Everyone should come out and here what Measure A is all about.

Sorry about the typo. I meant that all should come and hear what measure A is all about.

No more new taxes and bonds.... We can't keep charging stuff we can't pay for... Our kids will be the ones paying for it.....

Can't we just control expenses and umm try something new like fire bad teachers and yes I know a lot of parents in MV and there bad teachers here too..... maybe we can get better results if we manage our money and actually pay for perfomance... what a novel concept for a school district.... hey that concept works at home and at private busniesses... and at private schools for that matter....

"Can't we just control expenses and umm try something new like fire bad teachers and yes I know a lot of parents in MV and there bad teachers here too..... maybe we can get better results if we manage our money and actually pay for perfomance... what a novel concept for a school district.... hey that concept works at home and at private busniesses... and at private schools for that matter...."

----------------------

Here's a link to a novel approach being taken for Washington Schools, that may be related to what you are suggesting:

Web Link

I'm open to local measures for school funding, as it directs all funds from the local community to be invested in that particular community's education system.

In contrast, property taxes are actually sent up to Sacramento to be aggregated and then distributed "evenly" throughout the state based on a formula a judge wrote 30 years ago, so you don't see the full benefit of property taxes generated from this area, benefiting this area.

Seldon,
CA school financing is very complex - but you are basically wrong for the MVLA HS district and both its feeder elementary districts (these are "basic aid" - supported by their share of 1% Prop 13 limit on local assessed property tax values). As long as assessed values in these districts go up (or places like Shoreline don't divert school taxes) - these districts get full use of their locally generated taxes! (Palo Alto and Saratoga are other such districts). The judge in Serreno(sp?) vs. Priest knew what he was talking about. The California constitution guarantees equal protection of the law (including taxes and revenue expenditures) and there has NEVER BEEN any "school district sovereignty". Sovereignty rest only with the national and state governments, not local governments. Note that the basis of school district tax supplements from the state was never overturned on appeal to a higher court.
In the late '40s the CA courts also decided (Richardson) that it was unfair to force Mexican- and Chinese- American kids to attend their own underfunded schools. (about 8 yrs before Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka).

Steve, thanks for the clarification. School funding is complex and I'm learning more about what Basic Aid Districts are. Here is an interesting article that gives a brief description:

Web Link

However, I still support Measure A as an appropriate way for additional funds for our local schools. What some consider a "tax", I see as an "investment" in our community that improves quality of life and property values for everyone in the community, whether you have children or not.

I also disagree with reallocating any additional funds from the Shoreline Community Tax District to the high schools. For one, the high schools themselves are happy with the arrangement they have with the district, and the perks provided by it. Secondly, the funds in the Shoreline Community Tax District have been used successfully to develop the Shoreline area and attract world class companies like Google. The prosperity of a city rests on more than one leg. Education, residential capacity and quality, commercial capacity and quality, arts and entertainment, access to transportation, and parks all play into it. To ignore the value of any one of these aspects threatens the synergistic effect of all of them combined.

The City has decided to have and maintain the Shoreline Community Tax District, and from the results we've seen over the past 10 years, that decision has been a good one.

However, I would like to see commercial property owners contribute more to our schools and community by way of fixing Prop 13's loophole that has allowed them a windfall in property tax savings:

Web Link

This approach is better than redirecting funds from one bucket (Shoreline Community Tax District) to another bucket (schools) which is a zero sum game. Fixing Prop 13, expands the entire bucket of funds for communities.

I want full disclosure what Construction companies have made contributions to this measure....

Once again we have rhetoric that we need more money for schools...Parents love it (it is not their money) and public opinion tend to vote for school money.... People really behind it are constuction firms (who need the work and teachers union who wnat schools to keep spending as much of others people money they can)...

All i can say is that we need to tighten the MV school district spending like every other household.... why can't gov't even do that in a recession.....