Town Square

Post a New Topic

Rebuttal Arguments for MPCSD Parcel Tax due 12/27/16

Original post made by Jack Hickey, Woodside: Emerald Hills, on Dec 17, 2016

Primary Arguments In Favor and Against the MPCSD Parcel tax have been filed. See: Web Link
Harland Harrison, Chair of the San Mateo County Libertarian Party filed the Argument Against. I am also a signatory to the argument. We invite concerned taxpayers of the MPCSD to join us in preparing and submitting a Rebuttal Argument which is due 12/27/16.

Argument Against Measure ____
Menlo Park City Elementary School District Parcel Tax

In May 2016, the Menlo Park City School District (MPCSD) placed TWO parcel taxes on an all-mail ballot. They BOTH FAILED.

Proponents blamed the 2/3 vote requirement for their loss, but the 2/3 vote protects property owners from the whims of short-sighted alarmists. Lowering the 2/3 requirement for school bonds has created a massive increase in bonded indebtedness and our children will be stuck with the bill.

Now, only 10 months after losing two tax measures, MPCSD returned in this off-year election. This time, a YES vote would raise their CPI adjusted “take” to about $1,044 per parcel. Voting NO would allow that total to drop to around $684.

MPCSD does not need any more taxes and has budget plans which do not require them. The 1% General Property Tax already includes taxes for MPCSD. Parcel taxes are levied above that 1% tax, as are the additional taxes servicing over $130,000,000 bonded indebtedness of MPCSD.

Californians pay plenty for education. Nearly half of all general fund taxes in California are spent on education. Then, there are State “on behalf” payments, (from our taxes), to service bonds providing “matching funds” to the District. Voters already authorized bonds for MPCSD, for $91.1 million in 2006 and $23 million in 2013. If you choose to vote NO on this parcel tax, don’t let anyone accuse you of not supporting education!

If school districts in California face budget problems, blame the unfunded liabilities in California’s “defined benefit” pension plans, CalPERS and CalSTRS. People in the private sector saw retirement plans devastated by the financial meltdown in 2008, but not public employees. Government should solve its long-term problem of pension funds, instead of continually asking for tax increases.

Meanwhile, Menlo Park City School District can continue to provide an above average education with their existing revenue. Vote NO on another parcel tax.

Comments (6)

2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 17, 2016 at 1:09 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The existence of coherent Rebuttal Arguments places a clear burden on the proponents to do a much better job of justifiying this new parcel tax than they did last Spring.

And hopefully the unions will publicly commit to a stand still on compensation increases for 2016/17/18.


Like this comment
Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Dec 28, 2016 at 10:08 am

Jack Hickey is a registered user.

Rebuttal arguments can be found at: Web Link and, Web Link Signatories: Harland Harrison, Chair, Libertarian Party of San Mateo County and John J. "Jack" Hickey, Member, Libertarian Party San Mateo County
Text of REBUTTAL TO PRIMARY ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE X

In May 2016, voters defeated TWO parcel taxes. Only 22.5% of registered voters supported Measure A. Only 20% supported Measure C.


Existing parcel taxes providing 15% of district funding, and generous contributions from MPAEF and PTO’s, have created schools which go far beyond basics. Bonded indebtedness of $131,000,000 approved by voters has added to the grandiosity of MPCSD schools. Voters do not need to raise taxes because the District is already collecting far more than necessary to provide more than basic education.


The state has an obligation to provide equal education to everybody. MPCSD tells voters they can have better schools than their neighbors if they increase taxes. This is wrong. Every child is entitled to equal education no matter what school the government forces her to go to. Eventually, the state must adjust funding to approach equality. Because MPCSD could stop the tax, they claim the state cannot take money away.


A NO vote allows one existing tax to expire, still leaving $684 in parcel taxes having NO expiration date. Proponents claim a $5,000,000 budget deficit will result. Wrong! The district has plans to prevent that from happening.

Proponents claim this tax will be subject to “oversight”. But their similar bond oversight committee has 4 VACANCIES out of 7 members!

Political consultants hired by the district, crafted ballot language to elicit voter approval. The phrase “replace its expiring parcel tax at the new rate of $360...” recommended by those consultants, DELIBERATELY hide $153 increase!


Vote NO on Measure X!




Like this comment
Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Jan 5, 2017 at 10:26 am

Jack Hickey is a registered user.

Impartial Analysis can be found here: Web Link


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle

on Jul 24, 2017 at 6:01 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle

on Jul 29, 2017 at 2:54 am

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle

on Sep 11, 2017 at 5:48 am

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 849 views

Couples: Sex and Connection (Chicken or Egg?)
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 632 views

Zucchini Takeover
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 583 views