For many, Measure G, the San Bruno Park School District's parcel tax, was one of the most important ballot measures ever to come before voters in the city.
It was the first time in the history of the school district that voters were asked to pass a parcel tax for the schools.
But in no big surprise, support for Measure G fell short at the polls.
A majority of voters—58 percent—said yes on the parcel tax, which would have lasted for five years and could have generated about $2 million a year for the schools. But that support wasn’t enough. Measure G needed two-thirds approval.
“The way I live my life is I hope for the best but expect the worst,” Scott Curtner, one of the parent leaders on the Yes on G committee, said as voting results started coming in throughout the night. “I never really expected it to pass, but I think it was a battle worth fighting.”
The parcel tax was being touted as a fix to the district's budget crisis to prevent further cuts that district officials say has been a trickle-down problem from the state's own budget crisis. Just last school year, the district was looking to close two schools to save money after sixth graders moved to Parkside Intermediate and reduce the number of combination classes.
After a huge backlash, the school board voted against making that decision.
Now, with the Proposition 30 expected to pass, the cuts may not be as severe. But San Bruno schools also may not be able to secure any other new sources of revenue, which means school closures may be back on the table.
Some of the volunteers who helped spread the word about the parcel tax said they were glad they got involved because they weren’t just fighting for their own children. They were also trying to make sure that the low-income kids who attend the neighborhood schools—and whose families are often least represented at the table when it comes to school district matters—had a voice as well.
What was most frustrating, supporters said, were the skeptics who didn’t want higher taxes period.
“When you’re looking at other cities like Hillsborough or San Carlos, they can easily pass measures, and you wonder, ‘Why can’t we?’ Well there is a reason why we can’t pass it here,” said Alfonso Esqueda, the Parkside Intermediate PTO president, who worked on the Yes on Measure G campaign. “There are a lot of minorities in our area, and they’re not really educated about our government system.”
Esqueda said he still viewed the effort as a success because more voters showed up to the polls this election than for Measure O, the bond measure that failed in the 2011 election.
“The word is getting out there, and with people speaking so negative about it, what they need to realize is this wasn’t brought up by the school board,” Esqueda said. “This was brought up by the people, and the parents from the schools want the money for the schools. So the community will still figure something out.”
Schools trustee Dr. Henry Sanchez said he also believed too many voters weren’t as informed about the parcel tax as they should have been. Now, he said, the school board will have to go back to the drawing board to find another solution for fixing its budget problems.
“The community decided with its choice,” Sanchez said, when reached by phone. “Now the school board will have to make its choices.”
Here are the final results for the election:
San Bruno Park School District Measure G
Completed Precincts: 20 of 20
Measure
Votes
Percent
Yes
5,947 58.5%No
3,903 41.5%
When I served 6 years on the SBPSD Board I was the one that started the push to sell Carl Sandburg and it took about a year to get the rest of the board onboard. Where would the District be today if the sale never came about. If you want to know more about me look at my voting record. I was responsible for many success and I am willing to put in the time again.
A waste of more School money to put G on the ballot. Do we need a study to know Hutt is not a Leader for our Schools.
As usual, all I hear is a group of cynics complain about perceived wrongdoings, but offer nothing to contribute to a greater cause. I agree Measure G was perhaps a quick fix to a larger problem, and I also agree that perhaps it is time for new leadership; But, I don't agree that we sacrifice the future in spite of these things. Measure G failed out of selfishness, personal agendas and misguided opinions. Now, those of us who want to be an active part of this community continue on the path of uncertainty with our children's education.
Property owners before you have and future property owners will pay/contribute to public school districts through their annual property tax whether or not they have children of their own, whether or not they send their child/ren to public schools.
There is no gloating go on. What I and other people are saying is SBPSD resident wake up and get rid of Sup Hutt and board member Henderson, Sanchez and Martinez Then people will see new leadership that they can trust and be willing to put money into the quality of San Bruno education. Chuck Zelnik
I am wholeheartedly against taxation. I will tell you what I believe with no hidden agenda. But, the only thing I hate more is deceptive-speak and dishonesty. You, Mr Zelnick, and Mr "watchfultaxpayer" are trying to play the self-righteous card, but we all know you have other agendas. My only gratitude to you is that you have both helped the "no-taxation" cause with your actions - but if you think you will get tax money in the future with a change in the boards membership - think again. And to you Mr Baker - with your 10-aliases here on the Patch (Maria, et al) same to YOU as well!!
The SBEF will be holding a Fundraiser tonight - Wed., Nov. 7 from 6-10 pm at Arajuo's Rest., 404 W. San Bruno Av, SB. The SBEF website is: www.SanBrunoEdFound.org
My only agenda is to have each student given a well round education so the they can have many choices in their future. Edwin could you bring us up to speed on your contribution to quality education in the SBPSD? Maybe you would be the right person on the SBPSD Board Chuck Zelnik.
http://sanbrunoedfound.org/ You can do this while you work to change the leadership in the SBPSD. Have a nice day folks :-)
I suggested before that all of those who were YESers go by the District Office and leave their $199. By my calculation that would be $1,093,903. If they do well with that amount, then perhaps the NOer's would be willing to drop off thieir $199, Some of the YESers might not have had to pay if they are apartment dwellers or young people with no property. BUT if they are true believers in the district and the importance of education then put up. I think it might work. I know if I saw a remarkable change in operations I would happily drop of my $199. Why not? I've paid a whole lot of money over the years I've been a homeowner. Still do looking at my tax bill.
The election is over. G didn't pass. You can stop now, and get back to your "Dr. Hutt and Skip Henderson are bad, bad men" postings.
The day to day operations of the SBPSD is and has always been the job of superintendent Hutt. The Board has listen to parents during school board meeting. but that where it ends.The Board thinks they know all, but as we look at the money problem in SBPSD it shows they do not. Prop 30 will do little for K-8 school. Most of that money will end up at the college levels. We will just have wait and see. Chuck Zelnik
There is one think about people like you that bug me . You can talk the talk but unwilling to walk the walk. Chuck Zelnik
Chuck Zelnik