04 June 2006
Measure B for School Facilities Improvements
I certainly hope that, if this measure passes, the Oakland Unified School District will look for less costly alternatives than rebuilding our existing schools and replacing the "temporary" buildings with new ones of the same kind. Why hasn't there been a program in the last dozen years to replace, repair and upgrade five temporary classrooms and offices per year? Why are they all decrepit at the same time? I think it is indicative of a lack of political will by the school board and by incompetency at all administrative levels regarding planned repair and maintenance programs. Measure B wants us to catch up all at once even though the funds do not exist yet.
Property owners, whether condo, single family home, duplex to commercial enterprises, will be assessed approximate $45 per $100,000 propert valuation per year. That means the property tax on a $400,000 condo, house or lot will be $180 more each year. If the property is worth $1 million, then the owner will pay an additional $450 per year in taxes.
Unless the property owner passes on to tenants all of the additional amount in increased rents, which is unlikely in a competitive, rent-controlled market, there is no downside for renters who vote in favor of this measure. I don't think that is right for our community and society. Like the tax discrimination in Prop 82, putting all of the tax burden on only a portion of the community is a slippery slope to punitive taxation. At least it seems so to me.
One of the official proponents of Measure B recalls the investment Californians made in the 1950's and 1960's for public education. The rate of public spending and resultant tax increases led to a severe backlash epitomized by Prop 13. What Prop 13 felt like to those of us opposing it was a meanness, a slashing of excellent public programs affecting our well-being. We felt proud of our schools, public parks and recreation and our roads. Somewhere along the line, a majority of the voters lost faith that their tax monies were being spent efficiently and effectively. Somewhere along the line, those taxpayers with fixed incomes could not endure tax rate increases without end. Howard Jarvis saw his chance and offered up a meat cleaver tax reform initiative called Proposition 13. It passed and since then the tensions between programs and budgets have become the stuff of nightmares. In its budgeting choices, the Oakland Unified School District chose to spend money on things other than physical plant maintenance and upgrading to meet the teachers' needs for better learning environments and resources. Measure B, in my view, is there because the school district did not plan its use of its resources well. It would seem that the state education authorities felt the same way when the state took over management of the district.
Measure B is too much to afford at this time. Give us a specific, multi-year, comprehensive facilities plan to fund rather than ask for funds with which to begin planning.
I'm concerned that the bond issues and selective tax increases are heading in toward the same kind of Prop 13 catastrophe again. I don't have any answers but I wish someone would begin a serious attempt to find one or two.
Post a Comment
Property owners, whether condo, single family home, duplex to commercial enterprises, will be assessed approximate $45 per $100,000 propert valuation per year. That means the property tax on a $400,000 condo, house or lot will be $180 more each year. If the property is worth $1 million, then the owner will pay an additional $450 per year in taxes.
Unless the property owner passes on to tenants all of the additional amount in increased rents, which is unlikely in a competitive, rent-controlled market, there is no downside for renters who vote in favor of this measure. I don't think that is right for our community and society. Like the tax discrimination in Prop 82, putting all of the tax burden on only a portion of the community is a slippery slope to punitive taxation. At least it seems so to me.
One of the official proponents of Measure B recalls the investment Californians made in the 1950's and 1960's for public education. The rate of public spending and resultant tax increases led to a severe backlash epitomized by Prop 13. What Prop 13 felt like to those of us opposing it was a meanness, a slashing of excellent public programs affecting our well-being. We felt proud of our schools, public parks and recreation and our roads. Somewhere along the line, a majority of the voters lost faith that their tax monies were being spent efficiently and effectively. Somewhere along the line, those taxpayers with fixed incomes could not endure tax rate increases without end. Howard Jarvis saw his chance and offered up a meat cleaver tax reform initiative called Proposition 13. It passed and since then the tensions between programs and budgets have become the stuff of nightmares. In its budgeting choices, the Oakland Unified School District chose to spend money on things other than physical plant maintenance and upgrading to meet the teachers' needs for better learning environments and resources. Measure B, in my view, is there because the school district did not plan its use of its resources well. It would seem that the state education authorities felt the same way when the state took over management of the district.
Measure B is too much to afford at this time. Give us a specific, multi-year, comprehensive facilities plan to fund rather than ask for funds with which to begin planning.
I'm concerned that the bond issues and selective tax increases are heading in toward the same kind of Prop 13 catastrophe again. I don't have any answers but I wish someone would begin a serious attempt to find one or two.
<< Home
