Excuse me, did I just hear you say that Coladonato was too busy attending the inauguration of Donald Trump to comment on whether he supports a parcel tax in Mountain View?

Trump is welcome to him.

Like it or not, Trump is President.

And the swearing of a President is always a historic event regardless of the politics.

To knock someone for attending a PUBLIC ceremony is just silly.

Stop being silly.

@Wait a Minute

So I guess you are all for paying $600 a month in school taxes then since you are so taken by the liberal cause.

@wait a minute: My daughter just attended the inauguration and she is about as anti-Trump as there is. But it was an opportunity few actually take in their lifetimes, so she went to observe some history. Afterwards she went to the the women's march. Good for her.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Unfortunately, because I am not in the district, I will not be able to vote on this tax. I hope the district is successful in raising whatever tax they ask for.

I am deeply disappointed that a flat dollar amount per parcel is required. Like all flat taxes, it is a heavier burden (% of overall property tax) on owners of low value properties, thanks to Prop 13, than on owners of the most expensive parcels, where the % of overall property tax is so small it is easy to ignore.

A parcel tax based on square footage (e.g., 5 cents per square foot) is much more fair, in my opinion, but the last time that was tried it was defeated at the polls. I lay that defeat at the door of the Mountain View Voice which took every opportunity to point out that two parcels would have to pay $50,000 (a million square feet), while many homeowners would pay less than $75 (1500 square feet).

As I remember, business interests fought the proposed parcel tax based on square footage because they had no children (young businesses, I guess) in the public schools and always prefer that others pay for everything. Such a tax may well be legally authorized as "uniform." That is what an attorney advised the two board members opposed to placing a flat parcel tax on the ballot last year.

@wait a minute
Trump got elected because the Democrats offered us such a terrible candidate as our only other alternative. I can't stand either candidate, but we all must accept the outcome and hope that more rational candidates become available at the next election.

@Doug Pearson
As for the "Parcel Tax", the issue is in the language of the law that establishes the availability of a "parcel tax". In simple terms, it's a tax on parcels, not on square footage, not on market value, not on income, but on a "parcel". The original law sort of sets up this interpretation that the "flat tax" per parcel is clearly legal, but other ideas are risky and open to legal challenge.

If people want to have a "square foot" tax, then we need to work on state laws to allow this option, same for "market value" taxation.

By the way, if you want a square foot tax, there are 2 obvious types to choose between. Either total land square feet, or square footage of constructed space that may be occupied.

If you go by total land sqft, then loads of companies will strongly object because they have so much green space (a good thing).

So, for now it's wise for an individual school district to keep to the per-parcel flat-tax until the state laws can be changed to allow other options.

Unless the law changed since last year, a parcel tax must be "uniform" - not necessarily "flat." But this school district has other problems that may well undermine any money grab it places on the ballot.