Voters should take note that the campaign for Measure GG also spent $300 for VoterCircle (email) services. CEO and co-founder of VoterCircle is the same Sangeeth Peruri who also donated $1000 toward the campaign. And is the same elected official who voted to put this measure on the ballot. A similar interlocking relationship exists between Mr. Peruri, VoterCircle and Mr. Johnson's campaign for the LASD board, where Mr. Peruri donated toward, and endorsed Mr. Johnson's campaign, and Mr. Johnson purchased VoterCircle services.

This is on top of the existing perpetual tax on parcels. But the tax, which is the same on the largest and the smallest property owners, may fall to the same fate as Menlo Park's school parcel tax renewal. NO! Do not collect 2/3 of votes, do not pass GO.

Los Altos voters, mostly property owners, may similarly reject this, as they did the community center bond (=tax on property). The majority of Los Altos property owners do not have kids in school - and there is already a large permanent special property tax, that supports the very same schools.

The existing $597 per parcel tax is enough. The district hasn't proven its need by any stretch. They have plans to squander $150 Million in measure N funds to buy expensive land that they don't need. They want to relocate the Charter school from the 8 acres it is on at Egan school to 5150 El Camino Real with just 3 acres of land and spend $100 Million or more doing so. This is related to the parcel tax because if they didn't chew up all of the Measure N money there are things they could spend capital on that would reduce operating costs by over $1.5 Million per year, and yet they don't have plans to do this. They should do a reasonable plan to house the charter school by spending just $50 Million on new buildings are either Covington or Egan. They should then spend $15 MIllion of Measure N money on things that would reduce operating expenses over time.

So yeah, people paying attention think this is not such a good idea to continue a 2nd parcel tax when there is such a large one permanently in effect. Property tax revenues also go up a lot this year and have done so for several years. Furthermore there is a ballot measure state-wide to tax high income people. This could yield $1 Million per year to LASD.

Schools have been starved for funds for years; California is toward the bottom in spending per pupil, though our costs are near the top. Voting no on school funding is simply being selfish. Selfish. Selfish, not wanting to give of a tiny bit of affluence to help others' children get a better education, which benefits all of us in the long run. I will definitely vote to increase my taxes for this supremely worthy cause.

Wait "vonlost" your emotional plea may be wrong because approximately 55% of the California Income tax goes to education, if I am not mistaken. So...

So ... we should spend even less per pupil?

Every year, spending already goes up. It will go up even without the 2nd parcel tax. That's the problem. This new tax doesn't even take effect for 1.5 years yet. Meanwhile other revenues just go up and up. To be confusing, this extra revenue will be variable and will decline considerably in times of economic uncertainty. It's exactly what you DON'T want as a revenue source for schools, less when the most supplement is needed.

You are arguing with a few Bullis Charter zealots who believe that only the wealthy should receive a quality education. Even worse, they want the public to pay for it!

It's the typical pattern. Complain that they don't have enough public funds for their publicly funded private school and then fight against any attempt to raise funding!

On the contrary, the revenue should be collected when it's available and the improvements made during times of plenty.

Interesting about the amount of money raised for GG.
Wonder what they spend all that money on, besides paying the consultant...

And also quite eye opening how much Jessica Speiser, Bryan Johnson and Sangeeth Peruri have donated to the campaign. Over $6000 donated by Speiser! Is that the going rate for a LASD Board seat??

This is truly a lopsided campaign. I can't believe parents and this Los altos community will donate so much money to school taxes. They must be using this funding to suppress the voice of those of us against using taxpaper money for public services!

I didn't get any donations from the schools to fund my NoLasdBond website against measure N. This year I can't even get a single school donation to make a misleading site about GG. Where is the storie about that?

LASD is *NOT* a Los Altos Community. It only serves 75% of Los Altos and 20% or so of Mountain View but it also serves 70% of Los Altos Hills and the Monroe Park neighborhood of Palo Alto.

We'll see how the overall voters feel about LASD raising taxes now when it has not even
begun to spend the Measure N bond money. As I recall the chief argument of the opponents to that was that LASD needed a plan and there was no rush for the money.

Now two years later, it sure appears the opponents to Measure N were right about that. Hoarding funding in advance is not a laudable goal for a school district. So this MAY affect the vote on GG, especially since not spending Measure N money and building permanent school space is costing the district $1 Million per year in rented "temporary" buildings plus incremental costs in installing them around $500 K total since the measure N election passed.

These taxes have generally been used for year to year operations. Since parcels keep on existing, they do not disappear when the economy is bad, there is a very steady income to operations from this type of tax. {@vonlost is mistaken}

Measure N. You guys realize that this is just authorization to borrow? Then tax properties, based on assessed values, depending on how much was borrowed. If the Measure N plans are never finished (looks like The LASD schedule) and Measure N bonds are never sold, there will be no money. Seems "Taxing Campaign" is on-the-money on the bond Measure N money.