No way. Unbelievable. $69 x 6 = $828 per parcel. Why should I have to fork over that kind of money to a college that actively recruits international students that take seats from our own citizens. This is an insult.

Big Al: I think you need to take a class at one of the colleges.
$69 x 6 = $414 per parcel.

I wonder what "up to $69" means. What is it for normal homeowners?

This is a bad time for another tax increase. Did any one notice we are in recession and people are struggling. Phone tax, this parcel tax, a school parcel tax, Obama letting the Bush cuts expire--these will all add up to hit people hard at the worst possible time.

Investments in education are long term investments, for individuals and for societies that support them. Providing students the skills and knowledge to be competitive in the global workplace is what will keep America as a leading First World country.

And for those who have voiced disapproval of the community colleges strategy of attracting international students to fund programs, now's your chance to support broader opportunities for local students.

Why? Because they need more money to take their extravagant trips to recruit even more foreign students? Or do they like giving full disability benefits who work elsewhere? Or do they need to pay extravagant pensions to employees who have retired and have been rehired as consultants?

Vote NO! This is ridiculous. The state already subsidizes 2 year colleges to a tremendous degree. Each credit is less than $100. Meanwhile if we have kids in elementary school we need to donate hundreds or thousands a year to keep their schools functioning, and pay a parcel tax. Why on earth wouldn't these 2 year colleges just increase their fees? They are the lowest in the country, I have read this from a reliable source. This students are getting a huge bargain already and I am not digging deeper while I have kids of my own who need an education in an already-underfunded public school system.

Einstein:

If you've been following stories on Foothill De Anza, you would know that it is very difficult for residents like me to get a seat in the college's math classes due to the guaranteed seats for the international students the college caters to!

So,

1. We don't want to pay into community colleges because we believe that its the State's job to do that. However...

2. ...The State is currently experiencing a huge budget shortfall, and has been cutting funding to Education, including community colleges. To makeup for this shortage, colleges increase their tuition, which has steadily risen over the last 20 years. But...

3. ...Access for students becomes limited since most who attend community colleges can't afford the 4 year schools in the first place and are most vulnerable to tuition increases. Bear in mind that the influx of current new students are those affected by the economic downturn, and increased tuition will not be able to immediately address the current need. To makeup for this shortage, community colleges try to attract international students who pay close to 10 times the tuition fees as local students. But...

3. ...We don't want foreign students here because they take up valuable classroom seats, housing, and resources that should go to local students. To address this, community colleges try to pass a parcel tax. But...

4. ...We don't want to pay a parcel tax, because we believe the State should be responsible for supporting the colleges. Which leads us back to item #1...

And so it goes.

Double the cost of tuition and it would still be a mere pittance compared to other states. And nowhere does it state that the college is imposing a parcel tax so as to avoid having to raise money through international student enrollment. Internationals should have to pay cost of their full unfunded education as well as all cost of living expenses and should be prohibited from working. If any one you have ever studied abroad, you'd know that was how it worked.

I don't disagree with increasing tuition for all students. Rising prices is something everyone is dealing with. But there is a limit to what can be raised with this method, before it begins to crimp the mission of community colleges in the first place.

We want the schools to kick out foreign students to free up seats for local kids (even though a very small percentage of the student body is actually international students). So -- if they do that, will you then be willing to pay what would undoubtedly be a much LARGER parcel tax to make up for the lost revenue? No, none of you would. It amazes me that we all want to maintain the quality of life we enjoy (which does not only mean the money in your bank account, it means nice parks, good schools, a well-stocked and available public library, streelights, firefighters, police, well-maintained streets) but we never want to pay for them. Especially the wealthy. Since the Reagan years, the rich have been getting richer, but the percentage of rich people has not changed that much; the middle class has been getting poorer and shrinking. Yet the 97 or 98% of the people in this country who are not and never will be in that top 2% that controls the majority of money always think that taxes on the wealthy will be bad for them. "Death" taxes - bad! Even though a tiny fraction of people will end up with estates large enough to even have to pay any estate tax. Even Bill Gates thinks eliminating the estate tax is dumb. Not taxing the wealthy has not been so great for the lower 98% so far, but let's keep that system going and see how it works out for us as a socity.

And US citizens have been paying more and more taxes for less services while legal international students and illegal residents sponge off our system. Let's be fair and stop cutting breaks for those too groups. Otherwise, you can forget about this tax ever passing. It's doomed, as are all other tax proposals this November. Just wait and see. It's going to be ugly.

Hardin-

Have you read up on what this school district has been paying some of its managerial staff, who incidentaly, don't seem to have to bother to show up for work? There is more to budgeting than constantly trying to increase revenues. We are at a point at practically every level of government where the unsustainable nature of this philosophy is being laid bare. Any enterprise, no matter how important, has a point at which the costs will inevitably exceed the benefits if no concern is given to spending. The flip side of the revenue generation coin is cost control, which is equally important, albeit not how politicians get elected. There has been a failure in the system of checks and balances that are necessary for the democratic system to work. The failure point is the electorate. Only by recognizing the horrible ramifications of the 'gimme, gimme' attitude that has pervaded our society, can this ship be righted. Pouring more gravy over the dirt sandwich is not going to work.

Nice selection of epigrams there, but what are you advocating specifically?

Looking at existing cost per unit for California Community Colleges does suggest that there is room to increase this and would result in additional revenue.

Its also apparent that community colleges are currently being taxed to the limit, with the influx of unemployed individuals going back to school to learn marketable job skills, on top of regular students who find it increasingly hard to afford 4 year colleges.

Your response doesn't seem to acknowledge the challenges facing schools and students, nor the value they provide to society. Rather it is a broad brush of "spending is bad", akin to the John Jarvis rebuttals to virtually EVERY bond measure that comes up, regardless of what its for.

Responsible government, doesn't follow a mantra because it sounds good. It acknowledges the nuances of any given issue, and resists implementing a broad brush truism which inevitably adds to the problem.

Enrollment is down. At the State and UC schools, they are accepting fewer applications and more internationals. Just read the news.

Let's be clear, ENROLLMENT (# of people applying) is on the rise, ADMISSIONS (# of people accepted) is decreasing, the main driver being lack of funding to support additional student population.

Web Link

Web Link

De Anza College has a student population of 25,000, of which 1,500 are internation F-1 visa international students, or 6% of the total population. However, with their tuition being close to 10 times that of resident students, they bring in close to 60% of revenue generated by tuition fees.

Web Link

Chabot's numbers are even more disparate.

Web Link

Hard to conclude that international students are THE problem, as the amount of seats they take up, is far outweighed by the amount of funds they bring in.

Charge the internationals even more than, and then raise tuition and leave taxpayers alone. Simple.

Observer -- Do you even realize that enrollment in a CA community college is not limited to local residents? In fact, a great number of students at Foothill and Deanza do not live anywhere near them, let alone within the area where they want to tax. How can you in the least bit justify taxing us so non-local students can attend?

Hardin -- Your reasoning is askew. Number of people accepted is down? EVERY qualified applicant is accepted...

College is a waste of time and money. Let it bleed.

Tom:
"In fact, a great number of students at Foothill and Deanza do not live anywhere near them, let alone within the area where they want to tax."

Where did you pull that from? CC students have one basic criteria for selecting the CC: Convenience, which boils down to being close to either their home or, if they work, near their job. Nobody travels to a particular CC.

"Charge the internationals even more than, and then raise tuition and leave taxpayers alone. Simple."

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

...And should we let them eat cake as well?

Honestly, your suggestion is not a half bad one. If it weren't for the provincial smugness, it might actually be a admirable. As such, it reeks of Jarvis Taxpayer dogma.

"Hardin -- Your reasoning is askew. Number of people accepted is down? EVERY qualified applicant is accepted..."

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

Not my reasoning, but perhaps you missed the reading? See link I posted previously.

Web Link

Reality Check -- I got that from first hand knowledge. Spend some time on those campuses and ask the students you come across. You can also watch the numbers of vehicles that exit Foothill and enter Highway 280 to leave the area. Or you could simply request the stats from the schools under the Freedom of Information Act.

Hardin -- I was quoting YOUR words, YOUR thought.

Hardin-

Don't be so smug. There are other people in the world that managed to obtain an education. I thought it was farily clear that I was advocating top down cost control. I asked if you had followed the news regarding what I personally consider to be the obscene behavior of the highest management of this school. Rather than answer the question, you very simply state yet another method whereby revenue can be increased. As I stated previously, cost management is a very real and well established business theory in which millions of people are engaged on a daily basis. You have not answered the question or even made an attempt to do so. Mine is a legitimate question, and your choice to ignore it does not change that.

As far as the challenges facing students and schools, I don't see them as being greater than the challenges posed to those in the general workforce, but rather substantially less. Ask any small business person what their life has been like for the last 3 years. My personal experience as a student was considerably simpler than my professional life, and based on experience, I can only assume that this would be true of most people that managed to make it off a college campus.

You state: "Responsible government, doesn't follow a mantra because it sounds good. It acknowledges the nuances of any given issue, and resists implementing a broad brush truism which inevitably adds to the problem." While I think this is basically a nonstatement, my response to you is such: the nuances of this situation can be defined as irresponsible budget practices coupled with utterly poor human resource management inevitably resulting in an untenable financial situation. The implementation of a broad brush truism, for example the notion that revenues can be infintiely escalated, will inevitably add to the problem.

That much you are correct about.

Too much tax is bad, and we all know that. For those of you who would like to vote "Yes", you are supporting a irresponsible spending habit of the Government.

As you might have notice that the budget deficit of the U.S. Governement is 1.4 Trillion this year, and the ballooning national debt will cause the dollar value to sink (in other words, the government is devalue your saving without telling your that).

When you vote, please keep your children and your children's children in mind because they are the ones to clean up the mess. Please also keep in mind taxing the rich more will drive the capital to oversea, and it won't help improving the high unemployment situation.

AND a voter with a following of at least 300 area voters...

How in heck can our schools (at any level) ask for more money ?? When our high schools become excellant, when Foothill/DeAnza serve ONLY the area boundery students, when FDJC reaches the level of all classes being transferals to four year schools, THEN I'm will support their cry for more funds... I think that they have all the funds now to which they are entitled. (Note the correct grammer, something that damn few young 'ens know.)

george

They want to impose a parcel tax only on local residents while anyone can attend the school, yet brag about having reserve funds that other districts don't have.

Anyone else see the problem here?