What else is on "next year's May election"?

As a voter I'd be in favor of increased parcel taxes if there was a clear and solid plan on how to use the money to improve Mt View schools. A few hundred dollars is not that much compared to a typical property tax bill in Mt View. Although I agree that a per-sq foot tax seems more fair, I'm more interested to see how increased funds would improve the district. Will the money be used to reduce class sizes? Pay teachers more? Something else?

So, owners of 470 unit luxury apartment building will pay $191 (several cents per apartment)? Good for them.

Wonder if the district is going to continue to try to give this special business exemption, or grandfather it

Web Link

"Per the ballot language of the Parcel Tax Election of June 3, 2008 (Measure C), the Mountain View Whisman School District provides a parcel tax classification for multiple contiguous parcels owned and operated as a single business"

That could really be a business cost saver at $191. Is that legal now?

I can barely afford my house as it is. Just because I am making mortgage payments doesn't mean I can pay for everyone's schooling. Find a way to tax the renters, too. If the school district needs money, they shouldn't have paid Goldman off.

Are you kidding me? We've been paying extra on our ppt tax for years and we still don't have a school.

Where is all the income from renting out our school campuses to private schools going?

Seriously, Laura Blakely??! You've been on the Board for 5 days and you say something this stupid?

"Nobody likes regressive taxes, but these are taxes on parcels of real estate," Blakely said. "And frankly, anyone who owns real estate in Santa Clara County right now can probably afford to pay a couple hundred dollars."

Yes, I suppose for an partner for a law firm, such as yourself, it's no problem. I'm sure it wouldn't be any skin off your back to pay my $191 for me. By the way, what's the square footage of your lot?

Mountain View Whisman is considering a $191 parcel tax rate and is wondering if it can go $10 to $30 higher?

You get what you pay for citizens of Mountain View! If you wonder why your schools are not performing as well as your neighbors, just remember that Palo Alto Unified residents voted in favor of a $758 parcel tax last year, and Los Altos School District residents approved increasing the district's parcel taxes to $820.

How about a $500 tax for Mountain View Whisman for the May ballot? We can go up from there if it passes.

And for all the Mountain View property owners who are whining, improved schools will raise your property values, not lower it, so think of it as an investment.

BTW, wasn't Jose Guiterrez elected as Board President? Why is this fact so glaringly absent?

In theory I would love to support this, however I don't have much money left over after paying my kids private school tuition bill! Maybe if we had schools like Palo Alto and Los Altos I wouldn't mind paying $700 to the school district because it's way cheaper than private school. Private school is a choice you say, except that in our neighborhood, where half the kids go to Stevenson, and another 25% go to the DI program, if you don't get into either of these programs you don't have much of a choice. Maybe the people who lose school lotteries year after year should be EXEMPT from paying any new taxes. Maybe the school district should just issue us an apology for their ridiculous system and leave us alone. They've done enough damage to our family as it is.

Pinched:

My kids went through Theuerkauf and Crittenden more than 20 years ago, and many friends asked why they were not in Public School. We picked Theuerkauf because 27 languages were spoken in the homes of students. We were (and still are) convinced the world looks more like that than our local private schools do. Both kids now have UC degrees, and never really seemed to be behind when they hit Los Altos HS. Conditions at Theuerkauf have improved over time. But, if you insist, keep paying tuition, and claiming poverty over $191, just so that other local students don't have the same advantages your kids do.=))

I'm sorry ... I already pay enough taxes. When these school district fees apply equally to ALL residents I'll happily pay my share. Until then, don't count on my vote.

At Laura Blakely: "...Board member Laura Blakely said she isn't too concerned about homeowners in Mountain View being able to pay $191 to help fund local schools.

"Nobody likes regressive taxes, but these are taxes on parcels of real estate," Blakely said. "And frankly, anyone who owns real estate in Santa Clara County right now can probably afford to pay a couple hundred dollars." ..."

REALLY! What a b####. Some of us are stretched to the max by paying our mortage and existing property tax bills. Another 'couple hundred dollars' can actually be out of reach. Get a grip, lady. Not all of us are lawyers raking in the big bucks.

Oh Laura. For real.

@Old Steve - I'm glad your kids enjoyed their school. The scores have gone down at Theuerkauf while we've lived here. I'm not sure why you say it's gotten better. But why can't all the kids just go to the same school together? UC is great, but it's also a lot harder to get into a UC school now than it was 20 years ago. I don't think you can compare. I don't even care if my kids go to a UC school. I want them to learn with their friends. Tell me, 20 years ago, did you have to explain to your children why they can't go to the same school as all the other kids in the neighborhood? Why their friends go to the school across campus from them, but they can't go too? If you've never had to do that then you don't understand.

27 languages doesn't matter to me. My daughters already speak Spanish because we speak it at home. They attend a Catholic school which doesn't cost as much as other schools and we get a discount because we are Catholic, but it's still a lot of money for us, and I would prefer to send them to the school everyone else in the neighborhood goes to. $191 is a lot of money for us.

You say I'm keeping other local students from having advantages that my kids have. I think you should direct that comment to Stevenson parents instead. I am merely trying to give my kids what Stevenson kids get for free. And on top of that now I am being asked to pay even more for other people's kids to learn where mine cannot. It makes me very upset to think about it.

I will happily vote for this.

Hearing my city neighbors cry poverty about paying *fifteen bucks a month* to support our schools in one of the wealthiest places in the country is just sad. Really? You own a home in MV and can't afford $15?

Luckily, I don't think the majority of residents are this hard-hearted. Most of us care about how the kids in our city are doing--and even those who don't are smart enough to vote in their self-interest.

The lady who says she can't afford to support public schools because of her private school tuition-- I thought that was a joke. Maybe she should take a look at her heart and ask some hard questions.

@ This is sad

Maybe you should stop making assumption about people you don't know, take a look at your heart and ask yourself some hard questions. You have no idea what someone's personal circumstances are. Yes, where we are at right now, $15 dollars a month matters. If you don't know what that's like, then lucky you.

Wow. Not sure the whole "love thy neighbor" part of being Catholic is coming through. You don't get your kids into the school of your choice so you shun the kids of the entire district? And won't vote to help your own property values increase?

We're talking about kids here, some of them actually low-income. I wanted to get my kids into Stevenson too, and they didn't get a spot. But there's no point in being bitter and taking that out on children. There are lots of other good schools here too and lots of kids who deserve our support.

@Pinched - You missed the point. It's not getting my kids into the school of their choice. It's that they are the only ones of their neighborhood friends who can't go there. Why can't all the kids in the neighborhood go to school together? Why do we need a lottery to separate us?

Why would I care if my property value increases? I thought we were talking about kids here, so why should anyone care about property values?

I'm not taking anything out on "the children". Geez. You make it sound like I'm being mean to children. Stop exaggerating. I'm saying I don't have additional money to pay, on top of what I already pay, to support other people's kids. Why is that such a bad thing to say? It's the truth. So now I'm an evil person because I'm saying I will struggle to find an extra $15 a month?

(1) The comparison to neighboring districts seems a bit misleading, since Palo Alto Unified has high schools as well, whereas Mt View Whisman is just elementary + middle school. There is a site which compares per-student spending: Web Link and while MVWSD is on the low end, but not abnormal ($8.8k/student, compared to say $9.8k/student for Los Altos Elementary). I'm not sure if these numbers take into account fund raising drives, which I'm sure do well in Palo Alto/Los Altos.

(2) In terms of a $191 per parcel tax, I don't mean to question anyone's finances but...I am a little confused. First of all, it's an increase from an existing $127 tax, so it's just $64/yr more than the current tax. Prop 13 does distort things, but when did people buy their homes that this is a huge burden? Looking at Zillow (Web Link the median price for a "bottom tier" home was never below $400k for the last decade. So, a typical property tax bill is going to be at least $3k, typically twice that, and the mortgage substantially more. Given that, is a $64/yr increase really that much?

For additional comparison, a random local private school tuition is $8k/yr [1], up from around $5k/yr [2] a decade ago.

(3) I suspect a real issue here is that MVWSD has historically underperformed neighboring districts like Palo Alto/Los Altos. Since those cities are even more obscenely expensive than Mt View, many parents who want excellent schools for their kids will live in Mt View and send their kids to private school. This makes it harder to pass any property for schools, since even parents will (fairly) question why they should pay more for public schools that their kids aren't using, and object to even $1 increase in taxes. Not sure what the solution here is, as it's a bit of a chicken/egg problem, but hopefully people take a long term view and invest in the community. The school board can help this by being a responsible and competent overseer of the district.



[1] Web Link
[2] Web Link

@ Pinched in the middle:

The $191 is still a work in progress. Check your current PT bill, you are paying something already, based on the size of your lot. The average is $127 per year. The difference works out to about skipping coffee one day a week. If your circumstances are really that close, my sympathies, been there. Stevenson is a choice school. Based on the size of the facility and the instructional model, we have more applicants than seats. What do you suggest?
Stevenson cannot really get any bigger on the current site, and most of the participating parents don't want to move again.

I can pay $127 or $191 for the school, although my children do not go to MVWSD. I wonder about this: more and more apartment buildings pop up everywhere in MV. Lot next to our community was initially designated for 111 townhouses, that would bring 111x$127 to our school. Now 470-unit apartment will be built instead, that will bring our school a whooping $191 instead of $14K. Something is not right with this picture.

The last poster is right that a tax that is the same for each parcel is not fair. That is why two board members opposed this parcel tax proposal earlier this year. One is left. But there is another reason to balk at this proposal. This district evidently has done nothing to protect children and others from (1) speeding motorists and (2) potential intruders - including terrorists. No kidding.

@Gary, due to the California Constitution, funding via non-parcel taxes would be illegal and certainly thrown out by the courts. The two board members proposing that either got bad advice from their lawyer based out of Washington state, or they knew that it wouldn't stand but wanted to avoid it anyway. Either way, thanks to the visionaries in the 70s, we can't fund our schools in a sane way.