Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Apr 21, 2010 at 2:12 am Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
Before you believe the headline on this topic about 'support pours in' for Measure C, go to a much longer thread on this Forum which raises fundamental questions about Measure C and the level of support for it:
Posted by propaganda plus, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 21, 2010 at 8:36 am
The amount of propaganda accompanying this measure is surreal and makes me wonder what my kids are learning in school! I've discussed the measure with a number of people who aren't parents -- and therefore aren't that familiar with the issues -- and explained why it makes the most sense, and is long-term best for our schools and community, to vote no.
This tax needs 2/3 support to pass, and I hope it doesn't even come close!
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Apr 21, 2010 at 8:48 am Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
Any unit of local government which needs a parcel tax is, by definition, not balancing its budget.
Deficits mean that revenues are less than expenditures - simple.
Since it is properly difficult to arbitrarily raise taxes that means that expenditures have to be cut. Agreeing to increase salaries and benefits is not cutting expenditures. Failing to properly amortize unfunded pension liabilities as a current year's expense is not cutting expenditures. The Sherson Lehman hit was totally avoidable if the district had practiced sound financial management and pulled its funds from the badly managed County pool.
The taxpayers should not have to pay for poor management.
A family, faced with fixed or falling income, has to reduce its expenditures. In a family only the children have recourse to the parents when they need more 'revenue'. It is time that all units of local government stopped behaving like children and stopped treating their taxpayers as parents with bottomless financial resources.
Posted by Publius, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Apr 21, 2010 at 8:49 am
Propaganda Plus. Make sure that you continue to education those that are not parents and encourage them to vote. Sometimes it is the apathy of the majority that allows the vocal minority to pass these measures as those passionate about an issue tend to vote.
Posted by Mom of 2, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Apr 21, 2010 at 12:12 pm
I suspect that support is not "pouring in" and therefore the all out assault on the media to print stories that are Pro Measure C.
As one of the posters above mentioned - we need to stop adding parcel tax upon parcel tax to fund the Menlo Park schools. It is is egregious and not financially viable in the long term. Nearly 2/3 of my current property taxes go to fund the local schools. I am already supporting the local schools to the tune of $20,000/year. I've had enough! Vote NO on C
Posted by Get Real, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Apr 21, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Surprise -- several district parents would like the entire community to help foot the bill for more funds for the local schools.
Little mention is made that the budget / student has seen steady growth over the last decade except for the forthcoming year. Nor that Menlo Park residents agreed to a greater than $110,000,000 35-year bond measure to fund school capital programs.
Menlo Park will continue to boast of having an excellent school system with Measure C failing. The community is already clearly behind providing extra support for schools---there are just some of us who feel the limit has been reached.
As Peter Carpenter points out---please check the other thread for more details.
Posted by Get Real, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Apr 21, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Please let your neighbors know to look for this prepaid mail-only ballot. Participation IS important. School districts generally use this format for parcel tax elections since they can count on reaching all school parents via concentrated messaging at schools and part of the general population can be counted on to overlook the ballot. So far, there are less than 5,000 ballots that have been received.
Posted by Publius, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Apr 22, 2010 at 10:30 am
As Posted On: Guest Opinion: Support for Measure C Seriously Divided
Thank you for posting your argument for supporting Measure C. However I would like to challenge some of your comments/assumptions.
First, please stop using Prop 13 as the wows for all the states and local financial problems. In fact, Prop 13 has done what it was intended to do – stop the state and local governments from raising property taxes at will. Yes, there are loop holes in the current law, however to think we can solve our fiscal problems by just raising taxes on the back of businesses is short sighted. We do not need to make this state more business unfriendly than it already is.
Second, I would make an argument that districts like Menlo Park has done better in the long run with its current status as a basic aid district (or better named "excess revenue” districts).
Many do not remember (as most living in the Menlo Park area with kids are not natives) that in the 1970’s there were a series of California Supreme Court cases starting with Serrano v. Priest, (Web Link) which found that California’s education budgeting system of using local property taxes inheriting lead to unequal access to education based on race and social economic status. This lead to the state passing legislation that moved the funding model to the state rather to the local system. Somewhere over the years however, this model has shifted back to the system of basic aid and state funded districts. This has lead to the exact same unequal access to educational opportunities as before Serrano vs. Priest with wealthy districts like Menlo Park, Portola Valley, Palo Alto, leveraging the wealth of the property values to fund their schools at a MUCH higher per student cost than those districts with lower property values and lower incomes. And low and behold we are back to racial and social economic discrimination.
Third, regarding lack of Federal Education dollars, California was INELIGIBLE for hundreds of millions in federal grants issued by the Obama administration because of current state laws and teacher union contracts and recent attempts by the Governor to amend the education laws was met with VERY STIFF resistance by the CTA. Everyone is welcome to read the following press release (Web Link).
Fourth, the cuts proposed by Ranella are not catastrophic by any stretch as compared to other districts in the area. Credentialed teachers as librarians are a luxury, paid class room aides are a luxury, Vice Principals at the smaller schools are a luxury. 20 student class size is a luxury. When the economy improves, maybe some of those cuts can be restored. Our children will NOT SUFFER. They will go to college and be successful in what life they choose.
Finally, California’s rank being lower than 21 other states, for a state with the diverse population and thus educational issues related to such a diverse population, being 22 out of 50 states is not a bad achievement given the challenges. Now if you at the MPSCD with regards to per student spend as compared to all the other districts in the state, I would venture to guess that MPSCD ranks in the top five percent for spend.
Now for my questions that have not been answered by the Measure C supporters:
1. Has the MPCSD Teacher Union and the district administrators made any real concessions? During these times, asking for a 5% or 10% salary reduction and a 15% reduction for administrators would be a good faith effort on the part of the district. Cities and municipal agencies are asking this of their employees.
If the district is asking for a seven year tax, then a seven year salary reduction seems to be reasonable. To counter the argument that we need to pay some of the highest salaries to attract the best teachers, with 23,000 teachers across the state laid off, I doubt any reduction in salary or benefits would cause teachers to leave when there are zero jobs other places, not to mention there are a lot of excellent teachers looking for work.
We already contribute an additional $500 plus in school parcel taxes, (which in my opinion is contributing to the growing disparity in equal access to education). It is time to stop coming to the public well with another $178 parcel tax which although positioned as seven year tax in reality never seem to drop from the tax roles
I urge all undecided voters to consider adding another tax that will go to support the status quo. Please join me and other concerned residents to vote NO on Measure C.
Posted by Plubius, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Apr 22, 2010 at 11:35 am
Yes voters, please do look at the site and see all the fear mongering that has been posted. If you read the "what will failure of Measure C mean" one would think our children will fail. Remember voters this site is hosted by a very vocal group of Menlo Park parents that want to retain what they have even though just about every other school district, city, and municipal agency is being required to tighten the belt.
Please send a message to the district by voting No on Measure C. Stop coming to the public well each time you need money.