CUSD will put $175 parcel tax on June ballot

This is a good news and bad news story.

First, the bad news, the School Board gave-up the opportunity to assuage the public distrust of the Board. The proposal could have included language that excluded the possibility of withdrawing from receiving Federal funds or changing the new middle school site from Cunha back to Wavecrest. Should we pass a tax so that CUSD should be held unaccountable?

Back on 12 September, the California Department of Education in a news release identified CUSD as one of only ten new California School Districts identified as a NCLB Failing District. CUSD provided the only new District and School (Hatch) in San Mateo County. CUSD received a temporary appeal granted to the District but not to Hatch. After the June election, this year’s STAR test scores will probably officially return CUSD to Failing Status.

This is a general repeat of the last four failing Parcel Tax proposals. The failure to quantify terms such as “small” provides no real information to the voter and simply gives Superintendent Bayless a Nine Million Dollar Slush Fund.

The good news: in only five months after this fails we can bring a Parcel Tax Measure to the November ballot which restores the school bus and gives our kids a chance at a truly improved educational opportunity.

Ken Johnson

The $30 assessment for undeveloped parcels is way too low—and reflects the CUSD Board’s continued deference to the pro-development lobby on the Coastside.

Below is a letter I sent to the Board prior to yersterday’s meeting:

March 4, 2006

Members of the CUSD Governing Board 498 Kelly Avenue Half Moon Bay CA 94019

Re: Comment on Agenda Item VIII: Discussion Concerning a Proposed Parcel Tax for the June 2006 Ballot

Dear President Schreurs and Members of the CUSD Governing Board:

I appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed CUSD parcel tax for the June 2006 ballot. I am a parent of two children attending Hatch Elementary. I have served as a volunteer in the classroom for several years and I was also a member of the CUSD Strategic Planning Team on Student Achievement during 2005.

In considering the details of any proposed parcel tax, I would strongly urge the CUSD governing board to apply the principles of equity and fairness, so that the financial burden of educating our community’s children is shared by all land-owners who stand to gain from improved education on the Coastside.

In particular, I would strongly urge the CUSD governing board to refrain from granting an exemption to undeveloped lots in determining the annual parcel tax assessment. Undeveloped lots, many of which are held in concentrated ownership by corporate interests or wealthy families engaged in the business of development, will receive a tangible benefit from improved school quality. The quality of our community’s school system is directly capitalized into property values, so that owners of undeveloped lots will receive a capital gain if the parcel tax is passed. It is therefore only fair that such landowners should pay their share of the costs of providing the quality public education system that enhances their property values.

Wealthy landowners who argue in favor of an exemption from the parcel tax are attempting to shirk their civic responsibility for paying for public education, while at the same time seeking to reap the benefits of appreciated property values when the affected lots are eventually sold or developed. Moreover, an exemption for undeveloped lots places a higher financial burden on middle and lower income families who are less able to bear it.

Given the narrow vote margins that have decided parcel tax votes in the past, it seems crucial that any proposed parcel tax be viewed as equitable by the community in order to maximize the probability that the measure can receive the needed two-thirds majority vote.

Sincerely,

Kevin J. Lansing Half Moon Bay

I spoke at the March 2nd school board meeting in favor of the parcel tax measure. But with a caveat. At that time they were considering a $45 school bus proposal plus $150 for school improvements all tied within the same ballot measure.

My position was that each parcel tax should stand on its own. Why? Because the school bus parcel tax would be a “slam dunk” and would carry the school improvement measure on its “back” so both would be passed by the voters.

Imagine my chagrin when, at special school board meeting on Monday, March 6th, there was NARY a mention of the any of the parcel tax going towards the return of school bus transportation.

Was I and the people duped? I don’t know. But what I do know is that I am in a quandary and my feeling are in flux.

John F. Lynch

Like John Lynch, I want to be for this tax as a member of the school district community. The Wavecrest stupidity for the middle school was my biggest reason for not wishing to trust the CUSD board with more money in past parcel tax elections. Because parcel taxes are regressive, I’m philosophically opposed to them. I’m also unhappy with the need for parcel taxes for schools just because the state’s school funding system is screwed up and because schooling for the children of people in the U.S. illegally are costing California about $2 billion each year. But I had just about resolved to get over those personal gripes with the elimination of Wavecrest.

I am, however, surprised to find a number of details in, or not in, the measure that were also criticized in past parcel tax elections. These things would have been easy to fix, so what’s the deal? Can the CUSD board just not bring itself to give up little gifts to its cronies or to stop trying to buy votes with the measure?

Here’s my list of irritations: 1. Annual applications for senior exemptions. Either make oldies permanently exempt after a one-time application (based on clear, specific criteria) or forget it. No one gets younger so there is nothing new to be learned about their age each year. Among other things, it will be overlooked, a hardship, or not possible for some seniors to apply annually, as in the case of people with dementia (eventually 50 percent of all of us)who must have someone else take care of matters for them. 2. Annual applications for treatment of contiguous parcels as one. Anyone who wants their parcels treated as one should combine the parcels legally. We all know why parcels are kept distinct. 3. The consideration of parcels with manufactured mobile homes as “unimproved” property. This is a joke—I only wish. 4. A mere $30 per year for “unimproved” parcels. Unfair for the reasons Lansing stated above and a gift to those with multiple parcels held speculatively. If we had a government that firmly held the line on undevelopable parcels, then I’d soften for those only. 5. The absence of stated funds for school transportation. An omission that shows disregard for people harmed by local traffic congestion to which the absence of busing contributes. A slap in the face of parents who can’t afford to drive their kids or can’t drive them at the necessary times. There are also safety issues for children and the matter of loose kids wandering around or disrupting places like the library while waiting for their parents to pick them up after work.

So the old feelings of lack of trust in the board are back, else why these nagging problems in the measure? I’m more uncertain about voting for this than I’d like to be.

Carl May

In the past, CUSD stated that they’re “in the business of education, not transportation.” I still want to know: how can kids be educated if they can’t get to school? For some students in this district, it’s much more serious than simply inconvenience for their parents. I can’t even guess how some of the students are getting to school now.

I agree that including a guarantee that transportation would be restored likely would have made it a slam dunk. Perhaps people should consider carefully the last paragraph of Ken Johnson’s comment above. And what’s wrong with the suggestion mentioned by John Lynch? Maybe CUSD is worried that the transportation measure would pass but the larger general one wouldn’t? If so, they need to introspectively consider why that’s a risk.

I have mixed feelings regarding the lower assessment for undeveloped parcels. They don’t receive as much benefit, plus assessing them at the full rate increases the pressure to develop. Paying a lot of tax on vacant land is a loser for most property owners. HOWEVER, every legally developable parcel should be assessed, regardless of contiguous common ownership. If the owners don’t like that, they can always merge their parcels.

Unless school transpottation is addressed i am not voting for this parcel tax. I am 66 years old so it wont effect me. I would like to tell all the HMB residents to drive by the HMB library around 4:30 - 5 pm & look at the school kids waiting for thier parents to get home from work for a ride. They have been there since around 3 pm when school let out. The library has turned into a babysiting service the kids are waiting outside in the cold & rain or inside disturbing the peace & tranquilty of the library. Both my girls graduated from HMB schools & my wife & i thank god the schools had transportation @ that time we both worked & i worked airline weird & i mean weird shifts thruout my 37 years. So please bring a parcel tax that will restore school busing. It,s worse now with Sam trans canceling a bus & kids trying to crowd 30+ on a 18 passenger bus very dangerous we dont want our kids hurt. And what do our kids think of us we cant provide them transportation to school but we can go to Mars the Moon Iraq etc etc! My wife & i have been in HMB since June 1969 & wouldnt live anyplace else but sometimes we wonder about this town with all its cry babies. Sam Carrieri