According to Susan Davis at In Alameda, Eve Pearlman at Alameda Patch, and Michele Ellson at the Island, AUSD has settled on a proposed parcel tax for next Spring designed to raise $12.4 million. The details from Alameda Patch, because I like bulleted lists:
- It would replace Measures A and H, the current school parcel taxes in Alameda, both of which will expire in 2012.
- The rate for parcels with buildings is 32 cents per building square foot, for both residential and commercial parcels.
- Parcels without buildings will be taxed at a rate of $299 per parcel.
- The maximum per parcel tax will $8,500, which means the first 26,560 square feet of a building will be taxed.
- Seniors and people who receive disability insurance will be exempt from the tax.
- The tax will last seven years.
- The election will be March 8, 2011.
From Susan Davis, we get a listing of what the parcel tax will actually pay for because it will be specifically enumerated in the parcel tax language:
– K-3 class sizes of 25:1 (13-14%)
– Neighborhood schools (7-8%)
– Elementary music, media, and PE; secondary fine arts (9-10%)
– Secondary school choice and AP courses (7-8%)
– Programs to close the achievement gap (including restoring the full school year) 15-16%
– High school athletics (4%)
– Attracting and retaining excellent teachers (25-26%)
– Adult education (4%)
– Technology (5%)
– Counseling and student support services (6%)
– Charter schools (3%)
As mentioned by Susan Davis, in the PowerPoint presentation (starting on page 12 on the PDF) there is a listing of what will happen if the parcel tax passes and what happens if the parcel tax does not pass.
The School Board is slated to take public comment and discuss the proposed Parcel Tax at tonight’s meeting, but the final vote won’t happen until November 30. The election will be held in March if the board votes to move forward with the Parcel Tax, but in the face of looming cuts and the ominous Plan B, I think it would be tough for any of the School Board members to vote no on moving forward with a Parcel Tax.
Unfortunately it appears that even though we have just put one contentious election behind us, we are looking forward to yet another possibly contentious election with the Parcel Tax vote less than four months away.
Hi Lauren, There will always be people who oppose the parcel tax or any tax. The board has solicited community input and conducted many public meetings (Earhart, Ruby Bridges, Alameda Multicultural Center at Longfellow, Lincoln, City Hall, etc) regarding the closures and parcel tax.
The AUSD board members have also reached out to the business community with several meetings with WABA, GABA, ABA etc, as well as publicly replying to businesses’ open letters. See Jeff Cambra’s letter from ABA
http://www.theislandofalameda.com/2010/11/island-talkback-jeff-cambra-on-inching-toward-consensus/
And reply to Mr Cambra from AUSD president Mooney
http://www.theislandofalameda.com/2010/11/island-talkback-tax-rates-as-requested/
The bulleted list is the latest attempt to mold the parcel tax language in response to the inputs from the public (emails, public speakers commenting on mic, parents, business, seniors, etc).
For instance, the owner of Svendsen’s Boat works requested a cap at a public meeting at Earhart school. And the $12M is in response to people saying $14M was too much to ask for (Measure E).
You can read a sampling of the many emails at Mike McMahon’s site
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/budgetcomments10.htm
A second listing of emails
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/budgetcomments10a.htm
Bye for now
“The only thing more expensive than education is ignorance.” – Benjamin Franklin
>> Lauren Do wrote:
>> “…Unfortunately it appears that even though we have just put one contentious election behind us, we are looking forward to yet another possibly contentious election with the Parcel Tax vote less than four months away.”
Comment by TwitHead — November 23, 2010 @ 7:33 am
Lauren,
Is there anything specific on what “Attracting and retaining excellent teachers” covers? Kind of a vague description for 25% of the plan.
Comment by Denise Shelton — November 23, 2010 @ 8:07 am
#2: Not cutting their pay by 8%. Not instituting additional furlough days.
Comment by andycurrid — November 23, 2010 @ 8:11 am
Check out page 16 of the powerpoint, Denise.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 23, 2010 @ 8:13 am
They should really avoid throwing words like “excellent” in there. Those moves attract and retain ANY teachers, not just excellent ones. It’s the editorializing that puts voters off. Why can’t they just say it straight?
Comment by Denise Shelton — November 23, 2010 @ 8:31 am
5
That’s because, in the eyes of the union, every teacher is equally excellent. Retention isn’t decided by the “excellence” of the teacher it’s decided by seniority.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 23, 2010 @ 8:45 am
2. yes Denise, Andy is correct, it’s that simple. It could just say, “attracting and retaining any teachers” because an 8% pay cut is a disincentive to choose teaching at all, especially with the amount teachers pay toward their medical benefit premiums (thousands a year). The language is trying to be upbeat and positive, and it should because I think we all wish to strive for and maintain excellence.
In the past there has also been scoffing at the use “excellent” to describe the over all existing education in our district. Perhaps you were one of those? People pick out specific failures or weakness to beat up on the system and try to claim ASUD is rotten, or substandard. I wouldn’t try to argue that every inch of the system and every teacher would meet the definition of excellent to every tax payer, but relatively speaking we have been doing a very good job, enough so that people have consistently been moving here for the schools. We’ve done especially well in light of having cut $7 million before this year and now look to cut more.
Excellence is quantifiable but to some extent also relative, or in part rooted in perception. I’m glad to hear your son is thriving at the Oakland School for the Arts. About six or seven years ago, our eldest son looked into following the daughter of another Alameda school teacher to OSA with whom he was a close friend. I think she graduated, but he opted to stay in Alameda and he was in many fine productions with Fred Chacon at Alameda High. He didn’t set out to major in acting and only applied to one college acting program, but he was accepted into that theater school which he attends now.
The year he graduated, kids from Alameda went to Brown, Harvard and Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, etc.. Obviously, these were excellent students, but without a solid education they would have had a much harder time getting into those schools.
Our younger son did three years private middle school but he is currently a senior. Quite frankly, I don’t know what he really knows about the various schools, but like his brother, he has friends from both public high schools and ACLC. He said there has been a flow of kids coming back into Alameda from OAS who claimed in his words “they weren’t learning anything”.
Comment by M.I. — November 23, 2010 @ 8:54 am
It’s funny how one little word trots out so many insecurities! My point is that people these days know when they’re being manipulated by language. You want to retain and attract teachers, fine. There’s nothing shameful about that. But the idea here is to win over the skeptical voters. You won’t do that with stacked deck approach by adding words like “excellent”–that engenders suspicion because people know that excellence has nothing to do with it. That’s not to say some retained won’t be excellent, it’s just that there’s nothing there to insure that they will be and so it’s not a genuine statement. I would also think preciseness of language should mean something to those who aspire to educate. You also won’t win me over with personal attacks aimed at my child. Let’s leave our kids out of this. Their opinions and heresay hardly constitute evidence of anything other than their narrow frame of reference.
Comment by Denise Shelton — November 23, 2010 @ 9:19 am
8: I can assure you that excellence has a LOT to do with the 25% of the parcel tax dedicated to retention.
Many of our teachers (most of whom ARE very good) have been working for below-average salaries because they love Alameda and love working in this community.
One of my friends is an AUSD principal. She is “excellent” by any measure one might choose.
She and her husband are preparing to sell their Alameda home and move if the parcel tax fails, as a matter of professional survival. This would mean yanking their kids out of public schools that they love and walking away from a wonderful home after pouring years into remodeling it from the inside out.
I am sure I am not the only one who knows AUSD would lose exemplary employees if the parcel tax fails and Plan B is implemented.
Comment by Jon Spangler — November 23, 2010 @ 9:52 am
“…what happens if the parcel tax does not pass.”
=
Put another parcel tax on the ballot ASAP.
Comment by paul — November 23, 2010 @ 10:02 am
Again with the exemptions. Why are some people made to pay who have no stake in the schools while others who equally have no stake in the schools do not? Or does everyone equally have a stake in the schools and should pay equally with no exemptions at all?
Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 23, 2010 @ 11:38 am
Jon, in this economy quitting your job and selling your home would be very risky for most people. Many excellent “professionals” have lost their job through no fault of their own and would be gladly to take a pay cut just to have a paycheck coming in.
It’s wonderful that your friend has the security and luxury of quitting her job, selling her home and seeking pastures with a better shade of green. Teaching must be a wonderful profession.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 23, 2010 @ 11:56 am
Once again, Jon totally misses the point. I suggest a reading comprehension course. I’m sure there’s one online.
Comment by Denise Shelton — November 23, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
Regarding stake in schools. Many people have a stake in funding Alameda’s schools. Let me count the ways.
Good schools attract young families to Alameda. Good schools especially attract professionals who want value education. It benefits Alameda to have good schools. Professionals invest in the education of their children. They pay out of pocket even for preschools like Garner.
Businesses benefit from professionals moving to Alameda. Engineers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, pharmacists, and high earning citizens are attracted to Alameda’s reputation for good schools. Businesses benefit from having talent pool locally that they can hire. Businesses like restaurants, cafes, stores, sports equipment dealers also benefit from having high earning consumers with extra disposable income for their goods and services. Commercial landlords benefit from having stable businesses that they lease office or storefront spaces.
Residential landlords benefit from having higher income renters. Young families rent before purchasing their own place. Property owners benefit from having stable housing prices. Property owners also benefit from having a pool of home buyers who are attracted to Alameda’s K-12 school system.
Looking even longer term. California needs to invest in education. These kids are the future taxpayers. There is a correlation with educational attainment with higher-paying job opportunities. These kids will one day be paying into Social Security to support today’s working taxpayers. It’s not magic, invest in education from K-12 will result in better educated Californians and higher earning taxpayers. These taxpayers will pay into Medical/Medicare one day.
Sacramento is cutting everything. UC Regents just increased tuitions by 8%. Alameda voters need to weigh what they want for the future of Alameda.
Comment by medablog — November 23, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
14. Wow, medablog, you hit it in a nutshell!
As far as attracting “excellent” teachers– I think there is a case to be made that there is competition out there to attract teachers to come to a school district. Why would the best teachers even choose to come to a district that does not support good teaching by providing resources for teaching? It isn’t just salaries, it is facilities and supplies.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — November 23, 2010 @ 4:36 pm
“Good schools attract young families to Alameda.”
And young families have more kids and more kids mean more schools and more schools mean higher parcel tax and higher parcel tax means fewer working class people can live here unless they’re subsidized and subsidizing people to live here means higher taxes and higher taxes means businesses can’t compete and non-competitive businesses go out of business and lost businesses mean empty storefronts and empty storefronts look ugly and ugly city means young people will move away to pretty places and leave Alameda with old people and old people don’t have kids and no kids mean fewer schools and fewer schools mean lower taxes and lower taxes are nice. Who needs young people?
Now that’s a real nutshell.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 23, 2010 @ 5:41 pm
Gee, you think we could get through Thanksgiving before Scrooge made an appearance.
Comment by Denise Shelton — November 23, 2010 @ 5:51 pm
The math is simple. If your property loses 1% of its value, you are out $5,000 on a $500K house. This is below the average house price in Alameda. For a 2,000 square-foot house, a parcel tax of 32 cents per square foot will cost $640. If the parcel tax doesn’t pass, Alameda will become San Leandro, which has much lower housing values. Does any homeowner, including one with no kids, want to risk the loss in home value over $640?
Comment by Larry Witte — November 23, 2010 @ 6:15 pm
18
Wow, and I thought I was funny. Why not go for Fremont instead. They just passed a $53 per parcel tax. $50 v $650, hmm. How much would we lose for $50?
Comment by Jack Richard — November 23, 2010 @ 6:58 pm
17
You won’t win me over by making personal attacks on my uncle.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 23, 2010 @ 7:08 pm
I think the reference to “excellent teachers” suggests that teachers who are not excellent will NOT be retained, but we will pay a competitive salary for those who will stay. Think of it like a sports metaphor. Sometimes the star player will give a discount to the home team because he loves the fans and the players on his team but if a second parcel tax doesn’t pass it sends a clear message the community does not value education or the work of educators. No one can afford the higher medical costs and a salary freeze indefinitely, while looking at rising class size , closing schools and many furlough days.
Comment by Hot R — November 23, 2010 @ 8:11 pm
13. I’m inclined to ask what Jon missed in your posts 2 and 5 which made him worthy as being “attacked” for lack of reading comprehension, “Once again”. After reviewing the posts I’m still not sure, but I did notice post 5. which may have gone up while I was distracted composing post 7. because 7 is in part redundant of 5.
Yes, saying retention of ANY teachers is fine. If “excellent” is somehow worthy of being seen as manipulative, then minimalism is O.K. with me. However, excellence as a goal seems pretty benign to also, but if we must pander to the most severe skeptics, fine you win.
(Jack #6- Tea Bag boiler plate talking points: vilify unions. Seniority actually has relevance to competence, but I need to stick with response to Denise. I’ll get back to you)
Denise, I wasn’t trying to attack you in 7, but I am surly on defense AND offense when it comes to protecting the integrity of both the teachers and the AUSD system at large.
I used the OAS comparison because you had previously injected information about having a student there, but if that is now off limits, fine with that too. As I said, I’m not sure about the veracity of the opinion of my 17 year old, but I quoted him on feedback from his peers about OAS as another relative perspective. My point was that the theater programs at Alameda and Encinal and their teachers Chacon and Moorehead) are excellent without a doubt.
Nice try to peg people like me with insecurities about your challenging the use of a word like “excellence” but as I already alluded, there was previously criticism about it being used to describe the district at large. But if it’s such a “little word” why is it a big deal to you?
Oh I forgot, you were merely challenging the word’s injection for it’s manipulative qualities, so I’m just an insecure paranoid to challenge that as meant to be demeaning. My mistake entirely.
Comment by M.I. — November 23, 2010 @ 8:12 pm
It amuses and bewilders me that folks posting on some blogs reckon that property owners and parents of school age children are separate entities. As I recall, we paid our taxes while my daughter was in school and we are still paying our taxes after she has been out of the public schools for many more than the 12 years she was in them. And, as our home was under Jarvis we never paid what it costs the AUSD to educate one child, much less what it costs to provide police, fire, recreation, planning, road, maintenance of streets, sewers and other infrastructure, the animal shelter, Mastick Sr. Center programs, planning, oversight of building projects and on and on. Our property taxes on that property are still very low. On the place next door where we live now, not low at all. But we are taxed because we receive services, and the schooling of Alameda’s children is one of the most important things we Alamedans should support.
Comment by Kate Quick — November 23, 2010 @ 9:31 pm
22
Mark, is my statement in #6 correct or not?
Comment by Jack Richard — November 24, 2010 @ 9:28 am
Jack, I get it. You’re not going to vote for the parcel tax, no matter how much it is, or the logic in favor of it.
I may move to Fremont, I may move to Albany. I may move to San Ramon. I will move to where the schools are best for my child. I know that $50 in Alameda would result in substantial school closures, which would severly harm the school system.
I know you don’t mind people leaving the island, as you noted regarding the proncipal leaving Alameda. In her case, Alameda would be losing a valuable contributor to the community. When she and others leave, what will be left of Alameda?
Comment by Larry Witte — November 24, 2010 @ 9:28 am
Jon missed the point because he interpreted my objection to the word “excellent” as a commentary on the quality of AUSD teachers. I think I was pretty clear on why I objected to the use of the word in that sentence. The steps to be taken (retention of salary levels and avoidance of furlough days) in no way insure that only excellent teachers will be attracted and retained and so it is misleading and not an accurate reflection of what the bullet point represents. As to OSA, I mentioned it only because Jack asked a specific question about my experience with public schools. Yes Fred and Bob do a great job with theater at AHS and Encinal. If my son was interested in theater, maybe I would have encouraged him to go to one of those schools. He’s in the literary arts emphasis which you can read about online at the oakarts.org website. The school day at OSA for high school runs from 8:15 to 4:15 and the approach is a bit more like a trade school in which the curriculum is oriented to the arts as a vocation, so the comparison with local high schools is not really appropriate. I believe it’s the best place for my kid, but not for everybody’s. By the way, M.I, yes you did mistake my objection to the word “excellent” as demeaning as did Jon. Apparently “Hot R” (I hope to God that guy has no real power in the schools. If so, the district is in bigger trouble than I thought.)thinks it sends the signal that only excellent teachers will be retained. Maybe, it sends that message but it’s still an empty promise. Teachers are not any different from people in any other profession. Some are excellent, some are good, some are sub-standard, and some are a disaster. I know we’d all like to think that Alameda is immune to the laws of probability and just happens to have nothing but excellent teachers but we know that’s not the case. And that’s okay, too. Kids will have lousy bosses, and lousy relatives and they might as well learn to deal with them in the person of an occasional lousy teacher or they’ll be unprepared for the harshness of the real world. You might be surprised to hear that I will support the new parcel tax. I believe we need to find a better way to fund our schools but until that time there are kids in school who need to be educated. Just be honest about where the money’s going and don’t insult my intelligence with weasel words.
Comment by Denise Shelton — November 24, 2010 @ 10:12 am
25
Larry, I think you (and many others) place way too much significance on schools as they ostentatiously claim to shape and develop kids.
Sure, great schools are important and, understandably, parents seek them out and threaten to move if the current schools enrolling their kids are viewed as less than great. However, I firmly believe that it’s the parents that are the focal point of kids’ development and are far more important in that respect than schools.
Schools, no doubt, play a significant role in a kid’s life but, bad schools and good parents, the kids will be fine in most cases. Bad parents and good school and the kid’s going to have a tough time. Either good or bad parents significantly skew the kid’s development far more than schools. So if you’re a bad parent, schools aren’t going to help you unless you have a remarkable kid.
As far as paying for schools. I have no objection to my own participation in funding public schools. I don’t think parcel taxes are the right solution for funding but that’s, apparently, the only option currently available.
As far as Jon’s Principal threatening to leave if taxes aren’t raised, teachers come and go all the time. This one leaves, there’s (perhaps) a new opening for another “valuable contributor” who’s more than willing to fill the open slot.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 24, 2010 @ 11:31 am
As far as paying for schools. I have no objection to my own participation in funding public schools. I don’t think parcel taxes are the right solution for funding but that’s, apparently, the only option currently available.
====================================
You have known for some time that parcel taxes are the only solution, though it’s refreshing to see you declare it.
Comment by dave — November 24, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
Be even more refreshing if I had to pay it.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 24, 2010 @ 12:23 pm
More refreshing still if you could sqaure your constant (and frequently illogical hypocritical & just plain daft) objection with the above statement that you have no objection.
Comment by dave — November 24, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
What about a per kid tax, instead of a parcel tax? Just sayin’…
Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 24, 2010 @ 1:10 pm
I’ll try:
Constant = I join in the discussion when the subject is brought up here, and it’s brought up a lot.
Illogical, hypocritical and just plain daft = I would participate in funding by paying my fair share but I don’t consider parcel tax fair and since I’m not required to pay an unfair
tax, why should I? Seems neither illogical, hypocritical or daft to me.
Is one suppose to infer from your concern
Comment by Jack Richard — November 24, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
32 Excuse the tail end of my comment. If there’s a way to scroll down on an iPad, I haven’t found it. You can infer what you were supposed to infer.
31.
Shame on you, Adam. The very idea that parents should pay for their kid’s education…
Comment by Jack Richard — November 24, 2010 @ 1:31 pm
I suspect that Fremont gets far more per pupil from the state than Alameda. Unfortunately, our state assemblyman Swanson has done absolutely nothing to get equalized funding for Alameda’s underfunded school district.
Alameda is already starting out behind other districts in state funding, but there is no consideration of our underfunded status when the state starts cutting funding.
Comment by John — November 26, 2010 @ 9:12 am
I’ll happily vote for the parcel tax when the following two conditions are met:
1) Reform and consolidation of under utilized schools are initiated and not just a marketing threat.
and 2) Removal of the exemptions. As mentioned in previous posts, having someone vote to impose a tax on another and then being allowed to opt out is, well, very un-American.
Comment by Basel — November 26, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
I’ll happily vote for the parcel tax when your two conditions are met plus Plan B is implemented.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 26, 2010 @ 5:54 pm
[...] Blogging Bayport, November 23, 2010 According to Susan Davis at In Alameda, Eve Pearlman at Alameda Patch, and [...]
Pingback by Man With a Tax Plan | The Alameda Post — November 28, 2010 @ 5:05 pm
Man with a Tax Plan, and Alameda Post is none other than Adam Gillitt.
Nice try in self promotion, Adam.
Comment by ChildishAttackDobot — November 30, 2010 @ 11:42 am