Comments on: Fremont schools parcel tax

By: Matt Artz

Matt Artz — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 03:46:06 +0000

Not sure about the endorsement. I think most readers assume that newspapers only makes an endorsement after an editorial board sits down with the candidates. Word of advice: You shouldn’t always assume that.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:38:27 +0000

Regarding long-term on Measure K: It has a 5 year life, so it is not permanent. And yes, it only serves to reduce the damage from the cuts we’ve had in state funding, even with measure K there will be more cuts to come.

By: californiaguy

californiaguy — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:22:33 +0000

Lets hope not. The Argus (The San Leandro Newspaper) has endorsed Meg Whitman

By: Kevin Crossman

Kevin Crossman — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 22:05:45 +0000

Is the Argus going to do an endorsement piece for this and the council races?

By: Marty

Marty — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:51:27 +0000

The measure is aimed at maintaining existing offerings, not improving them. When the district needs $53 from every household just to keep libraries open and certain programs on life support, they are in trouble. Ideally, these assessments should be used for capital investments, building new facilities and improving things. Just like the business owner who borrows to meet payroll, assessment funding of schools is not a long term solution.

By: Larry

Larry — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:42:12 +0000

Measure K is a means to raise some local funds that will help address our immediate local needs. Sacramento and the federal government have both added required burdens to education without providing the funding necessary to implement them (unfunded mandates). At the same time, both entities have reduced the funding to education for basic services.
Many people are unaware that Sacramento does not provide all the money needed for something as basic as textbooks. They fund most of the costs for textbooks, but the difference has to come from the General Fund. When that happens, there are fewer dollars to allocate for educational services.
As we receive less funding, FUSD has had to increase class sizes, reduce the number of valued elementary prep teachers, reduce by 50% the number of Library Techs (limiting the access our students have to our libraries), reduce the number of secondary school counselors, reduce transportation services, as well as a host of other services.
Taxes go from Fremont to the state and then a much smaller portion returns to FUSD. Measure K allows for local funds to remain in Fremont to be used directly for FUSD. There will be a Citizens’ Committee to recommend how the funds will be dispersed. The funds will go to address immediate needs like libraries and teachers. Measure K is a 5 year commitment and allows for an exemption for seniors of 65 years and older. Measure K specifically states that the proceeds cannot be used for administrative costs.
Measure K will raise over 3 million dollars annually. These are local dollars that will stay local and will be used to help defend our students from the continual funding reductions that have become all too common and are sure to be continued for some years to come.
In a nutshell – Measure K, essentially a dollar a week per household, will allow over 3 million dollars annually to stay in Fremont to help provide necessary services for our students, with a Citizens’ Committee to make the allocation recommendations, and none of the money raised would go to administrative costs. And it sunshines in 5 years.
Measure K will keep local control over local dollars for our FUSD students. Our students need our support for Measure K.

By: Chinmoy Roy

Chinmoy Roy — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 00:52:16 +0000

I am under the impression that Measure K funds would not go for payroll. Everything goes to our kids and hence it is a good measure. Besides, the district is not obligated to have a Citizen’s Bond Oversight Committee. But the Board has gone above and beyond and committed to have one. Hence unlike Measure G, this bond has been structured very well and gives us the “best value for our dollar”

By: Marty

Marty — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:48:23 +0000

Chinmoy, yes I agree, and we are very good at mandating things we cant fund. I have a hard time cutting special need programs when there’s a structural compensation problem in our state that should be dealt with first.

Both, I making the point that assessments sould not be used to maintain a certain level of performance. That property tax assessments should be used to improve the quality of schools.

My analogy is a business borrowing money to expand, vs borrowing to meet payroll. In a sense, we are borrowing to meet payroll, which is futile. Things will be just as bad in a few years, and the solution will be another assessment, then another, then another.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:23:04 +0000

Marty: I don’t know enough to dissect our state budget. Much of our money goes to state/local govt employees, though also a lot for entitlements and for bond payments. But with the parcel tax, at least we know where the money is going and have some say, so I’m glad we agree on that one.

By: Chinmoy Roy

Chinmoy Roy — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 05:02:31 +0000

No Sir, that is not the mandate I am talking about. IEPs for special needs. class size are some of the mandates from Sacramento that I am talking about. And then there are title 1 mandates.