38

Fremont Citizens Network flier: ’10 reasons to vote NO on Measure E’

Measure E opponents have posted this at www.FremontCitizens.org

 

10 Reasons to Vote NO on Measure E

1.     The bond is written to make us think that it is ENTIRELY devoted to renovations for existing schools.  However, it contains about $250,000,000 to be used for “over runs and inflation” (~40%).

2.     Coincidentally,  Developers need new schools for new development (more than 3,000 new homes in Fremont).

3.     The bond’s $250,000,000 for “inflation and overruns” could be used to build those new schools.

4.     As Assessed Property Values rise, the Measure E tax will increase year over year through the life of the bond.

5.     Measure E contains $77,000,000+ in Capital Appreciation Bond – akin to a PAYDAY LOAN, discouraged by Jerry Brown (Governor) and Bill Lockyer (State Treasurer) and outlawed in many states.  Repayment of this amount DEPENDS ON the city’s ASSESSED VALUES RISING 4% PER YEAR FOR 38 YEARS.  As Prop 13 puts a 2% cap per year, this growth rate depends on turnover and new developments to make up the difference.  Fremont will be forced to accommodate more growth or make higher payments.

6.     If voters approve Measure E, and renew the parcel tax when it expires, the total property tax (for school bonds) on the average $450,000 (assessed value) home would increase from $191 per year to $479 by 2018.

7.     The bond provides NO SENIOR EXEMPTIONS.

8.     Property owners are still paying for: a parcel tax and two prior voter-approved bond measures from 1991 and 2002.  Measure E would extend payments on district bonds through 2051, but still leaves 3/4 of the identified district needs unaddressed.  There will be more bonds because there is more need.

9.     Measure E bond language is so vague that the District can use our taxpayer $$ to buy land and build schools for all the new developments we will be forced to accept.  The DEVELOPERS should provide the land/facilities for all the students in the developments they build, NOT the taxpayers.  Previous history shows NO BOND should be approved before FUSD has formalized plans on Developers’ promises to mitigate their impact, especially in the new BART development.

10.  Our existing kids will never get new schools, if this bond money is used just to “fix” or buy new land/new schools for the new developments.

Shouldn’t we be spending one-time funds to help current Fremont children by modernizing existing schools and instituting long-term facilities solutions?  VOTE NO ON MEASURE E!

For the link to this, click here.

 

Chris DeBenedetti

  • Jasper Stein

    Please Vote No on measure E, We can do better, new Schools, no more patching up the old one’s

  • bbox231

    I was – at first – very confused by the article that ran in the print version of todays’ Argus. At the very least – the way Charlotte’s letter ended would clearly be interepreted by many as being supportive of Measure “E”. I was disappointed to say the least. Until I ran into this –
    http://www.insidebayarea.com/opinion/ci_25769226/guest-commentary-measure-e-is-not-way-improve
    Editor’s note:
    An incorrect version of this My Word appeared in yesterday’s print editions and was online for a while. Due to an editing error, a significant portion of the article was dropped, which changed the meaning and thrust of the piece. The correct version is the one that appears below.

  • Esteemed Poster Marty

    FCN sounds like a bunch of aging baby boomers trying to suck the last drop of blood from the carcases of public school students.

    From Chris’ Argus story: [Kathy] McDonald instead wants
    housing developers, not taxpayers, to pay more for the increased traffic
    and student enrollment their developments bring.

    Let’s read between the lines – The “FCN” wants developers to pay the city a higher price per sqft to offset school burden. These prices are passed on to *new* buyers who are already paying an inflated rate to compensate for the units dumped into the “low income” pile.

    In a nutshell, Kathy McDonald wants new families/taxpayers to pay the entirety of school upgrades while she still gets to rake in obscene increases in home equity she has enjoyed that are a DIRECT RESULT of the high quality of schools near her mission hills home.

    I am the first to jump on new bonds and spending measures with eye rolling scrutiny. And this may be one of them. But make not mistake, the FCN is a collection of aging progressive baby boomers hellbent on fortifying the moats around the fortresses that fell in their laps as they strolled through American life at the right time and place.

    The inpetus for McDonald’s last political push was purely a matter of her personal finance. This one is no different.

    P.S. Cheers!

  • bbox231

    Welcome back marty, Off topic, personally speculative, and devoid of any supporting facts – as always. Cheers and glad to see you back!

  • Jasper Stein

    And Here is Marty the Mastbaiter with his usual nastyness. We all want better schools Marty, but not continually putting band aids on the broken down existing schools. We want NEW schools they will be most cost effective in the long run. Measure E does not add any more capacity for students.
    Waiting for your insults marty

  • bbox231

    Let’s read between the lines – These developers want the preponderance of the support for additional schools necessitated by their rampant development to be paid for by rate payers who do not attend those schools. . Proposed rate increases (except Mello Roos) are passed on to ALL Fremont taxpayers, while only those *new* buyers of these cracker boxes enjoy the direct benefit(s) of attending those schools. Instead of eating into their margin to support the infrastructure needed by their new homies . . . these guys would rather Ma and Pa Kettle across town contribute to their profits.

    In a nutshell, these developers want new families/taxpayers to pay very little of the cost of school upgrades necessitated by their presence while the devlopers themselves remain free to rake in obscene margins which are a DIRECT RESULT of the sales of their new construction. (Never mind the missing infrastructure needed by those famililes – - – someone ELSE please pay for that stuff cuz the prices of my new homes will be less attractive if only the people using the required new schools pay for them)

    Sadly, most members of our Council and even our school board have been ACTING in support of this kind of shell game.

    Our esteemed Mayor did offer “to help” however.

    SOOO GLAD YOU’RE BACK, MARTY!!!!

    It was always like shooting fish in a barrel.

  • Jasper Stein

    It is also the Developrs are contributing money to run those yes on M Ads, literture and signs. The Developers see a pot of gold at Measure M

  • Charlie C

    “I will start anew/I will make amends/and I will make quite certain/that the story ends/on a note of hope/on a strong amen/and I’ll thank the world/and remember when/I was able to begin again!”
    -Ebenezer Scrooge… means bussiness

    What McDonald,B in the Box, Bruce the Bacon lover and most of all Vinnie do not understand is developers kill fascist. I’m sure the demonize a developer crowd are proud of the work they did to save acres of weeds and prevent a Technological and Ecological wonder from being build in Fremont.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25789027/stadium-effect-expected-spur-office-retail-hotel-development

  • Esteemed Poster Marty

    Box, developers don’t birth people to fill these homes. They fill a market need. In Fremont, that market is families who value education. Crusty old boomers living on prop 13 tax subsidies have to come to grips with that. Fremont is not a retirement home.

  • bbox231

    Geezus. Marty. You gonna whip out that prop 13 argument? Thats getting to be a pretty tired saw isnt it? And its a total cop out. Constituency time and again has demonstrated a willingness to reach into their pockets for responsibly drafted bonds or other needs. Measure E is no such thing BTW – I encourage you to spread your word that Fremont doesnt appreciate folks retiring in their midst. Bottom line – Measure E was drafted poorly and with dubious purposes. Crusty old boomers as well as young families in most of our districts would be wise to give this one a NO.

  • Esteemed Poster Marty

    Prop 13 tax equity aside, the proposition creates static childless communities around schools that once served the parents who lived nearby. This is not a novel point. It is in fact one put forth by former Fremont mayors and FCN gray-hair faithful alike.

    It would be great if new schools were built to serve population growth or that communities were more in flux. Sadly, essentially every district in CA has instead established that is a pipe dream by decades of minor expansion (portables, etc) to current schools land locked by aging, childless boomers who read Life Magazine and pride themselves for holding membership in the Sierra Club in the 1990s.

    New buyers can not be held singularly responsible for financing schools to serve their children. It’s a community expense clear and simple, and I won’t hear anything to the contrary If you want a la carte government, then let’s go. But you better be prepared to mortgage whatever assets you boomers might have to pay your medicare.

    Regard-less, new buyers of new construction in fmont are already paying $8-12k in inflated property prices to offset the $5.27/sqft developers of new residential must remit to the COF. This is in addition to higher real prop tax bills compared to their boomer neighbors, who are usually busy fantasizing about geriatric drum circles and second homes in the mountains that will allow them to reconnect with the soil that tops 8-10 ft wide fire paths through the wilderness built by the Sierra Club throwbacks so that baby boomers never have to come into close contact with “reckless, young” mountain biking yahoos.

    Prop 13 property tax payers must hold some responsibility and this measure addresses that in part. It compels aging subsidized equity barons to pay their fair share. My only regret is that Measure E is flat rate. It should be inverse progressive, that is those who are helped the most by prop 13 should pay the highest supplement.

  • Esteemed Poster Marty

    Bill, would you prefer me calling you a “moron” which evidently you encourage, or just plain “mentally challenged” as you have slung in precise terms.

    Or should I just roll my eyes and patronize your ignorant statements like most of your “friends” do when you frequent our Niles eateries with your exclusive brand of embarrassing buffoonery in tow?

    Glad to be back, btw ;)

  • bbox231

    .. and ignore the point that well-written initiatives are passing all over the state. Lots of straw men and anecdote(s) – - Come on. All Prop 13 does/did is eliminates the gravy train of escalating property taxes. It requires governments to return to the tax payers, put their cards on the table and explain what they’re going to do with this next round of financing. . . . it eliminates NOTHING. . . . if you’re smart enough to know how to effectively justify. Communities everywhere are doing it. . . . . . well, smart ones are.

  • Esteemed Poster Marty

    ” all Prop 13 does/did is eliminates the non-stop gravy train of perpetually increasing property taxes”

    That’s the thick headed spout we conservatives were going with back in 2000. The last decade and a half has proven that CA will be unimaginatively irresponsible with other people’s money regardless of whether or not we can afford it.

    *This* fiscal conservative has come around, and thinks Prop 13 should be repealed in its entirely if for only to make those who created CA in it’s current form pay for government in it’s current form.

    It’s similar to my elation when I see a healthy 20-something who voted Obama complaining about having to buy medical insurance so that a boomer can still get his medicare.

  • bbox231

    The real need is somewhere in betwen And the good nees for you is that most taxpayers with an ounce of sense will be glad to pony up for well thought out proposals addressing clear needs as opposed to veritable blank checks. Your approach places fiscal control in the hands of government (read special interests). My approach at least gives rate payers last right of refusal before turning cash over to the politicos. Good topic. I encourage you to take ot up on one of the more appropriate boards.

  • bbox231
  • Bill Spicer

    So why are some Fremont voters questioning Measure E?

    Theyve looked up
    the Yes on E campaign contributions.
    Measure E is just a local Fremont tax
    measure yet $ 161,000 (80%) of the $ 201,954 campaign contributions to ÒYes on
    Measure EÓ are from developers and contractors located outside of
    Fremont.

    They’ve looked up the numbers.
    $ 407,727,000 of School Board
    approved project costs are detailed by school, by category in Fremont Unified
    School DistrictÕs Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP), Jan. 2014.
    The
    remaining $ 242,273,000 is deemed unallocated, set aside for cost over runs and
    inflation.
    Or as some contractors are calling it a “Honey Pot” for Developers

  • Bill Spicer

    A word to the wise!
    Fremont voters are asked to consider Measure E, a $650,000,000 bond measure on the June 3 ballot, touted to address the aging public school facilities and overcrowding. The latter has been exacerbated by numerous housing developments approved by city council, including Patterson Ranch at Coyote Hills.

    Do consider the facts from the Fremont Unified School District’s Long Range Facilities Plan (the rationale for Measure E), which are described below:

    It’s here: the “Perfect Storm.” Fremont faces the costly convergence of four great challenges to its local public schools: aging facilities, overcrowding, class size reduction, and mandated new curriculum (Common Core). With passages of Prop. 30, local Measure K, and the 2002 School Health & Safety Bond, Fremont voters have historically shown their willingness to take responsibility for their public schools. So why are some Fremont voters questioning Measure E?

    They’ve looked up the “Yes on E” campaign contributions.
    Measure E is just a local Fremont tax measure, yet $ 161,000 (80%) of $ 201,954 campaign contributions to “Yes on Measure E” are from developers and contractors located outside of Fremont.

    They’ve looked up the numbers.
    $ 407,727,000 of School Board approved project costs are detailed by school, by category in Fremont Unified School District’s Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP). The remaining $ 242,273,000 is deemed unallocated, set aside for cost over runs and inflation.

    Voters who want to know how their 38-year property tax increase will be spent see in the 2014 LRFP that:

    27 elementary schools and all 5 high schools are allocated zero (0) Measure E dollars to Category 4. “Plumbing & Restrooms.”

    All 28 elementary schools and all 5 high schools are allocated zero (0) Measure E dollars for Category 2. “Science& Classroom Technology”.

    27 elementary schools and all 5 high schools are allocated zero (0) Measure E dollars for Category 9. “New & Replacement Classrooms.”

    Voters are left to assume that another bond measure will come to ballot soon because NO Measure E money is currently allocated to address overcrowding at the high schools. In spring 2015, KB Homes will build 500 homes in North Fremont (Patterson Ranch). 2700 homes are planned for Warm Springs. Additional housing projects are planned for many other lots throughout Fremont. And the School Board has a wish list of $ 1.6 billion.

    Voters can see in the LRFP that $24,622,000 for new “Flexible Furniture” is allocated to Category 12, “21st Century Learning Environment,” and they wonder why the School Board would allocate this amount first towards new“Flexible Furniture” when the need for “New Classrooms” for high schools is so obvious.

    The “Yes on E” team is phone calling voters telling them that repairs are desperately needed. “Yes on E” flyers are mailed out, with pictures of a toilet and school science lab, and slogans: “Measure E will renovate children’s restrooms. Measure E will modernize aging labs and classrooms.” But 0 (zero) dollars are allocated to the 5 high schools and 27 elementaries for these categories.

    There is no doubt taxpayer funds are needed to combat the “Perfect Storm”. This is not the time for misleading mailers and questionable priorities. This is the time for the School Board to gain voter trust, not lose it. This is the time for the Board to be transparent, specific, and not expect voters to approve $ 242,273,000 in unallocated funds.

    Fremont voters have no choice while City Council approves one housing project after another, creating overcrowding. They had no choice over the Common Core mandate.

    But they do have a choice as to how their property taxes should be spent. On June 3, they can say “No to Measure E” and ask the Board to write a better bond, one that guarantees bond money allocations to solve high school overcrowding, fix bathrooms, and repair dilapidated classrooms.

    Mary Biggs
    Fremont homeowner since 1989
    CA Certified Public Accountant since 1989
    FUSD parent since 1995

  • bbox231

    Developers aren’t bad people.

    There is bad development.

    There’s wasteful spending (which Measure E clearly has the ability to be) – but developers are businessmen and women delivering a critical function.

    We need responsible development.

    If Measure “E” was written in a responsible manner wouldn’t developers be contributing to the “Yes on “E” campaign?

    Wouldn’t we ALL??

    My concern is that when these kinds of sweeping generalizations are included on a list of legitimate concerns, the generalizations undermine the integrity of other much better points.

    If you want to sway the opinions of others, why give them a good reason to conclude that your reasoning and logic is flawed?

    For this reason, I think we are well served If we let go of the developers are bad people notion and focus on specifics of bad design, bad spending, and bad decisions by our planners and City Council. After all – there’s plenty of the latter to go around.

  • Bill Spicer

    Subject: Vote NO on Measure E–Demand a Better Bond
    for Your Money

    Please vote on Tuesday, June 3. Your NO vote is crucial. This
    bond only needs 55% approval to pass, we need a BETTER BOND, if we are to truly
    improve facilities for Fremont’s kids.

    $650 million price tag makes it the
    biggest school bond in Alameda County history,
    but…

    provides no
    classrooms for high schools, only one classroom in one elementary,
    no solution for current overcrowding
    and imminent classroom needs

    has
    built-in 60% cost overruns (that
    $240,000,000 is $87,000,000 more than the entire 2002 Health and Safety
    Bond)

    proposes to
    spend ~$400,000,000 ($250 mil allocated + 60% cost overrun) to add just 2200
    seats at the five middle schools
    (PRICE: $180,000 per seat/averaging $80
    million/school) ; replacement campuses would be cheaper and eliminate cost of
    future repairs on old facilities

    repayment rate
    based on an ASSUMPTION of 4% tax base increases PER YEAR, for 38
    yrs, but Prop 13 caps existing owners’ increases to 2%–forcing
    us to accept more development, each year, just to pay
    debts

    Leaving old
    structures means there will be more bonds for more band-aids for 50 yr
    old schools, and inevitable costs to replace facilities ON TOP OF the cost of
    this bond.
    This is not good enough for Fremont
    residents. You can demand a better bond by voting NO to Measure E. Only
    55% of those who vote are needed to pass this bond.
    Your silence is acceptance.
    Don’t let a small minority dictate the
    future of Fremont schools or development. Please vote
    NO.

    Thank you for your support.

  • tinker

    My kids attend Fremont Schools and I am voting NO on Measure E because
    the bond measure nor the developer plans do not address the schools
    facility issues through out FUSD. Even the so called highly ranked
    school MSJHS looks like a run down school. The developers are throwing
    in a measly $25 million dollars for a elementary school. What about the
    secondary schools and High Schools that will be affected more with all
    the rampant developments.

  • Esteemed Poster Marty

    Kathy McDonald needs to find a new hobby.

  • bbox231

    Nah. We just got swiftboated.

  • Charlie C

    K-Mac aka V-Bacos running mate should once again try and explain the backwards logic behind *SED* aka stadium effect denial. How’s that for a hobby?

  • Esteemed Poster Marty

    What does that mean?

    It appears as if everything was laid out in the voter literature with media sympathetic to the FCN objections …and voters still went with the measure.

    Kathy McDonald needs to reconsider who she thinks she represents – if anybody except for the 17 registrants to her web soapbox.

    Pay up boomers!

  • bbox231

    That’s pretty funny.
    All these years of your lap dog tossing around the “swiftboating” accusation and you’re NOW going to ask – “What does THAT mean?”
    MWAHAHAAHAAHAA – wow!
    Hey – congrats to those that think there’s value in this.
    A fool and his money . . .

  • Charlie C

    Isn’t it true that swiftboating has been embraced & enhanced by you the demonize a developer crowd? Carl Rove couldn’t have done it better!

  • Esteemed Poster Marty

    swift•boated (verb) :past tense, getting rear ends handed in a political competition. Usually invoked by progressive baby boomers who are all chesty pumpy until they loose, at which point the revert to victims of the system.

  • bbox231

    Hysterics??!! Get a grip ….

  • bbox231

    Why yes, Charlie. It IS true. And from all indications the microwaves we have been beaming at you are begining to have an effect.

  • Charlie C

    No denying the microwaves certainly fried your (dyed in the wool FCNers) sides moral compass when you embraced that tactics of Carl Rove and played the dirty pool you needed to play to prevent a “stadium effect” that would have made Fremont into a major league city. Nice work Boxie…I’m not sure if Vinnie is still in India living off the taxpayers dime, but you might encourage him to come out of the bunker and explain what appears to be a waste of taxpayers money.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25789027/stadium-effect-expected-spur-office-retail-hotel-development

  • bbox231

    You’re absolutely right, Charlie – -
    Nice pics!

  • Charlie C

    Why thank you Boxie. If you like those pic you’re gonna LOVE this one!

  • bbox231

    It’s an OK picture, but you could have done better. A couple of tips, Charlie – - when you force your subject to stare into the sun, you get these squinting looks and the shot ends up being less than your best. I suggest you try shooting in less harsh lighting . . . filtered light is always better. Overcast days are great. The shadows wont be as harsh and your subjects wont have to battle staring directly into the sun. Skin tones will remain just as good but the overall results will be much better. With a little practice you can do it!

  • Charlie C

    When your subject is fresh off a swift-boating triumph they often beam with an inner glow. The subject in this pic was gazing at the acres of weeds he helped save from development… like you a “stadium effect” non-believer.
    http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24663776/huge-new-office-research-and-retail-complex-planned

  • bbox231

    I can tell this stadium thing (which is now many years in the past) is an emotional topic for you.
    It also seems quite personal for you.

    Why is that?

    Why are you so angry?

    A reasonable individual would have moved on to something relevant to today instead of remaining mired in the distant past.

    Maybe you’re too old to move forward.

    Maybe you’re so myopic that you cant see any other positive vision for our community.

    Another question – while, I can appreciate that you were upset with opponents to this decision – did you expect there would be NO opposition? AT ALL?????

    (If so – that seems rather naïve don’t you think?)

    And I don’t understand why you have never uttered a single objection about leaders who totally fell on their butts trying to rally support for this debacle… Diaz, Wasserman, harrisson – - they failed MISERABLY when it came to mustering any substantive community support for this idea – but you’ve NEVER uttered a single word of criticism for their lame effort.

    Why is that?

    BTW – where’d your buddy go?
    Seems to have disappeared.

  • Bill Spicer

    After reading the post here, We definitely need money for the mentally challenged and those with unheathy obsession with stadiums….

  • Charlie C

    My Buddy is down in Vinnies bunker coming up with reasons why the India snipe hunt was worth it.