Two good real estate stories in SFGate over the weekend, the first was an article about data crunching the numbers from the real estate peak to the lowest of the low. Alameda isn’t doing as badly as our immediate neighbors Oakland.
Only three zip codes actually weathered the storm fairly well: one in Berkeley, San Francisco, and Sunnyvale.
The other real estate article speaks to a very specific issue that keeps housing values in some areas higher than others: good schools. Excerpt on why some choose to pay a premium to be in a good school district:
The school district premium is certainly noticeable in the purchase price of a home, but it may really pay off when it comes time to sell. Since there’s a steady stream of school-hunters looking to move to these communities, their homes tend to sustain their value.
“I think it adds more to the resale value than anything else,” Heafey said. “When the markets got hit a couple years ago, these markets didn’t get hit as badly because people are always interested in getting into these school systems.”
Zipkin said since a lot of private financial effort goes into maintaining the schools in these districts – often through school fundraisers – people know they will continue to maintain their reputation.
“So you’re going to have greater liquidity and potentially earlier appreciation in these areas because of that,” he said.
Zipkin also sees people moving into these districts – as opposed to sending their kids to private school – as a way to perhaps invest the money they would otherwise be spending on private school tuition in real estate instead.
So while, the first reason to support the school parcel tax, by the way, the letter assigned is E, as in Everyone vote for E, will always be that it is the community’s responsibility to support the children by supporting the schools.
The secondary argument for supporting a school parcel tax is because it will protect your assets if you a property owner. Because even though most people think of themselves as altruistic, oftentimes when we are confronted with an issue that involves opening our checkbook, we always want to know what’s in it for us. In this case, it’s making sure that you take positive steps to ensure that your property value does not depreciate.
Because, even though opponents to the parcel tax, or the school district, or teachers, or whatever it is that they are unhappy with will claim that the schools all suck, Alameda does — despite these opponents claiming the contrary — have a good reputation for having great schools. Most families with kids don’t just plop their kids into a home and say, oh we’ll just make do with whatever is here. They obsessively weigh out the cost of sending their kid to private school or paying a little extra to move to a good school district. But don’t take it from me, take it from the people willing to shell out an extra $500K for a home in Piedmont as opposed to Rockridge.
Not to bring up the spectre of Piedmont too much, because Alameda is not Piedmont in demographics or median income, but Piedmonters pass parcel taxes time and time again to both maintain their schools and their property values. But what will bring us closer to Piedmont and cities like Palo Alto and Larkspur in the ability of our property to retain its value is not to vote down a parcel tax because for some reason you have justified to yourself that the school district simply does not deserve it.
If your only reason for voting against Measure E is because you are concerned about how much it will cost, believe me, the blow to our collective property values will far exceed the additional $30 per month that is proposed under Measure E.
hey everyone vote for the measure named after me!
Comment by E — March 29, 2010 @ 9:09 am
You forgot to mention those other issues which arise if “E”very one fails: The inevitable rise in murder rates and crimes in general in our peaceful Mayberry, the invasion of riff-raff seeking substandard education, the cost of adding rolls of consortina wire on the Bayport wall, the exflux of yuppies yearning to establish a new Piedmont somewhere in Oregon, the fabulous rise in property values in the old Piedmont…thank goodness there is still time before the ballots are sent out, we must hurry, get the word out…
Comment by Jack Richard — March 29, 2010 @ 9:25 am
(2) I love the spelling, but it’s “concertina” wire. Just what were you suggesting, fella?
Comment by Linda Hudson — March 29, 2010 @ 11:54 am
No, I wrote consortina because there will no doubt be dozens of consorts rock and “roll” wire dancing on the wall.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 29, 2010 @ 1:04 pm
2. If the tax fails the drop in delivery of quality education will be abrupt and drastic. The secondary effects will be less abrupt, but I’ll bet once cuts in education are well established the first ancillary negative impact will be decline in home values and it will be fairly immediate. But the bottom of that effect is open ended depending on over all decline in quality of life here.
One suspects the rest will be a gradual slide into the muck over time. Our kids won’t all instantly turn into anti-social serial killers, nor will hordes of criminals instantly over run us, these cuts don’t effect the police department after all. But who knows what other ripple effects will follow decline in real estate values.
Service in the military is certainly respectable, but the residential areas adjacent to military installations are traditionally rough, like Webster St. with fast food, bars and tattoo parlors. The base is gone, but without good schools I think we lack a vigorous engine for steady improvement in general ambiance Mayberry.
Comment by M.I. — March 29, 2010 @ 3:10 pm
We sold our home last year (went on the market in November 2009, closed December 8, 2009) in large part because it is only five blocks from Franklin Elementary School and Franklin Park.
The fact that we could sell it at all last year–especially in such a short period–supports the thesis of Zipkin and others that Alameda’s real estate prices are closely tied to the reputation (still mostly deserved) for very good schools.
let’s hope that we can keep them good.
YES on E!
Comment by Jon Spangler — March 29, 2010 @ 3:45 pm
“Because, even though opponents to the parcel tax, or the school district, or teachers, or whatever it is that they are unhappy with will claim that the schools all suck, Alameda does — despite these opponents claiming the contrary — have a good reputation for having great schools.”
Okay, I agree with you, Alameda has a good reputation for having great schools. But amongst who is that reputation “great”? I’ll tell you, it’s people who travel exclusively in liberal/progressive circles. And those same people would not call the schools “great” if the schools weren’t graduating kids steeped in liberal/progressive thought.
Now, the premise in the quote above is, even though some parents may not think Alameda schools are so “great” they will vote for the parcel tax increase just because of speculative future increases in property value or some other ancillary reason. The proponents’ hope then is that these parents are more interested in property value increases or other issues than they are in their kids being educated in their own political beliefs or in a neutral environment.
Now, if a person argues that Alameda schools are neutral as far as political leanings are concerned, I would suggest that person get a stronger prescription for their brain myopia. But that’s not my point. My point is, the arguments for the parcel tax increase, which appear ad nauseam, will not sway voters who want their kids taught in traditional methods and beliefs So, were I lobbying for a yes vote, I would try to frame arguments to vote “yes” on the tax increase so their appeal doesn’t insult non-liberal/progressive folks by continually extolling the virtues of liberal/progressive beliefs. Better yet, stop the liberal/progressive indoctrination, keep the political bent out of Alameda schools and return to traditional education.
You write these voters off at your own peril.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 30, 2010 @ 9:36 am
>>> I’ll tell you, it’s people who travel exclusively in liberal/progressive circles.
That’s kinda silly, especially from my midwestern/conservative point of view. Alameda stacks up pretty well in the test scores… which is even more commendable considering our demographics.
Comment by Jack B. — March 30, 2010 @ 10:24 am
7. supposedly many (most?) in the media at large can be loosely categorized as “liberal”, which to me mostly means they are open minded. It is argued that this alleged liberal majority is a product of the fact this group are well educated. I don’t think that is a product of their having been programmed by liberal teachers, it’s a by product of critical thought. In my experience you are better educated than most conservatives I meet, but there is a point where I feel your ideology over rides your critical thought.
What are “traditional” methods, Texas text books which remove Thomas Jefferson as a key figure in the Enlightenment? The removal of evolution? removal of Jefferson’s historically factual emphasis on church and state?
I wonder how you would compare most curriculum around the world to ours? I’m too ignorant of others to make comparison, but I’ve got a hunch we are not most “liberal” by your definition.
Finally, what specific examples do you have from Alameda classrooms to support your opinion?
Comment by M.I. — March 30, 2010 @ 10:42 am
I’m sure the voters who travel in the Alameda blogs, this one and those that Lauren lists in her site margin, will vote 90+% for E. But, the idea that Alameda schools will appeal to 66.5% of overall Alameda voters when there may be 20% who will not vote for a tax increase purely for monetary reasons and 20% sitting on the fence narrows the safety zone for E passing to a pivotal few. Whether you agree with what I wrote or not is beside the point. All I’m suggesting is, frame the appeal to a parcel tax increase in order to rake in a few racist, homophobic, misogynist, uneducated Republicans.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 30, 2010 @ 11:45 am
Jack, I understand many of the conservative arguments against today’s “liberal” education system, but despite what you see blogged here, discussed at AUSD meetings, lesson 9 drama what have you…. the reality I’m seeing as a parent is: my kids are getting a very decent ACADEMIC education (so far.) Their love of learning has not been squashed by any means. I’m impressed with their reading and math skills and if you met them, I’m sure you would be too.
I will take some credit for being involved but I just can’t imagine those K>3 classrooms going from 20 to 32 kids. You want to see REAL dumbing down? Pack them into factory schools instead of community schools like we have.
In real life at AUSD, the focus is still ACADEMICS and not hippie/liberal behavior modification like you might think. (yes, sometimes I have to roll my eyes) That’s my experience, so far. Alameda’s teachers really are doing a very decent job and they are also among the lowest paid in the region.
Comment by Jack B. — March 30, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
Jack, this is not about the quality of the schools it’s about passing the parcel tax. My kids all went to Alameda schools and each graduated from Cal, UCLA or Chico State (math/statistics major). The small amount they brought home that was controversial was subjected to excruciating debate after dinner on Sunday evenings. Neither subject nor opinion was dismissed or derided, just debated so all sides of a position could be examined.
I agree with you, Alameda teachers, for the most part, are doing an excellent job under more and more stressful conditions. It’s too bad a good portion of the problems our local schools have to deal with are mandates from the State or Fed.
My opinion of Alameda public schools currently stems from long drawn out dinners at my Niece’s house. She has two kids at Alameda high. One finishing up this year and one just beginning, so they offer a perspective of the current state of Alameda high school education for me. Also, a very good friend of my niece is usually at these dinners who happens to be an assistant principal at one of Alameda’s middle schools. The wine usually flows very well at these dinners and you’d be surprised at the amount of verite there is in vin. So, I’m not totally ignorant about the current state of AUSD.
But none of this has anything to do with my point about framing the public view of what the schools in Alameda is all about. My point was and is, Alameda voters from all political views must be convinced that the school district is NOT filling students with liberal mush without contravening views. Now remember, I’m not talking about parents, I’m talking about voters it’s the voters who will determine whether or not E passes.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 30, 2010 @ 3:37 pm
I’ll give it my best shot…
CONSERVATIVES usually favor localized control. If we have to localize our funding, don’t we get to better control how the funding is used? Alameda voters can change the school board if they are not happy with how they use the funding.
Those in the TRAFFIC HATERS political party (my allies in Measure B) will really hate the post-E-pocalypse consolidations. We could get down to 1 high school and 1 middle school. Imagine traffic w/ all of the middle schoolers being drive to where Encinal H.S. is now! That’ll be fun for everybody!! And then, since most elementary schools will not be walkable for most,,, it’ll be minivan mayhem every morning in Alameda. (you think it’s bad now, eh?)
E is for ENTREPRENEURS. While I personally don’t think it’s perfectly fair for them, they get a tax reduction if it passes.
For HOME OWNERS, E is on the side of capital preservation… although some argue that.
What other political views should I consider?
Comment by Jack B. — March 30, 2010 @ 6:36 pm
JR- I guess it’s my liberal bias that I completely forgot Lesson 9 as fodder for conservatives. It is such a minor part of curriculum, it’s difficult for this progressive to get excited about it. I think many more no votes will be based in $ arguments than the few people who would vote based on 9 alone.
Comment by M.I. — March 31, 2010 @ 8:13 am
It’s apparent to me that either, what I wrote in this post is not clearly written and difficult to understand, or, as M.I. implies, dogmatism is more important than E. In any case, I give up.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 31, 2010 @ 8:38 am
>>> Alameda voters from all political views must be convinced that the school district is NOT filling students with liberal mush without contravening views.
Come on Jack. Can you convince us that they ARE filling students w/ liberal mush without contravening views?
Comment by Jack B. — March 31, 2010 @ 8:43 am
Stay tuned for another exciting episode of “Reasoning with the Reactionary”!!
Comment by dlm — March 31, 2010 @ 10:26 am
What if you are not looking to sell for 25 or more years. “the blow to our collective property values will far exceed the additional $30 per month that is proposed under Measure E.” The lower property values means less taxes for us (first time home owners who get screw in the end). Get rid of prop 13 and all the troubles will be solved…don’t tax me more than someone else who has lived in a their house a long time. Approximately 17% of my income is going to property taxes…if I would have bought my house 15 years ago it would be less than 1%…so don’t ask me to pay more until others pay what they should. I am progressive, generous, and what the best for the children but when does it stop.
Comment by Joel — April 4, 2010 @ 6:23 pm
Joel, I am one of those people who is paying a lot less than you are in property taxes. I would love to fix or do away with prop 13 because it has caused a shift away from local control to state control and has shifted a percentage of the property tax from corporations to homeowners. However, as much as I might wish it, politically it does not seem to be on the table right now. So please don’t let your perceptions of unfairness punish all of us with the disaster that will occur if we fail to pass the parcel tax. My children are out of school now by the way.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — April 7, 2010 @ 7:39 pm