Thank you for stating what has been on the mind of many LASD taxpayers. While we all want to support our schools, the past track record of current LASD trustees does not give me comfort that this money will be wisely spent. I'd rather have this conversation in 2016 when there is the potential of more neutral and BCS-inclusive trustees on board.

I agree with David Roode. We want to do everything to help the school district and hold no animosity toward the trustees. (Well, except for that whole vengeful lawsuit thing where we kept attacking the district until they would close a school and give it to us. I was never on board with that, but it's water under the bridge.)

Please trust David Roode and other Bullis Charter School advocates! Let us advise the district on how to run it and where the funding should come from. Doesn't that make a lot of sense?

My home is assessed currently at $2 million so this bond will cost us approximately $20,000 (over 30 years, not factoring in time value of money). That's a lot $$!! Without further clarification on how this bond money will be spent, our family cannot afford to just fork over these funds on blind faith.

$20,000 is a lot of money! (Albeit not for me.) The problem with dollars is that it is subjective, so let's figure out a currency that we all live by.

The question is, in the first year, how many Starbucks coffees will this assessment rob me of per week? It's 6 bucks for the cup I drink (YMMV), so on a $2,000,000 (assessed) house that would be $600/year. That's 100 coffees over the year, so with 52 weeks in a year, this assessment will cost me 1.92 Starbucks coffee/week. Let's call it 2.

I'm sorry, but 2 coffees/week is A BIG PRICE TO PAY FOR OUR CHILDREN.

If you love Starbucks, you will vote No.
It's That Simple.

It sure is a shame to have low-IQ off-topic sarcastic fake comments like those by the above BCS parent. He's clearly got nothing to do with BCS. Consider: if this bond passes, it surely will benefit BCS because the law says the charter school gets facilities equal to what the typical district student enjoys. So, if allegedly, it's a BCS position to argue for fiscal responsibility, how is that a BCS-centric thing? Consider: BCS has settled for 5 years. Any self-interest is directed at resolving things such that at the end of that time we are not back in court. All the district residents suffer from the waste on needless litigation.

We have in LASD a district which has shown a propensity to make backroom decisions even if they do put up a front of taking the proper factors into account. The biggest such decision to affect this bond was the back room decision to dispense with the much trumpeted decision that LASD needs TWO new school, whether or not the adopt a 6-8 middle school model. There was never any presentation to the board in supporting the back room superintendent decision to dispense with the 2nd of the two school. No presentation of analysis was done for the board showing the likely school population distributions. The fact is that the current direction is neaded for THREE problems. (1) Schools which steadily increase in size over the next 5 years. (2) No clear progress in providing a local walkable neighborhood school for the San Antonio Center area. (3) No clear progress in providing a full-size school site or sites for a 700+ student charter school which has existed for 11 years entirely in portables and most recently has been split across two sites separated by over 3 miles, in direct conflict with court decisions directing the district to minimize separate between sites for any given charter school should that type of split be needed.

The only people that think these back room decisions are good are those who are exerting undue influence on the elected and appointed district board members and officials... This is not an open transparent responsible process for achieving educational goals.

Does anyone know where I can get a "No on N" sign for my lawn? There are a few around town. I'd like to show my support.