How bad is Measure C? Theresa Herrington’s post in the Contra Costa Times today documents the plummeting support for Measure C including at least four members of the measure’s original campaign committee. Also called into question is the EMC push poll the Yes committee used that never revealed costs would soar to $1.87 BILLION over 42 years! What were they thinking?
“They really didn’t do any homework, and it’s really sad,” said Carla Ludwig, a Walnut Creek resident who quit the campaign committee in March after learning that the superintendent planned to ask voters to extend payments over 42 years.
“Three other members of the committee also have dropped out of the group and come out against the measure, as has A.J. Fardella, a parent who served on the bond oversight committee for the district’s 2002 $250 million bond measure, also called Measure C.”
According to Kris Hunt, executive Director of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association,”This measure is awful. It will cost Taxpayers over 5 times the cost of the bond because it is being paid back over 42 years. It should be defeated.”
As Dan Borenstein explained in his analysis of Measure C, “There’s another problem: Bonds for construction don’t address the district’s most critical problem. What the school system needs first is money for its day-to-day operations that have been shortchanged by the state budget crisis. For that, the district needs a parcel tax, an annual assessment to raise money for the general fund. The problem is that requires approval of two-thirds of the voters, a threshold the district failed to meet when it put a parcel tax on the ballot in May 2009 and only received 59 percent approval.”
And now, not revealed in the ballot information, we learn that at least $60 Million will indeed be funneled to the General Fund in a sleight of hand accounting maneuver that shows us the MDUSD is more about accounting tricks and smoke and mirrors rather than transparency and accountability.
Finally, see the letter to editor that appeared recently in the COncord Transcript by Richard Colman, a frequent contributor here.
Misusing money is becoming the hallmark of the Mt. Diablo school district.
On Tuesday, May 11, the district’s board of trustees agreed to cut, for a three-year period, nearly $4.9 million from special education funds (Times, May 13). The board also voted to lay off 200 teachers.
Yet, at the same meeting, district trustee Gary Eberhart criticized the use of non-union contractors for school-construction projects. On June 8, the district’s voters will decide the fate of Measure C. The measure, if passed, will provide taxpayers’ dollars for a district construction plan.
Mr. Eberhart and any like-minded board colleagues ought to select contractors using one criterion: Who can do the best work for the lowest price?
Often, the use of union-only contractors raises construction prices 25 to 50 percent. While using union workers may be good for unions, employing union-only workers may not be good for taxpayers.
Perhaps Mr. Eberhart and the rest of his board would not have to cut special education funds and lay off teachers if the board decided to avoid the expensive practice of using only union workers on school construction projects.
Voters should ignore Mr. Eberhart’s views on labor matters and should vote against Measure C.
Richard Colman
Orinda
Bill Gram-Reefer is Editor & Publisher of Halfway To Concord, founded in 2004. Halfway To Concord is the leading online source for community-driven political news, events, and opinion for Contra Costa County and the San Francisco East Bay.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
The results sort of does not support the headline. Which is interesting in that we get a channeling view of the world on the blogs and some corresponding cross checks with results provide some interesting perspective reminders.
The problem with the paper is that Teresa Herrington failed to mention that the 1.87 billion is the combined total of the existing/past measure C + this new one. She also failed to tell you that the MDUSD solar package in measure C will save over $400 Million dollars over the same 42 years! As tax payers we get stuck with the bill on public schools either way, lets reward the plans that make sense and vote YES on this measure C, only adding $200 Million over 42 years, NOT 1.87 billion as implied by the paper.
Think of it this way, for $200 Million not saved by solar, we give the schools $350 Million worth of impact.
Jules: The problem with Measure C is that the overwhelming majority of money will be spent for interest NOT on things for the kids. That is why it should not be passed.
Mr. Colman, do you pay parcel taxes for education in Orinda? Are you moving your children or grandchildren to MDUSD? That is my point, I am out there every day in our schools and I see the need just in our facilities.
Would you have preferred this Measure to double the current tax rate in these economic times? Many in this area are struggling. I am sorry, but you live in Orinda, not here.
I stand by my post that we support Measure C and do I wish the payoff were not so long or such high interest? Yes, but right now it makes sense and the need is great. We are doing this for all children, current and future and our community. Would you work in the conditions that many of our children are forced to be educated in?
If every district in our state had to cancel their current Bond Measures or Parcel Taxes for education, then I might change my vote. But right now the inequity is horrible and frankly, not right nor fair.
I do pay for my children’s education, they will graduate from College debt free. I also put in a lot of time and energy being an active volunteer. We are part of the solution that the State has forced upon us. The way education is currently funded in California is not equal at all.
I just don’t agree with your view points and will continue talking to people about Measure C.
Do not use your property tax bill to assess how much you’re paying for education. A figure of $122.98 for the Mt. Diablo 2002 Bond on your tax bill is meaningless.
A more accurate method is to use your Tax Rate Area. Without getting too involved, every parcel is located in a Tax Rate Area. Your TRA specifies the amounts you pay to each entity. You can look up your TRA on the county website and get specific amounts.
I selected a random TRA near Northgate High School for the following information. Read it and be surprised to know that over 52 percent of your property tax bill goes to education. This does not include parcel taxes or bond measures. (The columns may not line up when this is posted.)
Tax Rate Area 09010
Allocation of Basic 1% Property Tax
Fiscal Year 2009-2010
COUNTY GENERAL 13.95238 %
COUNTY LIBRARY 1.50402 %
CONTRA COSTA FIRE 12.71278 %
C C FLOOD CONTROL 0.17650 %
FLOOD CONTROL Z-3B 0.71211 %
SERV AREA LIB 13 0.24474 %
CO WATER AGENCY 0.03596 %
CC RES CONSV 0.01634 %
CO CO MOSQUITO ABA 0.15727 %
CENTRAL SANITARY 1.66466 %
EAST BAY MUD 1.51101 %
BART 0.63641 %
BAY AREA AIR MGMNT 0.18550 %
EAST BAY REGNL PK 3.02578 %
CITY WALNUT CREEK 9.02820 %
WALNUT CREEK R-8 0.29400 %
CO SUPT SCHOOLS 0.96684 %
K-12 SCHOOLS ERAF 15.23296 %
MT DIABLO UNIFIED 31.03750 %
CO CO COMM COLLEGE 4.63694 %
COMM COLLEGE ERAF 2.26810 %
TOTAL 100.00000 %
I disagree with Jules. The California Legislature has cut school spending. If we, as the electorate, attempt to make up that difference though bond measures and parcel taxes, that will send a clear message back to the legislatures that they “got away with it.”
We should vote a resounding NO to EVERY such measure in the entire state. That will send an entirely different message to the bums in Sacramento: “Restore education funding, because you can no longer count on the people to make up for the shortfall caused by your wasteful spending spree and liberal agenda.”
If Jules had read my letter to the editor of the Concord Transcript (May 20, 2010), he would have read that I work in Concord. I also pay taxes in Concord. The property tax is the only tax that a person has to pay while owning an asset (like a house). Other property, like clothing, furniture, and appliances, are not taxed while in the owner’s possession. Normally, when an asset (like stock or a business) is sold, there is a tax applied at the time of sale. I suggest getting rid of the property tax as a means of funding schools.Perhaps parents ought to pay for their children’s education just as parents pay for a their children’s food. Another approach is to privatize the schools.
Richard S. Colman
Biomed Inc.
Concord, CA
May 26, 2010
Jules, the point about THIS bond is that because they are paying it off over 42 years, they will be paying over 5 times the value of the bond in interest. This is a bad business deal.
You bought your house 20 years ago. Homes bought more recently have a higher value and they are paying more for their share of the bonds. But the real point is that this is not a good deal for the district.
Why in the world would I listen or believe Mr. Colman from Orinda? Does this person have students here in MDUSD? I live within the MDUSD, have students in our local high school (have had students in MDUSD since 1993) and am an active volunteer at my site and district. What I don’t see are facts in Mr. Colman’s comment, just opinions.
The MDUSD budget is on the website, there is transparency, Measure C from 2002 has an excellent track record, accountability and audit results. There was and is an oversight committee, made up of community members. Our schools need continual maintenance and upgrading so our students can remain competitive in the 21st Century. This is just one of the reasons why we need to extend the Current Measure C Bond. In this current climate of harsh economic times for many MDUSD residents, extending the current Measure C makes perfect sense to me. My tax rate stays the same and I am helping secure safe, up to date facilities for current students and our future students. I look at it that I am helping to invest in the future of our community as our home values reflect from our schools.
I am looking at our property tax bill and we purchased our home in 1989. Right now pay $307.06 for sewer and $122.98 for the Mt. Diablo 2002 Bond. I need sewer for the rest of our lives while living in our home, I also need quality school facilities and education. Do I cut Sewer? No, do I cut education, No. Our State is letting education down even at the University level. So as a community member I will do what it takes to help with the solution. I am voting Yes on Measure C and so are my adult children and spouse.