The Yes on Measure A campaign is underway. Below is some basic information about the campaign.
Measure A is endorsed by myself and the San Carlos Blog.
“Vote Yes on Measure A to maintain the level of excellence in our schools that has brought the San Carlos School District state recognition and rising student test scores. Despite ongoing state budget cuts, we need to ensure ongoing student achievement. That’s why we are asking you to vote Yes on Measure A. San Carlos schools have a strong record of academic excellence because our students receive a well-rounded education that emphasizes math, science, reading and writing skills. Funds from Measure A will help us maintain this focus, as well as maintaining hands-on science programs and maintain literacy programs to help all students read at or above grade level, and attract, train, and retain highly qualified teachers.
Measure A requires continued fiscal oversight. The funds could not be taken by the state and Measure A requires independent oversight and annual audits. No money can be used from administrator salaries and senior exemptions would continue to be offered.
Parents, teachers, staff and community members are coming together to support Measure A. They are showing their support by volunteering to phone bank, donating money to the campaign or putting up lawn signs in their yards. If you would like to get involved, visit the “Get Involved” page of this website ands up for any of the activities listed.
We need 67% approval to pass Measure A and we appreciate your support in getting us closer to success.
On May 3rd, please join us in supporting Measure A.”
A set of key FAQs can be found by clicking here.
You can “like” Yes on Measure A on Facebook by clicking here.
The complete Measure A site can be found by clicking here.
51 Comments
Wouldn’t it be cool if they used actual photos of actual San Carlos kids in their collateral? Maybe they are and I’d be happy if they were, but they sure feel like stock art to me.
Do you know?
Will there be lawn signs upcoming?
My prime Alameda lawn is ready.
Hi Jimmer,
Yes, my understanding is that lawn signs will be available soon.
Bob
@Izzy, I am the Co-Chair of the Yes on A, Support Strong Schools Committee and can assure you that most all of the photos are of San Carlos kids. In fact we had a photo shoot last week in town to ensure it.
@Jimmer, Lawn signs will be available starting Saturday and will be on hand at the block walk being organized to help us inform voters of the need for this very important measure. Come on by and pick one up, and if you can, help us drop some literature. Details below:
We will meet at 9 a.m. on Saturday, March 26. There you will receive materials and training. Refreshments will be available. Please meet at 787 Walnut Street in San Carlos (the back courtyard of the church on Walnut and Olive). You can park in the public lot near Cowabunga or on the street. Look for yellow “Yes on A!” balloons and signs.
Great to hear! But, on the Website? They sure look like stock art still to me.
Some of them are. Our website was up prior to the photo shoot and we will be inserting real local talent soon. Thanks for noticing and hope we can count on your support of the real San Carlos kids!
I have seen Measure A materials touting that it will not raise taxes, but in the text the tax increase is the very first thing you come to. I am not opposed to a tax increase (a small one) to benefit the schools, but let’s be honest about it. I think this is disingenuous and want no part of it, and a sign was placed in my yard without permission. Those are 2 reasons that I will not be voting for this, and am urging everyone I know to not vote for this.
Mike,
I am sorry to hear that you won’t be supporting our schools and Measure A. But to be clear, Measure A is a renewal of an existing tax, it contains no tax increase. If you are not opposed to a small tax increase, than I would hope you could support a renewal that contains no increase.
We apologize if a sign was placed on your property in error. Signs are delivered by volunteers to people who request one. It is likely that someone made an earnest mistake (probably me) and placed it on the wrong lawn. You can contact me at adam.alberti@gmail.com and I would be happy to come by and ensure that it finds its correct and intended destination.
Tha materials say “without raising taxes”….this is, to me, disingenuous when one is talking about “extending taxes” that exist already.
Let’s just say it LET’S PAY FOR OUR SCHOOLS….if we, as citizens of San Carlos don’t want to pay, then that’s ok….we will have to make the corresponding cuts…..but to say that we are not “raising taxes just extending existing taxes” is just plain folly and dishonest.
The measure that was before us previously for the 1% sales tax increase in the city of San Carlos was very palatable and I voted for that.
No one is going to change the way that they patronize businesses in our fair city over $1 on an average $100 purchase (ie choose to eat in Belmont over San Carlos for a difference of $1 on a $100 meal or $.50 on a $50 meal) The problem is the almost 10% the state already charges on every sale.
But at least the measure was honest. I said, flat out, a 1% sales tax increase. It went down in flames, but at least it was honest. It seems to me that a lesson was taken from that and this measure was poll tested and some talking points manufactured.
Just be honest with the people, if we don’t want to pay for it, then let’s do the cuts.
Mike,
It is a renewal of an existing parcel tax, not a new tax. We will have to agree to disagree on what that means.
Regardless of how one chooses to characterize it, what it results in is continued local funding for our excellent schools. This benefits our kids, it benefits our community and it even protects the value of our real estate.
While it is your right, it seems rather shortsighted to oppose the measure based on phraseology rather than on its merits.
The schools desperately need your support. passing Measure A preserves much needed local funding to our schools. It does this without impacting your current tax burden. This is why I support this Measure and why I am asking others in our community to join with me. I am sorry if will not be one of them, but I do hope you will reconsider when it comes time to mark your ballot.
I like the idea. I love that Sacramento can’t raid the fund.
But I have to agree it’s sneaky on the tax positioning. Making a temporary tax permanent (or extending it) is still a tax increase over what one would pay without the passage of the measure. The literature creates the impression that this is free; it isn’t.
I find it also sneaky that it exempt seniors to presumably gain their vote (or quell their dissension). Fine. But why just seniors? How about instead do this as a fee for people that use the schools? What could be more fair than that?
I am opposed to Measure A in principle. As a senior citizen I can opt out. Basically, this is not about the schools. It is about preserving the salaries and benefits of teachers, administrators and city employees. There is enough money in the “system” to properly fund the schools without Measure A. Rollback salaries and benefits to government employees. They are far above private sector salaries. I have the list of San Carlos city employees and was amazed. Burlingame is worse where the librarian makes $175,000 per year. The government needs to stay out of our lives, especially our pocketbooks.
To Bob Johnson,
So you would support Measure A if the Burlingame librarian were paid less? Help me understand what city employees, esp. those of other cities, have to do with our schools’ dire finances.
Also, as a senior citizen, why would you opt out? Presumably you have owned your home in San Carlos for a long time and therefore enjoy low property taxes that haven’t nearly kept up with the cost of city services, and a high property value due to the excellent reputation of the schools.
It is certainly understandable for people to have a low level of confidence in government based on the current dire state of the State.
At the same time, we have to look at it these issues on a case by case basis.
With regards to Measure A, I completely disagree with Bob’s position and stance. While I don’t expect to change his mind, I do want to rebut the wild allegations and positions to all open minded San Carlans reading this issue.
Our school district does not even remotely fit the description leveled by Bob. There is absolutely no basis to make any criticism of the School District’s finances form its operations and whatever a librarian makes in Burlingame or anywhere else is nothing but a red herring to bolster a philosophical position.
The facts of the administration of our District show a very different position here. Our District has reduced administrative costs, made the schools more efficient and increased revenue by introducing local programs on a paid service basis. This has all been done under Dr. Baker’s leadership and we are lucky to have him as our Superintendent.
Moreover, other changes have been made, such as increasing class sizes, that are required for the schools to continue to be solvent in the face of the continued pilfering of required funding from the state.
Measure A is not a new tax, but simply continues the local funding already needed and well utilized by the School District to provide for our community. If it fails, we will be taking away more than $1 million of funding a year at a time when the State is almost certain to continue to reduce their funding of local Districts.
We need your support of Measure A to continue local funding that can not be taken away that provides for the excellent schools we have in San Carlos. Schools that benefit our kids, our community and the healthy real estate values that our community enjoys–even Bobs.
@Bob
On a personal note, I am offended by your unfair wide brush painting of our teachers as some overpaid bureaucratic class. Clearly it has been sometime since you have had any personal experience with what these people do and compensated for their generous contribution to our kids and our community.
Maybe someone should do a brief 4 slide PowerPoint on the school system’s finances: salaries, benefits, administration costs, etc. all on a per-student basis. I know it’s gauche to disagree on this issue, but the people that have to cough up money are entitled to transparency and clarity. I send my daughter to a small private school. They run that entire operation on about $1M a year – about $7k per student – with scores that even White Oaks would dream of and like 15 kids per classroom. How much does does SC spend per student? I’ll pay more (even if I never use the schools), but only if I know for what and why.
Ok, the numbers I can find say…
Today, about…
$20M annual budget
2000 students
$10,000 per student
If measure A fails…
$19M annual budget
$9,500 per student
I know some elite private schools cost more than $9,500, but there’s proof you can run an excellent school with a lot less. This doesn’t count that private schools probably pay more in property costs – I kind of doubt Brittan Acres pays rent to San Carlos or property tax to the state, no?
@Matt W.
I completely agree in the need for transparency, but false comparisons are not transparent. Private school costs and budgets are as false a comparison as using the salary of a city librarian two towns over to make a case to oppose this tax.
Private schools have no requirement to exist, but are optional. They have no requirement to comply with special education programs and No Child Left Behind requirements and don’t. To compare apples to apples, and to be transparent, public school districts would have to be compared to other similarly situated public school districts.
I don’t have those comparisons finely articulated, but can say definitively that San Carlos’ public schools enjoy far less parcel tax support than many other Districts close to us. A fraction of some similarly situated Districts. Palo Alto, Piedmont, Atherton, Burlingame, San Mateo all exceed ours by wide margins. Our Parcel tax support is on par with communities like East Palo Alto and the only community I am aware of San Carlos exceeding is Redwood City. Interestingly enough, neither of those community can claim to have people moving there for the quality of their schools like San Carlos does.
In short, I believe that San Carlos does more with their money than others and has had tremendous success due to volunteer time and money. This success should be rewarded with the the simple extension of the local funding in place, which by the way will still result in an overall reduction to their budgets due to the significant state cuts on the horizon.
@Adam: very valid point that public schools must accept everyone…though I would imagine they receive extra funds for disability students.
Still, the trap in dealing with government spending happens when one waves away the absolutes. When we waive examination of hard statistics and measurements long enough we end up through ‘creep’ with a country hopelessly in debt even as it collects record revenues. It seems that no matter how much they collect, they need more. And yes, that same effect and mechanism is manifested in a $175k librarian.
But I say, the ONLY way to regulate something is to root it to absolutes. The bottom line is, I have a proof point of an excellent school that can educate students with an unbelievable teacher/student ratio with significantly fewer dollars. This cannot simply be waved away. It’s real. No one should be expected to cough up more dollars until the difference can be justified with measurements.
Sorry for the double post, but just read this after I posted. Here is some better data in a recent blog post from School Board member Seth Rosenblatt, who is far more knowledgeable than me on the topic:
http://www.rosenblatt.org/
@Matt W.
I feel we will just have to disagree on our philosophical position. When I look at taxes on the ballot I look to see what that tax will achieve. If the end goal is worthy of support, and if the agency asking to levy the tax is credible and responsible with their finances. In all three cases the answer here is yes.
Measure A does not seek to tackle the question of should we privatize schools, it simply asks shall we continue to support the ones we have at the same level locally as we have.
While I disagree with your position, I do not seek to change them. However, I do ask others reading the debate to join me in continuing to support the excellent schools we have for all of the previously stated reasons. Please, vote Yes on Measure A.
That’s great info. Not sure it makes me feel better. I think it makes me more opposed than ever!
Say we have a classroom size of 25 students. With 2000 SC students, that’s 80 classrooms.
Even with the reduced $20M budget that’s $250,000 per classroom. Wow. That defines outrageous for me. I just can’t buy that $250,000 is inadequate to provide basic elementary education to 25 students for year. There must be a big piece of the pie going where it should not be going.
To Corinne,
Think of it in the reverse, the cost of city services has not kept in line with city income (ie taxes). We want to spend more than we have. Solutions: take more or spend less.
“In the 2008-09 school year, teachers in San Carlos made between $44,946 and $85,330 annually, with an average salary of $65,284, according to the California Department of Education.” -June 24, 2010, 02:15 AM By Heather Murtagh Daily Journal Staff
US Census Data is that the median income for Californians with a bachelor’s degree in 2009 adjusted dollars is appox. $48,000. So, teachers in San Carlos do fall in an area well above the median for California.
That being said, I agree wholeheartedly with Adam’s last post about:
“When I look at taxes on the ballot I look to see what that tax will achieve. If the end goal is worthy of support, and if the agency asking to levy the tax is credible and responsible with their finances.” – that is an extremely well stated point, and one that all fair minded people should be able to agree on. However, I keep going back to my original point in this blog about the disingenuous manner in which the campaign materials present the choice. It is downright dishonest. If we can just have a fair and honest choice on the ballot, and people want to pay for the schools in this manner, then all is right with the world, and if we, as a civil society don’t want to pay for it then we should respect that and move on to making the various cuts that are necessary to live within our means. The campaign is tarnishing the “Agency’s credibility” which should be sacrosanct as it is a government agency. The push seems to be “get the money, tell people whatever they want to hear as long as we get the money”
For the record, I believe we should fund the schools through many different sources by the way including local sales taxes, and property taxes WITHOUT exepting seniors. Just because they don’t have kids in the schools doesn’t mean they haven’t benefitted and don’t continue to benefit from excellent schools, and should contribute something. I just belive in the people having an honest choice.
I’m not advocating we privatize schools. What I am advocating is that there is a fundamental cost in educating a child, and taxpayers should question when they are being coerced into paying premiums on top of that. The messaging from the officials is that that number is simply “more than last year” and “never enough”. Would $20,000 (2x) per student be enough? Maybe for a year or two…but then there’d be the inevitable push for more. Just as we were outraged at the military’s $500 hammers, we should not simply accept things because public employees tell us it’s the right thing to do.
Matt W. —
Just need to clarify your point…
San Carlos School District currently serves close to 3200 students. And, the funding per student is closer to $5000 per year, and will likely be reduced next year because of more cuts from the State. Please remember that your private school does not have to accept all students and incur the costs that go along with meeting the needs of all those different types of students. It’s just not a fair comparison.
Matt W,
The sentiment is indeed understood….when is enough EVER enough with big government types always with their hand out for more more more.
The tax in question is for no more than $110.60 per parcel. So every home in San Carlos would have to pony up $110.60 (let’s be honest, this is how it will go) except for senior citizens….why exempt seniors?…..dunno….maybe gotta buy votes somehow?
$110.60 a year is a paltry amount for the quality of education we currently get for the kids of our city. (let’s be honest, our schools are top notch public schools & we should all be willing to pay for that quality) My wife & I give more than that at the Spring Fling every year.
Teachers get paid fairly.
(http://www.sancarlos.k12.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/CertEmpSalSchedule.pdf)
That is the link from San Carlos School District .pdf file of a schedule of teacher pay. $44,946 starting pay is equivalent to over $21/hour (and please before we start, let’s not bemoan the long days and little time off and the harried & hectic life of teachers – the kids in this district are not ruffians and thugs like in many other districts so let’s not go down the road of private schools “cherry picking the best and the brightest” and leaving the dregs for the public schools to mop up, because that is disingenuous.)
The absolute fairest way to “fund” our schools is for a tax on EVERY RESIDENT of our city, owners and renters alike, coupled with a between .5% and 1% sales tax with the move being permanent and unable to be raised but for a 2/3 vote and no exemptions. The money itself would go unnoticed by most of our residents, while the revenue such a structure would be staggering and ensure the finest schools on the peninsula for decades to come.
The spending side of the model (the one I prefer) is one in which we offer teachers even higher salaries (to attract the best and the brightest), and better work related perks (paid seminars and paid continuing education), but in exchange teaches give up tenure, and collective bargaining for discipline, benefits and pensions. Collective bargaining for salary only. Under such a model the teachers of our district could potentially be the highest paid in the country, our childen the best educated in the world. Bad teachers (I know it is not PC to talk about, but there are some, and there are some right here in our district, not every teacher is a “salt of the earth” saint, there are some that just want a check & summers off) would, by simple self preservation, move on to other districts where they can “skate under the radar” and continue to collect a paycheck. The salary schedule would be increased, but flattened out with fewer raises and a lower differential between top & bottom (years of experience does not automatically equate to a better teacher)
I say draft a clear and concise measure that puts real choices before the people & drop all the “spin” nonsense that this campaign has.
@mike
There is nothing stopping you from putting the effort into drafting and campaigning on whatever reform ideas you have. Sounds like something I could potentially support with my vote. However, that is not on this ballot, Measure A is. On this ballot the choice available is to support to continue local funding of schools or to turn your back on them and vote no.
While we all have ideas on how to reform the world around us if we were kings, we are not and we have a democratic process. It requires citizens to participate in it and that is what I am doing on behalf of Measure A.
While some argue that the tax isn’t enough, others argue it is too much. Some argue senior exemptions are not fair, others argue that they are needed to help fixed income individuals.
On election day, you get to choose your path. I continue to ask people to join me in rewarding the success of our schools without any increase to your taxes. Doing so will preserve $1 million in revenue from our community that can not be taken away by the state. To vote against it, IMHO, is tantamount to defunding the success of the schools that have built our community and protected our real estate values.
I have yet to hear a credible argument about why someone should oppose Measure A. Instead we have heard government is bad and that Measure A should do XYZ.
Please, see through the cynicism and anger and support this worthwhile effort for the health of our community and join with me, and a supermajority of voters, to pass Measure A.
Teachers and other government employees are forced to belong to a union and forced to pay dues. The dues are used to buy politicians who then hand out non competitive salaries and benefits to the members of those same unions. As long as this goes on I will NEVER support any tax increase or ANY extension of a temporary tax. When you get rid of unions for public employees, those same dues could go toward the students, not to some fat union leader. This is a different era. Public employee unions serve no real purpose. They are ruining virtually every city and county in this state. I have not lived in this city that long, have no school age children and know little about the schools. Statewide the schools are abysmal and the teachers unions are a major reason. Where do San Carlos schools rank..i.e test scores, graduation rates, college and university acceptance?
Adam-
I appreciate your efforts to volunteer and raise money for our schools. I think the comments in this post refect the uphill challenges associated with these efforts. No matter how logical your arguments are or how well run the school system is, unfortunately there are people that will just use any convenient argument (unions unilaterally bad, seniors shouldn’t be exempt, private schools are great, semantics, etc, etc, etc) to justify opposing these well intentioned measures that are beneficial to our community and children.
With that context in mind, I’d encourage future Measures to actually be even more aggressive in the amount of the parcel tax. While I’m not an expert on these measures, it sure seems like communities like Los Altos, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Burlingame, and Belmont contribute far more in school parcel taxes than San Carlos. From the tone of some of these posts, it seems clear that any parcel tax to benefit schools, even a $1 one, would meet a base level of resistance. So why not shoot for an amount that would really make a difference this year and beyond — after all, I’d be curious who are the people that are in favor of a $115 parcel tax but would balk at a $200 parcel tax. I suspect the battle and effort to pass a $200 tax would be very similar to a $100 one…
@JJ
Hear Hear! That is an excellent point, and has been my point all along in this blog. Being realistic, is there any resident in San Carlos that truly can’t (CAN’T) afford $200 per year (even seniors)? Shoot for the moon, but be honest about it. Say “we are going to tax ourselves X and pay Y for the best schools in America”. In return we will have fundamentally sound property valuation in large part due to the schools, and a well educated next generation.
Just don’t try to play shell games with the people, because we see right through it, and enough is enough. These phrases “rewarding the success of our schools without any increase to your taxes.” and “well intentioned measures that are beneficial to our community and children.” are fig leaves. This is an increase in taxes. The taxes would be lower without this measure. Let’s stand up and say so. Because in truth it is a pittance of money for the value that every resident of our city recieves in return. Shout it out “LET’S RAISE TAXES SO WE CAN HAVE WELL EDUCATED KIDS AND HIGH PROPERTY VALUES”. Stop being squeamish about it. Stop trying to buy votes by exempting folks. We should pay this and much more because it is the right thing to do. JJ, how about a $300 per parcel? Is there any illusion that anyone in SC can’t drop $300 a year on this? $25 a month. That’s a minimum monthly balance on a credit card. And you are so right, the battle is the same as a $100 per parcel fight. But it is the right battle. It is the right fight. Give the people an honest choice. Raise taxes AND either cut spending or show us what value we are getting from it in real and meaningful ways. If you show the value the people will go along. We will pay more money, if we can be shown that it’s not going down a black hole.
@ JJ and Mike,
I appreciate you want to see future endeavors ask for more money. I personally agree with the desire. Our city has a paltry parcel tax load in comparison to most neighboring cities, our comparison point is East Palo Alto when we should be shooting for at least Menlo Park, if not Palo Alto.
That being said, The School Board put forward this measure, an extension of the existing tax for very good reasons. I support it wholeheartedly and am asking others to do the same.
Perhaps in the future a greater amount will be asked for, if the state continues on the path they are on, we will certainly need it just to keep pace with the massive cuts. However, that is not on this ballot. Measure A is.
Lastly, while I understand, JJ, your desire–I disagree with your conclusion that it is just as easy and/or the same fight. Research and experience say otherwise. The simple fact is that in order to get to 2/3rds you do need to make concessions and trade offs to pass the measure. One of those is how much that is asked for. Every community is different on this point–Piedmont puts it at 1k, Redwood City puts it at 0 and have failed to pass several parcel tax measures because they were perceived to have asked for too much.
@ Mike, I appreciate your purity of perspective. Unfortunately, I live in the real wold where losing the “good” fight results in crippling losses to our schools.
I have probably spent too much time arguing this point on this Board and am viewed as being defensive of this Measure. Truth be told, I am. I feel passionately that we should fund our schools with local dollars. While I, for one, would agree that more money should be sought from the local community to fund the schools, I am also a realist who understands that my position–while still the great majority position–is not the super majority position needed to pass this type of funding. Short of unlikely changes to the 2/3rds requirement in Sacramento, that is how it will be.
The ask we have now is infinitely reasonable: Reward the success of our schools and the associated benefit they bring this community by continuing to do exactly what you are doing today–nothing more.
I hope you will join with me in this pursuit and save the arguments about the manner the measure is “marketed” and what could be achieved in local funding for the day after election when it can actually be put to beneficial use in a public policy discussion about what our community can do to continue to make our schools what they are and can be.
Until then, please vote Yes on Measure A–our city, our community and our real estate values are dependent upon it.
They say the best way to boil a frog is to increase the heat very slowly. That’s why enabling the city to seize money from every resident – even a small amount – is something worth disputing. Our Governments – Federal, State and Local all have one thing in common: they are taking in more tax revenue than ever, and are more broke than ever. Just as a hoarder will believe every one of their 111 cats is indispensable until they face eviction, so will the government fight tooth and nail for every dollar and every program until it simply is forced to cope with less.
‘Course the only problem with my logic is that when the government is so forced, they seem to punish the electorate in eliminating things people care about most first: police & teachers.
Didn’t we pass Measure B in 2009 to increase/extend a parcel tax for 6 years. Is that the tax we are talking about extending? If not how many supplements are we paying for our public schools?
@Mike I’m glad you have access to the balance sheet of every household in San Carlos to know with such certainty that everyone here could afford to pay 3x and upwards of the current parcel tax. If you can and feel you should pay more, feel free to make a charitable donation.
San Carlos schools succeed because we have engaged parents and motivated kids. There’s also not a whole not of diversity and not a real large population of kids coming from challenging backgrounds. The teachers are good, the facilities are OK. And it’s all done on $100 parcel tax.
Yes, our great schools are a significant factor in the real estate prices around here. But unless we magically produce a top-rated high school, we’re not ever going to be MP or PA.
I have a hard time understanding the hysteria around schools and test scores. I went to a severely under-served K – 12 school district where most of the high school library books were 30+ years old and there weren’t enough teachers for AP classes. My class produced PhD professors, engineers, school teachers, a speech therapist, nurses, mechanics, lots of small business owners, community leaders and social workers.
The kids turned out fine and so will yours.
@Reyna I don’t know how you formed the opinion that our schools don’t serve a diverse student body. A full third of my child’s class are transfer students from the East Palo Alto and Menlo districts. I also know from volunteering in the classroom that there is tremendous diversity in terms of learning abilities; yes, the teachers do an amazing job of calibrating their teaching to each individual child’s needs and abilities, however we can certainly expect that to go by the wayside if class sizes must be increased as a result of declining funding for the schools. As you point out we are very fortunate to live in a community of parents who are deeply engaged in our public schools, however that too can only go so far when many are two-income households with only so much time to spare to fill the void forced on our schools.
Bottom line is that living in a community offering good public education is a privilege for all its residents, not just those with children.
@Reyna,
Simple math. Homes are valued at between $500,000 to $1.5 million dollars in our fair city. With an average mortgage between $2000 and $4000 a month (often times even more). This is not a poor area. Average car loans in this area are between $200 – $500 a month and in many cases more. If we would like to have our homes remain valuable and have jobs that pay enough to continue our lifestyle into the future and allow the next generation of San Carlans to have a similar or hopefully better lifestyle then we should agree to pay for it.
With an average valuation of approx. $700,000 amortized over 30 years and 30 years of a $300 parcel tax ($9000/$700,000=~1/3%) 1.3% of the value of the home spent locally in our schools, assuming no increase in property value. 1.3% of your value over 30 years. I really hope you feel that our kids are worth 1.3%
And btw I do contribute to the schools at spring fling and whatever other misc. fundraisers come along, and I hope you and everyone does likewise, but I kinda doubt it, because “The kids turned out fine and so will yours.”
I have a hard time understanding the hysteria around a couple of hundred dollars a a year. Heck, DMV takes that and more anually. We shoudn’t be up in arms around $100 to $300 bucks locally for our schools, the rage needs to be directed at the tens of thousands taken by Federal and State entities which large portions go to debt service and absurd programs.
@M P No, Measure B was a new temporary parcel tax approved to assist with the shortages experienced from the State’s broken promises and is still in place for 4 more years. Measure A is an extension of the primary local funding of our schools and is expiring.
@reyna, While I try not to delve into the personal on internet chat boards, I must say that your post is patently offensive. To suggest that because people can overcome disadvantage placed on them from the failures of society/parents/community as justification for continuing disadvantage is simply ludicrous.
As someone who has overcome far greater adversity than you described, I can assure that those disadvantages stay with you for the rest of your life. While it does not prohibit personal success, it certainly does assist it.
I have seen many cases of individuals twisting logic to provide comfort and justification for not doing the right thing on various political issues. However, this “so what, they’ll get over it” attitude is really pretty shallow.
As individuals, as parents and as members of a community it is our moral obligation to do what we can to facilitate the success of our children, our neighbors and our communities, not hinder them. The ask being made is rather insignificant in that it is only asking you to continue funding, not asking for an increase, despite the fact that many would make a very compelling case that more is needed.
On a positive note, Measure A was endorsed over the weekend by the Daily Journal http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?type=opinions&title=Yes%20on%20Measure%20A&id=155752.
Please join me and the Daily Journal as part of the super majority in favor of Measure A for the betterment of this community.
Sure Mike, many of us bought into San Carlos when both adults in the home were working full time, getting regular pay raises and sometimes even bonuses. Walk around town. There are plenty of people with brand new cars, but there are plenty of driveways with 10+ year old cars sitting in them too. There are folks here who can’t make their mortgages, they’re selling at a loss and sometimes losing homes outright. It is happening right this minute on both the blocks east and west of my home. In San Carlos.
So, while I’ll absolutely agree with you saying most people here could afford an extra $200 or $300 a year, it’s not even close to be “everyone.”
And Adam, sorry you took my post so personally. I wouldn’t say my school experience was the result of anyone–parents, government, whatever, “failing.” In fact, to borrow from Charlie Sheen, they were all #WINNING in my book. Not every town/state/household has money. We had what we had and we rocked with it. Same situation here. Parcel tax is about $100 and we elementary schools that rival most any within 25 miles.
My point is San Carlos is FAR from being disadvantaged. The schools are good, the parents are involved, the kids score really well. I don’t see that changing. $100 a year in the face of rising food costs, rising gas costs, rising utilities a a tight (for many) job market makes sense. Increasing that to 3 to 8 times so we can be like (read “pay like”) MP or PA does NOT.
Sorry for the second follow-up…
AC, fully agree with you that a good school system benefits all and previously stated above that one of the top reasons for me buying here was the school system.
Also understand that we do see kids from EPA and other places in our schools. So you have 1/3 of the students from “disadvantaged” areas as opposed to closing in on 100%. EPA is sitting 83 and change on the diversity index and I think we’re at 37? Not saying that’s a good or bad thing, just that it helps with test scores.
I’m not objecting to Measure A. What makes my blood boil is the suggestion that we ought to be willing to pay hundreds and hundreds more because of some irrational idea that we need to keep up with the Jonses down the peninsula.
I thought I understood this ballot measure before reading these responses. Now, however, I’m more confused.
1) Select Ballot A proponents appear to be defending the “spin” language in this ballot measure by saying it merely extends an existing parcel tax, versus adding a net-new tax. But wasn’t the original temporary parcel tax approved in part because it was deemed to be a temporary measure? This bait, switch, and extend series of maneuvers is hardly unique, but is extremely disingenuous.
2) Select responses appear to indicate that the only money San Carlos public schools receive is through the existing parcel tax.
REYNA: “The teachers are good, the facilities are OK. And it’s all done on $100 parcel tax.” — This is factually inaccurate. The majority of funding for San Carlos public schools come from our property taxes.
MIKE: “$110.60 a year is a paltry amount for the quality of education we currently get for the kids of our city.” — That’s great, but the school system gets more than $110.60 per year out of my pocket.
I support this measure IN PRINCIPLE, but the thinking and rationale behind it are flawed, and reveal a chronic mindset that illustrates why this state is going deeper and deeper down the crapper. If this is how you run your personal household budget, then I hope you enjoy the cans of Alpo you’ll be eating in your retirement. Again, I support the measure in principle because there doesn’t appear to be a better alternative, but I’d hope that the supporters of this initiative in a more sober moment would realize it’s a pretty bad alternative.
The average governor in the U.S. has a salary of $138,000 per year. The City Manager of San Carlos makes well over $200,000. That is comparable to what the City Manager of San Jose makes. I think San Jose is slightly larger than San Carlos. Dipping into the pockets of the taxpayers is the wrong place to look for more money.
I lived 28 years in Hillsborough before I moved to San Carlos. A significant portion of the school budget in Hillsborough (15%) came from the Hillsborough School Foundation. HSF is a private foundation. The citizens responded generously because we had tangible evidence of where the money went. I have seen only hyperbole about San Carlos schools on this blog. Facts about the schools are notably missing.
@Bob Johnson – please don’t keep yourself so uninformed. SCEF (the equivalent of HSF) raises tremendous amounts of private funding and obviously makes an annual report available to anyone who wants one. Likewise there are a number of resources available to understand the school district’s budget and in fact the school board members have always been willing to take the time to respond to specific inquiries. If you don’t support the measure that’s of course your option but please don’t dismiss as hyperbole what is really just a lazy attitude toward discovering the facts of the matter.
Read an interesting article lately; evidence shows that if you give every college kid an easy $32,000 loan, college costs will go up by about the same amount. They say this phenomena is at the root of the health care cost crisis; it is because too much money flows too easily from Medicare/Medicaid. If there’s a lot of money available, the costs will go up to absorb the money.
If you believe this, then you’ll realize why I’m reticent to acquiesce to any new taxes; government organizations do not have a ‘enough’ amount. Like a dog, they don’t know how to self-regulate their consumption. If you give them more, they will spend more and complain of being broke again. I would love some proof to the contrary. Our city, state and country have record (or near-record) tax revenues now, and are more broke than ever.
I believe Measures are great ideas, but they should have well-defined goals, like maybe ‘build a new high school’. This is measurable and expressible. One can make a cost/benefit decision. We as a community wanted a high school, and we sacrificed for one, and it got built, and now we’re done and can cease the tax and reap the benefits. The cost/benefit analysis I’ve heard with this tax is, “we just need more money…the tremendous amount you pay already just vanishes in Sacramento somewhere, and we can’t find it. So if you don’t pony up, it will be impossible for us to have the great schools that prop up your house values, and besides, since you already pay it, it’s not really an increase”.
AC–Your note to Bob Johnson is unnecessarily hostile and inaccurate. Case in point:
1) You state that the SCEF “obviously makes an annual report available to anyone who wants to see one.” Great. So how come the SCEF Website doesn’t include an annual report past the 2008-2009 school year (http://www.scef.us/2009_SCEF_AnnualReport_final.pdf). The cover letter on this most recent annual report is dated November 2009.
2) The annual report lacks clarity in articulating where the monies raised SPECIFICALLY go. For example, nearly 8% of all money raised, according to the pie chart on page 5, went to a “Principals’ and Directors’ Fund?” What exactly is that? Where is the oversight for this $101,270 investment that principals and directors can invest how they deem necessary, and how exactly was this money spent? I get more specifics on our household budget for $500 line items by looking at my mint.com account. Another example: $226,000 went to libaries? To fund exactly and specifically what? In other words, what percentage went to salaries, what percentage went to infrastructure/facilities? What percentage went to books/videos, etc.?
3) The operating expenses breakdown on page 7 of this outdated annual report shows a surplus of $274,949 (. Where is this money held/how is it invested? Was there a surplus in the prior year? Where was the money held/how was it invested? What rate of return did it receive? Is the SCEF trying to build a recurring endowment fund?
I would humbly suggest to the SCEF that they provide more transparency in their literature, and update it more frequently.
Sorry I’ve hurt your feelings and I beg your pardon but I made zero misrepresentations of fact. Posting your questions about the SCEF budget in a blog that has nothing to do with SCEF help you out…how, exactly???
AC–Your indecipherable response further indicates that you are not worth my time. Over and out.
We no longer have a child in San Carlos schools, but we will be voting in favor of Measure A and we do participate in the San Carlos Educational Foundation.
Reading through all of the comments here, it appears that many who are not in favor of Measure A have not taken the time to truly understand the way funding for San Carlos occurs. Funding our schools is not part of the city budget. San Carlos schools receive their money from the state, based on the particular limitations of Proposition 13 and how it applies to the particular city. In the case of San Carlos, we get the short end of the stick. Please do not blame local government for the lack of funding for schools. The real blame should be placed on the State of California and a truly outdated law, Proposition 13.
San Carlos schools have been one step above life support for the last several years. SCEF comes to the rescue each year, filling in critical shortages with funds to keep key programs and services offered. Anyone who cannot see this has simply not done their homework on the matter or finds it much easier to just simply blame politicians and unions.
If that still is not enough for you, and you are a property owner in San Carlos, you should be doing everything possible to protect your home’s value. As Bob has stated many times in his blog, the number one reason people are buying here is because of the schools. To argue against a measure for a mere $100 that will keep our schools afloat and property values as strong as possible, is simply short-sighted.
To all those who are considering voting against Measure A, please educate yourself before making a decision.
I am voting for ‘A,’ and candidly largely out of self interest. But after scouring both the San Carlos School District and SCEF websites, my conclusion is that both entities, particularly the SCEF, could provide much more financial transparency. Less emotion and platitudes, and more facts and accountability, woukd be desirable.
Our tax burdens, particularly for those of us who bought homes in this city within the last several years, are already very high.
I’ve always been curious as to Prop 13 and never quite found the answer I have been looking for .. Maybe I could get some answers on this blog?
As our older population is largely benefiting from Prop 13, wouldn’t the issue eventually go away as these folks move onto to tax “heaven”?
Hi Mich Mi,
Click here for a recent post on Prop 13.
https://sancarlosblog.com/2010/03/proposition-13-taking-its-toll-on-san-carlos/
Bob
The lottery was implemented to support Ca schools
No one is even addressing this