Editor's Note: Over the summer, the San Bruno Park School District voted to place a parcel tax on the November ballot. The tax, which asks residents to pay $199 per household for five years, could generate up to $1.9 million annually for the district, if it gets two-thirds approval from voters. This is the first time since the school district was established in 1907 that a schools parcel tax has been placed before San Bruno voters.
On the ballot this November, registered voters will see three initiatives that impact our San Bruno public schools: Measure G (San Bruno’s initiative to support public childhood education), Proposition 30 and Proposition 38.
Voting YES on all three would guarantee San Bruno’s ability to maintain its high-quality public school system. A NO vote is a vote close up to three elementary school, cut four weeks off the end of the school year, increase class sizes beyond today’s 31-to-1 student/teacher ratio, erase elective classes (that aren’t paid for by school parents) and probably scare away our top teacher talent.
While the passage of all three initiatives is important, only San Bruno’s voters will decide the fate of Measure G. Since this is San Bruno Patch, let’s focus for a few minutes on this local childhood education initiative.
How Did San Bruno Get To This Point?
Over the last five years, California has been cutting many millions of dollars from our public education budgets. San Bruno has adjusted by attempting to raise revenues while cutting senior administration, cutting staff, cutting teachers, cutting salaries and cutting elective classes and programs.
Despite San Bruno’s efforts to balance fiscal solvency with quality childhood education, it couldn’t match the pace at which California was surprising public schools with cuts from state funding. In many of our lifetimes, California schools hadn’t experienced such vigorous cuts.
As each year generated new cuts, many public school districts thought, “Well, the state can’t possibly cut any deeper than that.”
San Bruno protected its public schools as best as it could with what used to be very healthy savings accounts. Today that protection is going away, and the most painful cuts are all that is left to cut.
If you want to blame San Bruno, then blame them for having never asked voters to support a childhood public education parcel tax before today, or blame them for failing to pass a bond (Measure O) last year, or blame them for trying to protect our public schools by tapping their savings.
Why Should San Bruno Taxpayers Increase Their Contribution To Childhood Education?
If you don’t have kids, and you don’t care about providing high-quality education to San Bruno kids, then you should still vote YES on this childhood education parcel tax because good public schools raise property values and attract good families to neighborhoods. When children are seen walking the sidewalks, that neighborhood is seen as vibrant and safe. For example, Crestmoor Elementary has an annual Halloween Parade that loops around the neighborhood streets complete with a police escort and the Capuchino High School Marching Band.
If your kids go to private school, then you should still vote YES on this childhood education parcel tax because good public schools support “at-risk youth” and keep them engaged in a productive and protective environment. Long-term, public schools benefit economically disadvantaged children and contribute to reduced crime rates.
In Summary
A “NO” vote is a vote to weaken the San Bruno community by putting our kindergarten through eighth grade public schools at risk of closing not only three neighborhood schools, but also cutting up to four weeks off the end of the school year, and/or increasing class sizes and removing funding for elective classes.
A “YES” vote is a vote to make San Bruno STRONG by supporting the children who need the services provided by public schools.
To learn more information about Measure G, visit greatsanbrunoschools.com.
Scott Curtner is a Crestmoor Elementary parent and president of the school's PTO.
And for those readers out there who have been following this, many of the No on G arguments have stated the sentiment that the people who are Yes on G are insensitive to the plight of the middle class. Please know, I do not personally know any of the No on G people and would never presume to know their finances, however, they presume to know ours. Speaking for myself and the other Yes on G's that I know, we are middle class folks. We don't relish paying more taxes. It's not like we think, "Yeh, more money out of our ever shrinking wallets!" But we cherish our children and our neighborhoods. So, we prioritize. For the cost of 55 cents a day, or about 4 tall Starbuck's mochas per month, we can try to secure a better future for ALL our kids and for our neighborhoods. The money helps ALL of us. I'll make my own coffee, thank you.
Not everyone wants to learn and become something after high school. Some 18 year olds have no clue of what they want to do perhaps during the that time the CHOICE to serve people food or clean people's toilets would be theirs. There will always be people in our world who will have to get the no skill jobs; it is the way the world works; I lived it and I survived; BUT I do not wish that on my children. The middle class gap is closing rapidly. Soon we will be only RICH or POOR. I am Helping to keep the middle class open. Vote YES for Measure G!!!
We are already paying on a Bond and it looks like that wasn't enought money either. Never enough money, they will be back asking for more. Change the Leadership, so we can move ahead. I guess Hutt is O.K. With bullying, since he just sits by and watches.
The district could have $100m in funding from bonds and not a penny could be used for operating expenses. In fact, if the board did try to move money from the capital funds to the operating funds, I'm sure you would be one of the loudest critics.
Vote yes on measure G.
Vote yes on G.
At the moment, to prevent California from going bankrupt and being taken over by the Federal Government, Gov. Brown is using some of the money to balance the budget, and he has stated that soon the local school districs will start receiving the money that is due to them. One of the reasons I fought against Redevelopment for over 12 years was that it takes money away from schools and public safety, and also It allows eminent domain for PRIVATE (vs. public) gain, which is against the Consitituion. I thank our state legislators for banning RDAs.
PLEASE READ THESE SECTIONS OF THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 2012 BEFORE ALLOWING THE SAN BRUNO PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT’S PRESENTATION AT TONIGHT’S 25 September, 2012 City Council Meeting. As stated on the agenda: “Receive Presentation by San Bruno Park School District on the District’s Parcel Tax Measure on the November 2012 Ballot”. § 82014. Conflict of Interest Code. “Conflict of Interest Code” means a set of rules and regulations adopted by an agency pursuant to Chapter 7 of this title. § 82015. Contribution. (h) “Contribution” further includes the payment of public moneys by a state or local governmental agency for a communication to the public that satisfies both of the following: (1) The communication expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or the qualification, passage, or defeat of a clearly identified measure, or, taken as a whole and in context, unambiguously urges a particular result in an election. (2) The communication is made at the behest of the affected candidate or committee. History: Amended by Stats. 1980, Ch. 289; amended.
The majority of the current city council instituted REdevelopment in around 1999-2000. It is a horrible scheme which takes money away from schools and public services in the "zone" in which the city council (aka Redevelopment Agency) declares a Redevelopment/Project Area. In San Bruno's case, it was about half the city, which means MORE money taken away from schools and public services than most other cities which used Redevelopment for a small section such as a downtown area. (BTW, BURLINGAME was smart enough NOT to do Redevelopment.) The city of San Bruno has already sent a check for about $1 million to the state for money it owes the state from RDA antics, and I am told by city hall that we have to pay a LOT more, but we couldn't afford it all at once, so we will be making yearly payments to the state for 10 (20?) years. Look at the Police Station - the RDA (aka city council) floated risky bonds called Certificates of Participation to build the police station. Since it is in a Redev. Zone, we do not get to vote on the bonds. (debt). Look at Santana Row in San Jose - NOT redevelopment - all private, and doing well. The RDA of San Jose tried to stop the Santana Row project! I worked for 12 years locally and at the state level to abolish RDAs. Interestingly, the "old" city council chambers at city hall were dismanteled to make room for the new RDA staff - you should see what their salaries were/are. RDAs and unsustainable pensions ruined California.
Were realtors dabbling in that money pot??? I know there were programs to help first time buyers & low-income get iinto houses--- creative financing,. They could buy in the 'blighted areas' with help with down payments, etc.,They use to hold 'workshops' at the Rec building encouraging people to buy ,not rent, with little risk. That must have been somehow connected to RDA. When you take from schools and give to city governments for that many years,the schools have to go back to the taxpayers/hiomeowners to beg for what was taken. No foresight at all. It seems to me that when those 1998 bonds were passed it would have been wise to choose three schools in the most state of disrepair,,knock them down and build three new ones. When the taxpayers saw what a good job they did managing that bond money, we would have been more willing to part with more money to knock down two or three more and rebuild them. Instead now we just have a bunch of schools that were 'band-aided' with cheap band-aids at that..I sometimes walk to the library and around Decima Allen. I certainly don't know what they spent 3 plus Million dollars on there. Other than the solar panels it pretty much looks like it always has. Doesn't appear to have new windows either. Isn't the savings from the solar panels seeping if not flying out those old windows??
an 'enrichment 'program. Are we falling short in Sp Edu ?Would the Feds allow us to?Offsetting reductions in State funding..Learn to manage what ones has.We have had combo classses over the years when there were a few too many students for another whole class. I was in a combination class. I did not feel slighted. And what on earth is curriculum modernization? Are our students now benig taught as though they were in a backwoods one room schoolhouse? I don't think the goals are clear and particularly in how they will be achieved. I was put off by the rules for seniors to be exempted.It would be complicated for an elderly person to accomplish once a year. And. if one is NOT a senior already qualified for exemption, how could one be 'very low-level' income and still own a home in San Bruno?That does not add up. I shall vote NO on Measure G. I am sorry they did not have a better plan this time to make me feel confident that my $199 each year for 5 years would save our schools. And what happens at the end of 5 years?
Yes, the board can and should do more to save. We have on average 100 fewer students per elementary school than Millbrae district, and 200 fewer than SSF. If there were five elementary schools instead of seven the average school size would be the same as Millbrae and still smaller than it was 10 years ago. With an average of 360 students, instead of 260 as it is now, our schools would still be "small schools" which is generally considered to be 400 or fewer, and we could reduce the chances of combination classes. However, closing two schools would just make up 1/3 the budget deficit. There's a minimum level of expenditure we need to maintain just to teach to a core level, and we can't do that with the current revenue. We shouldn't forget the hard work the teaching staff and students have done in the last year in very difficult circumstances. All of the seven elementary schools scored 800 or above in the California statewide API tests and met their targets. Parkside made its overall school target but missed some subgroup targets - which is still an improvement. "Sending a message" to the board would do nothing more than hurt the kids and would put this year's academic improvements at risk.
But as I stated the information is very vague as to how it will be used and since the same crew will be in charge of it I feel compeled to say "No on G," I was just thinking. Last year when the blonde lady CBO would speak at the televised meetings discussiing finances, she always painted a very rosey picture with smiles and giggles and everyone thanked her and everyone was happy. What happened to that rosey picture? That wasn't that long ago.
Then they blame Sacramento. Unfortunately, starving them for money doesn't make poor leadership go away.
Geezzzz I can hardly wait to vote on Tuesday!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://sanbrunobeacon.org/2012/10242012djnoong.pdf We'll just have to wait and see how this turns out after all of the votes are counted.