Difference between revisions of "San Bruno Park School District parcel tax, Measure G (November 2012)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - ""," to ","")
m (Text replace - ""." to "."")
 
Line 28: Line 28:
 
==Opposition==
 
==Opposition==
  
Bill Baker, who edits and publishes the ''San Bruno Beacon'', opposed Measure G, and wrote an editorial "10 Reasons to VOTE NO on the San Bruno Park School District Measure G Tax Scam".<ref name=scam>[http://sanbrunobeacon.org/index.php/component/content/article/10-archive/2012-beacon-articles/329-10-reasons-to-vot-no-on-the-san-bruno-park-school-district-measure-g-tax-scam ''San Bruno Beacon'', "10 Reasons to VOTE NO on the San Bruno Park School District Measure G Tax Scam," September 20, 2012]</ref>
+
Bill Baker, who edits and publishes the ''San Bruno Beacon'', opposed Measure G, and wrote an editorial "10 Reasons to VOTE NO on the San Bruno Park School District Measure G Tax Scam."<ref name=scam>[http://sanbrunobeacon.org/index.php/component/content/article/10-archive/2012-beacon-articles/329-10-reasons-to-vot-no-on-the-san-bruno-park-school-district-measure-g-tax-scam ''San Bruno Beacon'', "10 Reasons to VOTE NO on the San Bruno Park School District Measure G Tax Scam," September 20, 2012]</ref>
  
 
Here are the first six reasons of the ten Baker gave in his editorial:
 
Here are the first six reasons of the ten Baker gave in his editorial:

Latest revision as of 07:49, 25 March 2014

A San Bruno Park School District parcel tax, Measure G ballot question was on the November 6, 2012 ballot for voters in the San Bruno Park School District in San Mateo County, where it was defeated.[1]

If Measure G had been approved the tax would have been $199 a year for 5 years and would have gone into effect on July 1, 2013. It was estimated to raise about $2 million for the district over its proposed 5-year lifespan.

Voters in the school district rejected Measure O on the November 8, 2011 ballot; Measure O would have allowed the district to borrow $40 million.

A 2/3rds supermajority vote was needed for approval.

Election results

Measure G
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No5,28240.81%
Yes 7,661 59.19%
Final official results from the San Mateo County elections office.

Support

Scott Curtner, a Crestmoor Elementary parent and president of the San Bruno Park School District PTO, supported Measure G. He said, "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."[2]

Opposition

Bill Baker, who edits and publishes the San Bruno Beacon, opposed Measure G, and wrote an editorial "10 Reasons to VOTE NO on the San Bruno Park School District Measure G Tax Scam."[3]

Here are the first six reasons of the ten Baker gave in his editorial:

  1. "A NO VOTE on Measure G will force the San Bruno Park School District Board to finally balance the SBPSD Budget."
  2. "A NO VOTE on Measure G will help stop and not provide more money to feed the rampant corruption, mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility in the SBPSD."
  3. "The SBPSD Measure G tax scam is so bad and poorly thought out that the SBPSD Board’s strongest supporter of parcel taxes voted against putting Measure G on the ballot. That’s a huge red flag indicating that you should also VOTE NO on Measure G. In a July 26, 2012 interview with a local newspaper, San Bruno Park School District Board Member Jennifer Blanco explained her vote against putting the Measure G tax on the Election ballot by saying that although she generally favors the idea of a parcel tax, she felt the proposed language was too vague and the timing was poor."
  4. "The City of San Bruno and the San Bruno Park School District share a common property tax base. Therefore, it will become more expensive and difficult for the City of San Bruno to borrow money. Police, fire and other essential San Bruno City services will be put at risk This will result in even higher rates and fees and additional economic burdens on San Bruno residents."
  5. "Your costs of living are skyrocketing and the economy is dangerously uncertain. One example of this escalation in the cost of living is that earlier this year, homeowners living in the San Bruno Park School District had their water and sewer rates increased by 56% (over the next 5 years) by the San Bruno City Council. The City of San Bruno and the San Bruno Park School District are bleeding taxpayers in San Bruno dry with significantly higher taxes and rate-fee increases."
  6. "The San Bruno Park School District has been and is plagued by financial mismanagement. Page 15 of the SBPSD Audit Report states: "As previously reported, the District has also experienced an investment loss associated with the Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy. The estimated loss related to the District’s funds that the San Mateo County Office of the Treasury invested in Lehman Brothers’ is $734,674." $734,674 is a huge loss. In addition, the SBPSD still has their money invested at the same place where they lost all of this money. Is it prudent for taxpayers to pump more money into an entity that continues to deposit taxpayer money at the same entity where this huge investment loss occurred?"

Text of measure

The question on the ballot:

Measure G: "To reduce the impact of State funding cuts to our public schools; provide local funding the State cannot take away; sustain our high quality neighborhood schools; reduce combination classes; attract and retain highly qualified teachers; reduce costs of special education; and fund curriculum modernization; shall the San Bruno Park School District levy an educational parcel tax of $199 per parcel annually for five years with citizens' oversight, annual audits, no money for administrator salaries, and an exemption for seniors?"[4]

See also

External links

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

References