by David Kirwin — March 30, 2008 @ 11:30 am
Joel, as a fellow Bayport resident (and your neighbor)
, I’d be interested in the mechanics of appealing the property tax.
As I understand it, if the value of the home as of Jan 1 2007 is lower than the assessed value, there are grounds for a re-assessment. Since the selling prices only dropped during the course of the last year, I am not sure how we can apply for a reassessment this year.
We have sufficient information for *next* April, but I am not so sure for this year …
Comment by bayporter — March 30, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
County Assessor Form for Informal Request for Reassessment
http://www.acgov.org/forms/assessor/2007_2008_informal_request_decline_market_value.pdf
Comment by Mike McMahon — March 30, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
I am not lowering it for this year but next.
They are not raising a family a I don’t see them do so in the future. They spend a lot of time over here at our house and love Bayport.
Don’t tell me to get over it. I am taking action. That is what you do…not just throw out the mindless dribble you seem to put out there. I am sorry you have a problem with me lowering my taxes.
Neo-con? you have no idea my politics. Which party do you donate to?…both time and money? When is the last time you volunteeed at a homeless shelter or given to help a job training probgram for someone without? Did you serve in the military? and voluntee for your country? How many of your best friends are of
another race, religion, sexual orientation? If you are against the war, how many protest have you been to? You talk a lot but the only action I have seen was at a few City Counsel meetings which you were so nervous I don’t believe that you really didn’t get through to anyone.
Call me Neo-conservative, but you actually knew me, that is just an oxymoron. The only time you met me in person was at a City Counsel meeting and you probably don’t even remember.
Comment by Joel — March 30, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
I guess some friendly advice I would give friends if they were moving from SF to Alameda is to NOT buy anything here for at least another 2 years at the very minimum. Otherwise, I can guarantee that they would be throwing another 100-150k down the toilet, or at the very least be living in a house that they would get absolutely no return on if they sold it within the next 5 years, and in fact would probably lose money both in the form of the property tax they will have to pay and the likelihood of them losing appreciation anyway. From what you told us regarding your property taxes, they could very easily rent a house here for the same as what they’d pay in property tax on one of those houses in Bayport.
Secondly, new homes in a real estate downturn typically lose value faster than existing because builders can easily slash prices and build the same house for much cheaper elsewhere ( In the Bay Area). That and when you have a development full of the exact same house, the generic nature of those developments typically defuses whatever nominal value system buyers might have attached versus a neighborhood full of one-off houses with unique character.
Comment by edvard — March 30, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
Joel, thanks for the clarification re: the taxes!
edvard, is Groundhog Day one of your favorite movies? Sorry, couldn’t resist … just kidding
Comment by bayporter — March 30, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
#46
That’s right Jack, real men don’t need the environment; all we need is a bar stool and a pitcher of Bud…but then there is this:
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=146599&ac=PHnws
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 30, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
#47
Currently I work at multiple sites but I taught at Chipman and was one of the founders of a program called BRAVO. We took it apart for a few reasons. When we began the program, there were not a lot of teachers at the middle grades in any of the middle schools who were interested in looking at their instructional practices. Middle school is a challenging time and while adults may not love the kids, they are not too happy with themselves either. Working with a two other colleagues, we developed a program that we wanted to implement thus allowing us to take a group of kids and a team of “like minded” educators vs. the work with what you have model. Our then superintendant allowed us to hire two teachers from anywhere in the district to come work with us.
Our hope was that the community would see that Chipman was a great school and a viable option/alternative. After a few years we had to accept that those who chose our program were not embracing Chipman. They were only interested in BRAVO which was unfortunate because our then principal had done a magnificent job of “cleaning house” and there were in fact teachers and teams at the school that were every bit as good and sometimes better. I use the Coke/Pepsi vs. Safeway Select metaphor. They may taste the same, and one may be a better price but the name brand wins out for reasons that are not always logical.
In addition, we were doing a great job with the social and emotional component of our program but the needs of the students who were more than two years below grade level were too much to manage in such a small environment. To truly provide the reading instruction necessary for students who are reading significantly below grade level, we had to re-structure the entire school thus forcing us to make some difficult decisions.
I believe that we did lose something however we did gain some very important knowledge that ultimately made the school academically stronger. The changes taking place for next year are the result of what we knew and what we have now learned. It was very hard work and data driven.
As for the ADA – charter schools receive the state average for ADA while AUSD receives about $1,000 per pupil less in ADA. So, ACLC gets more per student than does AUSD. Of course it is not fair but the issue is what AUSD does not get not that the charter gets more money. It is just a harsh fact and AUSD should charter all schools simply for the money.
As for AUSD looking at different ways to run things – when you look at the cuts for next year, the admin is not looking at themselves. In fact, all teachers on special assignment (who are doing a lot of administrative work for teacher pay) were cut. The distict administration clearly believes that they need to restructure the sites. I will be the first to say that the district office is very lean, but so too are the schools and I would suggest that they use more teachers on special assignment who report to a few administrators and not have so many “cabinet” positions (the highest level and paid administrative jobs) and completely restructure how they do business from the top before eliminating at the school sites. It is hard to have this dialogue when the reccomendations that go to the board come from the very people who hold those jobs.
As people, I actually like the district administration team more than I have in years, but as leaders, I am not convinced we are in good hands.
Comment by sylvia kahn — March 30, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
# 54
Bud?? Who drinks that fermented rice water? And the price of rice is rising too because…da, da gobble de gook warming. Sure is nice to have that crutch to blame everything on. That and prop 13 and measure A and pat bail and neo-cons and bush and repugnicans and ACLC and styrofoam and unfair and and and…
Comment by Jack Richard — March 31, 2008 @ 8:30 am
To perhaps bring some comfort to the whole environmental debate, for those that are concerned about the health of the environment for the future, we as a society will more likely go broke first and thus be unable to perform any of the functions that currently hamper the environment. If the rising cost of gas, food, commodities, added to the already bloated cost of housing is an indicator of anything, I don’t think that suggestion is implausible.
Comment by edvard — March 31, 2008 @ 8:41 am
Sylvia,
Re: #55 — For charter schools, does AUSD get the higher ADA from the state? Or does AUSD have to take the overall revenue from ADA (at the lower rate) and then reallocate it so that charter schools get the state average? (I hope this question is comprehensible.)
Comment by Page — March 31, 2008 @ 9:25 am
#58 – AUSD simply acts as fiscal agent for the State and passes along all revenues from the State for the two charter schools – BASE and ACLC.
In the past, AUSD even had to pay out its General Fund to make it up the difference between the AUSD funding rate and the charter funding rate. The legislature fixed that inequitable practice in 2006.
Comment by Mike McMahon — March 31, 2008 @ 11:24 am
#55
“As for AUSD looking at different ways to run things – when you look at the cuts for next year, the admin is not looking at themselves. In fact, all teachers on special assignment (who are doing a lot of administrative work for teacher pay) were cut.”
Is it a good idea to have classroom teachers performing administrative work instead of teaching? Do administrators also teach classes or is the flow only in one direction?
From my experience, administrators will never cut themselves as they know how important their work is. Cuts tend to come from the bottom. So, instead of cutting one manager, they will cut several people on the lowest rungs. Also, those on top spend a lot of time together and are reluctant to cut each other.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 31, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
Thanks, Mike. I have a couple of other charter school funding questions which I hope you might have time to answer.
1) I know that the charter schools are required to pay certain administrative fees to the district and that the district is legally required to provide facilities to charter schools. Does a charter school have to pay the district for “rent” of the facility? Is that included in the administrative fees? What about maintenance of charter school facilities? Who pays for that?
2) I understand that ACLC students are given access to certain programs at Encinal (AP classes, sports, etc.) Does ACLC “pay” AUSD for access to these programs?
Sorry for imposing, but these are some nagging questions I’ve had for a while now and haven’t been able to figure out the answer on my own. Thanks.
Comment by Page — March 31, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
61.1) Rent is paid by charter above and beyond adminstrative fees. The charters also pay for daily cleaning while ongoing maintenance I believed is covered under the 3% admin fee.
61.2) Yes ACLC pays for students to attend EHS classes.
Now if you really want to mcuk around in the legalese you can read the 7MB pdf MOU between ACLC and AUSD that spells the operating agreements.
http://mikemcmahon.info/ACLCMOU.pdf
Be patient in downloading the file though.
Comment by Mike McMahon — March 31, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
What is the justification for parsing schools K-5,
6-8 and 9-12? When I was young, the schools were either K-8 or K-6 and 7-9. Is there some sort of developmental reasoning behind this? I recall seeing some schools in other cities that were just K-3. I’ve also heard of two grades being combined into one classroom…and then there are those one-room school houses that served rural communities. How did we end up with our current grade separation?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 31, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
#55 Thanks Sylvia, for the info, and for your efforts. I am not sure I clearly understand your metaphor, the one relating branding vs cost. Almost sounds like the Charter issue analogy. (Maybe just as good or better, for less money – but still dismissed.)
I agree that middle school years are critical for the students, – a clash of social and developmental stages that sets the precedent for high school, a harsh time to settle down to low self-esteem. Teachers too must have a hard time not ‘burning out’, although AUSD may be easier than many other BA districts.
Two other questions pop to mind if you would comment when you find time:
1. To best facilitate teaching our kids that have seriously fallen behind – by two or more grades – would it be helpful if they were all in the same facility instead of spread throughout the district? Could they then be provided the special instruction they need with less feelings of inadequacy because of comparison to their ‘peers’? This is certainly not a novel idea, but it sounds like an idea you are supporting, unless I ‘read’ it wrong.
2. If charter schools are guaranteed the State average ADA funding; how much would really have to change for each principal to ‘charter’ their schools which would give the District an extra $10 Million / yr? Why not have a “Charter District?”
Comment by David Kirwin — April 1, 2008 @ 1:32 am
#43 & 51
Joel – if you would still pay what you did for your home – then your home has not lost value to you, and you have no grounds for appealing to have your property tax lowered by your way of thinking.
I believe in the Prop 13 perspective – until your home is re-sold it maintains the value of the most recent sale price. Not everybody’s wages go up with the value of their homes. You say Prop 13 is unfair. Others say the way wages are established is unfair – we should all be paid the same if we all work the same hours. Why is one a fair deal to you, but not the other? Should you be able to be paid more, then drive up the perceived value of someone else’s home by paying inflated prices, and they should pay more taxes because of what you did to their home? (Regardless of whether they can afford what you do to their home?)
As for the personal questions you ask but don’t answer yourself – Perhaps most of my friends are different than myself. I’ve shared friendships and even my home with all kinds of people from Africans to Afghanis, whites, blacks and Latinos, I’ve marched in many peace parades, I marched for janitors, for farm workers, I’ve twice marched the pride parade with my friends in support of marriage equality. I have volunteered thousands of hours, especially with addicts and alcoholics. My parents are more into helping the homeless – they helped to start, and have been working with the Bethesda Project in Philly for decades. My opinion is that anyone willing can find work and a place to live, so that is not an area I invest my effort – I help train working people. For the last 5 years I volunteered as a Cub Scout den leader. On more than one occasion, and in more than one state I sat in recruitment offices discussing joining the armed forces as a college grad, – it just wasn’t right for me at the time. So what about you? What do you do since leaving Catellus which provided you the option for your home, besides whining about property tax inequity on your multiple homes? Do you give any thought that virtually NONE of your taxes support anything for Californians? – not schools, not social welfare, nothing but the development bonds that never went before a public ballot. California now has between $80 – 100 Million in re-development debt that NEVER HAD A CHANCE ON A PUBLIC BALLOT.
And tell me – what kind of person defines their ‘liberal open-mindedness’ by ‘scoring’ the race, nationality or sexual preferences of their friends?
Comment by Dave Kirwin — April 1, 2008 @ 2:29 am
DK,
I’m not meaning to open up a old sore again, but I think the reason why so many people have such an issue with Prop 13-myself included- is that its a law that basically mis-balances the risk in terms of home buyers over time. In other words, people that bought long ago do not have to suffer the consequence of escalating property values while those that bought later have to pull the slack.
A good example is Austin,TX. It could practically be the Bay Area’s sister city: It is liberal, cultured, full of tech and research related jobs, ethnic diversity, and heavily colored in the (ugh) Blue shade. Even during the boom, you could easily go there and buy a decent place for 150-250k. The juciest areas, which are in the historic old part of Austin have homes in the 300-350k range.
The thing is that TX has a 3% property tax based on the overall value of the home. That’s a fairly high rate.What this does is place some degree of risk on the homeowner as well as homebuyers. If the value of their homes gets to be too high, then they will have to pay more. The same is for both buyers and owners.
This works as a safety valve keeping the values somewhat in check and prevents runaway markets like the one we just had.In other words, I think that part of what causes the severe swings in this state is the misbalanced taxation system. I’m quiet sure that an awful lot of retirees had their whole retirement planned around selling an overpriced POS in CA, allowing them to move somewhere else. Now that the bubble is bursting, I’m not so sure they’re singing the same song. All I know is that I got so sick of hearing people tell me how little they paid for their house, and how much it was worth now.
I’ve had a sort of change of mind when it comes to homes these days anyway. At the rate that I pay rent on our four bedroom house, the cost of buying would have to come down to 250k before the two would match. I’ve already been renting for 6 years anyhow. Somehow the idea that buying a home at today’s prices means stability is actually quiet inaccurate since doing so means a huge financial liability. If we keep saving at the rate that we are currently, we’ll simply buy something for cash in another city- like Austin for example. Otherwise, I have no interest buying here unless it actually makes financial sense.
Anyhow, I’m glad to see that you volunteer for the Scouts. I was in it for five years and it is a great thing for boys to learn work ethic.
Comment by edvard — April 1, 2008 @ 8:29 am
# 60
Sorry about the metaphor. I was trying to say that there were other options within chipman that were great but parents still wanted the BRAVO program (there were 4 other small schools within a school) and not the others. There was no logic to this demand, they just knew the reputation of the program and did not even look at the other “brands” to do comparison shopping.
In reference to the following question:
1. To best facilitate teaching our kids that have seriously fallen behind – by two or more grades – would it be helpful if they were all in the same facility instead of spread throughout the district? Could they then be provided the special instruction they need with less feelings of inadequacy because of comparison to their ‘peers’? – I would be very worried about doing this. For a number of reasons. 1. If the program is set up appropriately, the kids are not “tracked” into the low classes, they need to be pushed hard and fast to bridge the gaps and as soon as they are ready, they need to be pushed out and up into a higher level course with grade level work being the ultimate goal. This would be quite challenging if we were then sending kids to new campuses when they moved up and also sending kids to new campuses throughout the year as we are moving kids every week. 2. What school becomes the “low” school? Chipman is often judged as being the “bad” middle school when in fact, the teaching staff is beyond remarkable. It is the most professional learning environment I have ever seen. The decisions are data driven and teachers are required to step out of their comfort zones on a regular basis to serve the needs of the kids. The scores look low because the school serves the largest percentage of poor students in AUSD (at the middle school level) and not because the teachers are less competant. This demographic group is why the school is in Program Improvement, a designation that comes with a lot of pressure and threat. Under NCLB, this school can and supposedly will need to be reconstituted if the necessary prgress is not made within the next year or two – not sure if there will be the teeth to achieve this but it is what the threat. So, what school do we put on the chopping block to be this sort of “dumping ground”? I think it is a can of worms. 3. If it is a good idea, it is certainly very hard work and I am not sure how many teachers would sign up to go work there unless there were smaller classes, more support, more money, etc. It would be quite expensive to make this a viable model.
I think the charter district is a great idea that we should be exploring. I know that there are some people who are trying to see how that would work (none of them are AUSD management) but I wish our district “leadership” were taking an active role in this process. Again, I see reaction from the management vs leadership.
Comment by sylvia kahn — April 1, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
Thank you again Sylvia,
I had been thinking more about helping our lower achieving students, while for forgetting that the point IS to have them back in the regular class rooms.
I sometimes focus more on the economics of educating and cringe at the cost of’ main streaming all students together when significant groups have related challenges that are harder to deal with when the groups are not together to deal with separately from main student body.
There is a lot of advantage to grouping student by their abilities as opposed to age, etc.
I know this is scattered but I am very short on time….
Responsibilities and events are changing so fast for our schools I can almost see why our “leaders” are caught reacting rather than ‘leading’, but you do make a solid point.
Comment by Dave Kirwin — April 2, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
68
I can understand, DK, so many responsibilities, so little time, so much change, so many dip shit leaders, so many dumb kids, we’re so apart…the horror, the horror…
Comment by Jack Richard — April 2, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
“It’s amazing that when we talk about closing our smallest schools….the conversation never turns to the issue of charter schools like ACLC…..”
Another comment that illustrates St. Laurens complete lack of education as to the “how” of charters working. This is a simplification but essentially the charter is responsible for it’s own operating cost and is financially independent from the district and it’s financial woes and musings.
Comment by poguemahone — April 3, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
In my opinion, there are tremendous responsibilities on the district, not enough time, quite a few so-so leaders and a few amazing leaders and a few “dip shit” leaders but there are not “so many dumb kids”. There are in fact, a tremendous number of amazingly intelligent kids and a group of kids who are products of their environment. That does not make them “dumb”, it makes them unfortunate.
Comment by Sylvia Kahn — April 3, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
Perhaps Lauren could start a Prop 13 thread, I can’t remember which thread it was most discussed.
I went to the assembly of State Assembly reps this morning at Encinal. I heard Assemblyman John Laird, chair of the budget committee, talk about ‘how we got into this mess’. He stated that 85% of State revenue comes from Personal Income tax and Sales Tax, so it Prop 13 is not the huge hammer that broke the state of CA.
Laird says just the lowering of the new vehicle license fee and the creation of debt bonds is costing next year’s budget over $9 Billion. That amount exceeds what Arnold said the shortfall was. I say was because on May 14 the gov’s budget is due out. Word is that the ’shortfall’ has increased.
The Republican side has a proposal to put $2.1 Billion back into edu. which they say will meet Prop #98 edu funding requirements. However what they want in exchange is a “relaxing” of state ADA (disability) standards, a “relaxing” of the 8-hr workday laws, and a “relaxing” for the timetable for state ‘greenhouse’ emissions.
Somebody at the meeting also mentioned that in a recent interview Warren Buffet stated that this recession will be deeper and longer than anyone is yet willing to say.
Comment by Dave Kirwin — May 3, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
Kirwin,
I was at the event too and heard your comments. Now I’m pretty sure what I heard you say to Sandre. You seem to be saying that since property taxes are 15% or less of the base, Prop 13 isn’t that much of the problem because the majority of tax base is from income and sales tax? Think of it another way. Without Prop 13, property taxes might constitute a more substantial proportion of the tax base and we wouldn’t be in as bad a mess. Am I misconstruing your hammer comment? (it was “3rd rail” yesterday)
In terms of new residential real estate I would like to know what percentages are hit by what rates based on when they were last sold. I would really like to understand statistically what the impact of Prop 13 has been on the commercial side. Seeing these stats charted out might begin to clarify what the real potential impacts of reform to be. We do know that the demise of school funding in CA correlates directly to Prop 13. Coincidence?
After the meeting I was as depressed as inspired and came away thinking about the old anarchist bumper sticker from the 70’s “Eat the Rich!” They are certainly cannibalizing the economy. Things like the yacht tax loop-hole are outrageous!
All in all, Sandre and Co. weren’t talking about Prop 13 reform or equalization for school funding in the short term because the intensity of the budget fight won’t allow it. We’re in triage mode.
Comment by Mark I — May 4, 2008 @ 10:18 am
“‘Eat the Rich!’ They are certainly cannibalizing the economy”.
Get real Mark I. Kirwin’s # 72 speaks clearly who is cannibalizing the CA economy. It’s you spenders then tax, tax and tax. When you can’t tax anymore you blame your mess on the rich. CA tax rates are 9.3% for income over $40,346. Maybe you anarchists should design a new bumper sticker, like maybe “Eat Me”.
Comment by Jack Richard — May 4, 2008 @ 10:39 am
And Mark – look at the booklet the Sandre passed out – How much of the State revenue comes from property taxes?
Comment by Dave Kirwin — May 4, 2008 @ 10:42 am
#73 I’ll go retrieve that info now, but since you obviously know why not quit being cute and state it for all of us?
Comment by Mark I — May 4, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
I meant to be responding to #75 in the last post, as I am now.
O.K., since DK was being so coy, in #76 I was going to guess property tax is something real low like 3% and amazingly property taxes are not listed outright at all, but must be part the 4th largest on the list, “other” at 3.5%. That is a huge surprise to me, but one wonders what the talk about the negative impact of Prop 13 all these years, a totally hollow myth?
When John Russo ran against Sandre, reforming Prop 13 for commercial was a plank in his platform. I want to know what it is I don’t know.
I thought Swanson told us sales and income taxes total 75%. The chart says 83%??
Anyway, next question 3.5% is how many dollars? How much more might be available if Prop 13 suspended so much potential tax revenue? Do corporation taxes at 9.8% possibly reflect property tax in that sector?
Since I was listening to speakers yesterday, this is the first I’ve cracked the booklets they gave out. Its probably not too significant, but the pie chart for General Fund Revenue appears not to match the percentages for components listed to the side.
Comment by Mark I — May 4, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
For those of you who were not at the Saturday morning meeting (I hope you were still recovering from a late night out at the amazing show at Kofman raising money to save the AUSD music programs for grades 1-3. Wow what a show, and what a value. Thanks to everyone who put in effort to make it happen.
Assemblyman Swanson made available booklets, maybe one of a series, A Guide to Participation “The California State Budget Process”. I am sure you can be sent one, just call his office 510 286-1670. Here is some info from the booklet:
CA GEN FUND REVENUES:
A. Personal Income Tax—50.5%
B. Sales Tax – 32.6%
C. Corporation Taxes – 9.8%
D. Tobacco Tax – 0.2%
E. Insurance Tax – 2.8%
F. Estate Taxes – 0.2%
G. Liquor Tax – 0.4%
H. Other – 3.5%
My guess is that State share of property taxes are part of “other”, and/or that share of property tax which must be used for education is not in the general fund but in a “restricted fund”. But Mark, if you read the facts presented that is not the case, I wish it were, so Arnold could not use it for anything else. Actually The same page in the booklet states that the #1 expenditure of the General Fund is K-12 Education (43.3%)
Mark – the reason you think Prop #13 was the demise of education is because you grew up in an affluent area. From the same booklet:
1978 – Proposition #13 – Capped property tax rates and limited hikes in accessed values. Gave control of local property tax revenues to the state and required a 2/3 majority vote of the Legislator to increase taxes.
So while affluent areas lost a portion of their local property taxes, less fortunate or repressed areas received more money so they too could offer a quality education. Of course really affluent neighborhoods like Alameda’s gold coast could directly donate to their local school. I have heard that Franklin is AUSD’s ‘private’ school.
Comment by David Kirwin — May 4, 2008 @ 8:34 pm