Sure, let see that would be 150 dollars more tacked on to a 500,000 house where the property tax is already 5000 dollars. For someone on a fixed income, that can mean a lot.

How about the parents pay for their kids educations a little? !00 dollars a head that would be enough.

David Roode and Rob Fagen are opponents of Measure N? Rob Fagen, David Roode, and Jill Jene run EACH, a PAC that continually sends out misleading and false statements about LASD schools. EACH is responsible for all those No on N signs placed on side of the roads? Jill Jene is on the Facility Master Plan Committee. If EACH is supporting the opposition to Measure N, then why is Jill Jene even on the one committee whose purpose is to enact Measure N?

@Hmm: Right, because the community has NO interest in an actual functioning school system.

Get back to us when you actually think things out.

How about Google scratch a 150 million dollar check for this. Or better yet the 350 million which is probably closer to what a whole new school and property would cost. I would guess in reality 400-500 million. It is mostly Google's employees children who will be going there.
If they have 110 acres now whats all this about eminent domain?
They could build the school on the site of Google's first class "private" sports complex or the beautiful green (what drought?) semi-private park next door to them.
Vote "NO"

It seems like the insiders know what is really planned for this $150 million. They are telling everyone else to "trust us" and "vote yes".

I'm really reluctant to do either. The last bond didn't have stellar results for everyone. Remember 'Got Milked?'.

I also find it appalling how much has been donated to 'Yes on N' by architects, contractors, and parents who live outside the district. They won't pay the tax, but they'll reap the benefits.

They want a new school because of the population growth North of El Camino. When you get a building for a new residence a portion is set aside for the fire department to expand a little, the school district to expand a little, the police department to expand a little. When this money adds up the government is supposed to going into these savings accounts and get the money and build up the infrastructure appropriately. WHERE'S THE MONEY??? Don' tell me the builders and developers putting the monstrosities of the El Camino didn't pay.

This school district has a bad record for closing schools instead of renting out the campuses or mothballing them.
Why did they sell Carmel?
Why did they close Hillview?
Why did they close Eastbrook?
Why did they close Portola?

I agree with David Roode's anonymous postings above. We need to fight against anything that would allow the school district to meet our requirements for a unified campus without closing one of the public schools. Without a major disruption, then how can we get our revenge? They closed our precious school and we will not rest until one of theirs gets closed and their students pushed out.

So, vote No on N!

It is interesting that the crazy anti charter school group would rather sling mud than and attempt to polarize the community with their lies and cheap shots.

Let's look at the facts.

The LASD school continues to serve the teachers union administration at the expense of the teachers and students.

The current LASD school board was hand picked by the Teachers Union.

The animosity against BCS is driven primarily by the teachers union who see a highly successful school as the enemy. The fact that the children benefit from the teaching methods employed at BCS is immaterial to the union.

It's unfortunate that we allow an anti-choice group derail honest conversations about a serious issue. And raising 150 million dollars with no plan is a serious issue. The fact that the school board has promising 300 million dollars in spending if the bond is approved is a serious issue.

It seems a reasonable request for the school board to be more transparent with how they plan to spend the money before I vote to approve a bond.

What a huge waste of money! I am voting NO!

I'm surprised that the No on N people haven't organized themselves better to inform the community of the downside of passing the bond measure. The parents of school aged kids are more in the know regarding the vague/ deceitful plans for the bond money but the older folks think that voting for the bond just means they support the schools. The Yes on N crowd is spending lots of money mailing their propaganda as well as aggressively phoning voters. It needs to be counteracted so that the community is better informed of the real story.

The idiot up there speculating about the identity of previous posters is not relevant. The fact is that this measure is being sold as dealing with growth, and at creating two new different schools. When you look at their planning though, they are doing things like spiffing up the "finishes" on existing school sites and increasing the side of their multipurpose rooms to 6000 square feet. This is not really dealing with growth. This is California and most of the time they hold assemblies for the whole school they WANT to be outside anyway. They are also increasing the size of school libraries to 4000 square feet. Again, this is 2014, the libraries are visited by one class at a time. They don't need to be monstrous. The argument that the funds are needed for growth are lies.

Measure N is unwise.

The state education funding has been healthy. LASD parcel tax is already among the highest in Silicon Valley. Future parcel tax increases should be reserved for rainy days. Don't abuse the goodwill of our residents.

In terms of money for new school sites, that money is supposed to have been collected from new housing development projects. Developers pay LASD certain amount of tax for each new square foot of new housing. The tax is supposed to be used to expand school capacity to accommodate projected new students.

Where did that money go? All disappeared? Mismanaged, again? Paid into pension funds???

And now the school districts comes back to ask more from the residents?

The campaign for this bond measure has raised at least $83,000 so far. The largest contributor was Blach Construction at $10,000. Blach was recently awarded a $2 Million no bid construction contract at the district, using money that didn't come from a bond measure. But still, isn't this a pretty big conflict of interest, to have this future project be backed by a potential contractor? There are other such contributions, some coming from the LASD lawyers. The district architect contributed $7K and there was a $2K contribution from an engineering design company that works with architects and a $1K from another such company--adds up to $10K from the architect and related. Hmmm. Lots of vested interests funding this campaign.

The No on N robocalls were sponsored by the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association (www.svtaxpayers.org). If you take a look at their website they have recommended "no" votes on every single school parcel tax and bond measure in the bay area for this election. This is obviously not a group who is looking carefully at the issues involved but are just reactionary no on any school taxes folks. What a great group to be associated with (Steve Coladonato!)