Town Square

Post a New Topic

Community college bond measure fails

Original post made on Nov 9, 2011

School bond construction measures have had an easier time of it since 2001, when state Proposition 39 lowered the threshold for passage to 55 percent (from the normal two-thirds majority). Voters have rarely rejected such measures. Last night was an exception.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, November 9, 2011, 7:48 AM

Comments (16)

Posted by Joseph E. Davis, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Nov 9, 2011 at 10:34 am

Thankfully at least 47.3 percent of people have some sense. Probably even more people would have opposed it had the ballot language been honest.

This measure was disgraceful.


Posted by new guy, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Nov 9, 2011 at 10:51 am

Since voting yes did not get me membership in the new gym already built with my previous money, I voted no.


Posted by Scholar, a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Nov 9, 2011 at 12:32 pm

Funding for education is critical to these community college schools and to the students who want to get ahead. This should have passed easily.


Posted by education for all, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Nov 9, 2011 at 1:05 pm

Funding for education is absolutely critical, but unfortunately the SMCC District administration is a joke. They squandered the last allocation on a country club-like gymnasium with penthouse admin offices for their flagship school CSM, when their other schools remained in desperate need of classroom (Skyline and Canada have had tremendous growth compared to CSM.) The administration expects the handouts they have always been given. They do little to aid the many good people in the district desperately trying to provide the best education possible and those trying to bring in funding from outside (e.g. federal) sources.

Given the desperate funding situation in our Universities, we need community colleges to help provide a high quality and affordable education for as many people as possible. Nonsense like fancy gyms and sports teams are not what is needed at community colleges in these desperate times, and have harmed the ability of the district to raise needed money. Not being able to raise funds for education should be a wake up call for everyone.
The district administration and board of regents should be reviewed very seriously.



Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Nov 9, 2011 at 3:12 pm

Funding for education is absolutely critical just as is funding for emergency services.

So why did 47.5% of the voters vote against Measure H for educational facilities while 76.8% voted to approve the Gann Limit for the Fire District? I would suggest the difference is a belief on the part of the voters that the proposed expenditures for educational facilities would not being as well managed as are the expenditures of the Fire District.


Posted by A Disgruntled Voter, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Nov 9, 2011 at 3:56 pm

I voted yes for the last two bond issues, totaling $675 million, because we were told that the money was desperately needed for classroom renovations. Did the classrooms get renovated with the money like they promised? Unfortunately, the answer is no, and until the present administration is replaced, my vote will be no from now on.


Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community
on Nov 9, 2011 at 5:51 pm

Looks like FM3 Research missed the number by 13-17 points.

"In June, FM3 Research completed a survey of likely voters in the November 2011 election which indicated that between 65 [percent] to 67 percent of likely voters would support a community college bond measure," Barbara Christensen, director of community/government relations, wrote in a staff report.


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on Nov 9, 2011 at 7:43 pm

I think this rejection is just the latest example of the voter revolt in government spending. Supporters of this bond issue couldn't even make the revised threshold of 55%!

Elected officials should take note. Voters have spoken - enough!


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Nov 13, 2011 at 8:04 am

It appears that common sense did prevail. Now we will hear complaints about how less than 15% of the registered voters "deprived" us of quality educational facilities. The fact is, that with the 55% requirement, less than 15% of the registered voters almost succeeded in imposing yet another Billion dollar burden (interest included) on property owners.
It is time to restore the 2/3 vote requirement.


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Nov 13, 2011 at 8:07 am

Lowering the vote requirement from 2/3 to 55% has produced a dramatic increase in bonded indebtedness. A history of the District's Bond proposals begins with a $148 Million bond measure (Measure A) in November 1999. That Measure which required a 2/3 vote, was defeated in spite of the District's expenditure of $25,000 for a Survey of Voters, $250,000 for a multi media campaign by Adrienne Tessier's Bay Relations and an SMCCCD Foundation Grant of $40,000 to the Citizens for Higher Education Committee to support Measure A.
In 2001, thanks to the reduction in the vote requirement to 55% instead of 2/3, the District passed a $207 Million Bond, with 65.3% Yes votes to 34.7% No votes. Less than17% of registered voters imposed this debt on property owners.
Even with State matching funds, the District was not satisfied and in 2005, they passed a $468 Million Bond, with 64.2% Yes votes to 35.8% No votes. To their credit, 33% of registered voters passed this measure.
In June of 2010, with Bond proceed investment losses and a nearly bankrupt State renegging on Bond matching funds, the District became the first Community College District to pass a parcel tax. The SMCCCD Foundation contributed $64,260 to the campaign. That measure passed the 2/3 vote requirement, but was supported by less than 25% of registered voters.


Posted by curious, a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Nov 13, 2011 at 1:50 pm

How much money is being paid to the college board members? Are they also getting free health care?


Posted by TheWorldTurnedUpsideDown, a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Nov 14, 2011 at 3:37 pm

The present law puts our priorities upside down. I would much rather see a 55% requirement for tax increases (pay as you go) and a 2/3 requirement for bond issues (beggar our posterity) than the present system.

In this case we narrowly avoided another half billion dollars of unfunded indebtedness.


Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community
on Nov 14, 2011 at 6:24 pm

TWTUD

"In this case we narrowly avoided another half billion dollars of unfunded indebtedness."

You are so right I think it was going to be closer to 1 Billion with interest up to 40 years of indebtedness.

It will be good to see who was involved from the very beginning of the Measure H idea, was public money spent on study sessions, word crafting, surveys. The property owners didn't organize and raise substantial war-chest to fight this. I know several property owners who supported this measure, but I know several hundred who don't.

Congratulations to the parcel owners, this was a close one.


Posted by I voted for it, a resident of another community
on Nov 15, 2011 at 10:53 am

Sorry to rain on your Libertarian parade, messrs Stogner and Hickey, but a lot of people did vote for it. In fact, the majority of those who cast ballots voted for it. Please don't congratulate me. I'm a parcel owner and I don't feel like I won anything. In fact, I feel that our County and our youth lost. Our community colleges are a critical investment in our youth and one should not be proud of denying them the funding needed to update our facilities. We all benefit from quality community college facilities and we should all pay for them.


Posted by Joe, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:57 pm

Speaking as someone from the working poor who manages to live in a nice neighborhood for once in my life, I voted no. Why? Because I cannot afford a rent increase.

These measures are anything but invisible in their effect on renters.

While renters are to the press and many other institutions, WE VOTE. I suspect I was not alone in voting as I did. Life and education on these campuses will go on without this half billion. They can wait until the economy improves.

It is outrageous to be asking for this kind of money in this kind of economy, the district's excuses about unemployment rates and retraining needs notwithstanding!


Posted by Joe, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:58 pm

Correction: While renters are invisible ...


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Most Seniors do not Need Senior Housing But Could Benefit from other Choice to Remain in Palo Alto
By Steve Levy | 53 comments | 2,346 views

Custom pizza joint on its way to Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 6 comments | 2,105 views

I Spy
By Cheryl Bac | 6 comments | 1,146 views

Life, Death and Rails
By Paul Bendix | 3 comments | 873 views

Live! Menlo Park’s New Website
By Erin Glanville | 9 comments | 752 views