If you review your tax bill, we are currently paying for FHDA's 2 prior bond measures (E: $248M and C: $491M). This bond measure will go until 2050! Each bond measure is twice the first. Under Measure C, FDA built 3 new instructional buildings and 1 administration for the district's oversight. Measure G bond offers a list of possible projects, but there is no actual defined need. Many upgrades listed were updated under Measure C. The Sunnyvale Facility funded under Measure C is grossly underutilized and an embarrassment for FHDA. Is there any new innovation projects listed to address workforce or advantages for transfer: NO. Foothill and De Anza have the largest decline in all the bay area colleges in enrollment except for Laney. Current enrollment is just 71% percent of 2010’s. For the 3 years ending June 2019, enrollment dropped 14% while operating expenses increased slightly after taking out inflation. The bond is a blank check to spend our money.

So who is FHDA serving? They have removed their data from the public websites but using De Anza as an example: 23% are from the FHDA distinct. Of the 77% students from outside our district and 7% are international students using our community college to reduce the price before transferring to a 4 year college. Why should we subsidize students from other community college districts?

The growth areas in enrollments at the two colleges in for online education. In the list projects is there any significant investments? The projects discuss physical facility maintenance. Why have brick and mortar suffered by Amazon and others?

Under the very generous Faculty Union contract an full time faculty needs to have 15 hours per week contact time to meet their salary obligation. The contact hours include those hours if they teach online.They also do not have to work over summer. Compare their salaries to our K-12 teachers in both hours and pay. The new faculty should be better paid which increase the number of applicants but a number of senior faculty make 6 figure salaries (over $200,000), great health and retirement benefits. Find another community college with a parcel tax. You'll find ~2 in the whole state - San Francisco and Oakland (Peralta). That's it - the rest do just fine on state funding. In fact, FHDA tried a parcel tax that FAILED a few years ago, but seems to continue to do just fine.

In summary: the FHDA community colleges are a valuable asset. My belief is the Bond at 50% the value with real projects could be approved. The parcel tax is ill defined. A friend noted that the two colleges have been registered as Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) and could be funded in the same manner as all of the neighbor districts are funded. Is the plan to double dip?

Pay off the bonds that are already levied against homeowners.
These are facilities we, as a family, have never used. Yet we pay for them.
I worked my way through college, sometimes three part-time jobs, without emerging with debt. It was hard and makes me appreciate the value of a dollar!

This is a blank check alright! "Potential" projects with no defined use of the money (reminiscent of Los Altos Measure M bond which I'll bet a lot of people are now wishing they'd voted against). As for student "homelessness" I don't get it. All students are "homeless" unless they're living at home with their families. They get roommates and share housing. But more importantly, if you're on a limited housing budget why would a student choose to go to a community college in the most un-affordable location in the state? There are community colleges all over the state - they can go to school in any of the more rural areas and live for a fraction of the cost. Financial aid is widely available and the schools have work programs to help subsidize those on aid. Student loans are also widely available. Our schools are supposed to be for education. Housing and food needs are covered by social programs offered throughout the state. I'm voting NO on both measures.

FHDA is a fantastic educational institution and community resource. It’s also great value in terms of low tuition and its cost-effectiveness. Let’s build up resources and support for the next generations growing up, and not let what previous generations have built up whither away. Please support Measures G and H!!

As noted above by others, the district is asking for almost $900 Million, which will cost over $1.5 Billion based on a list of potential projects. Late last year when one of the board members, (Mr. Landsberger) said the bond would not be used for housing. Then a couple of months later FHDA says 1/3 of the bond ($200 to 300 Million) would be used for housing for faculty and maybe students. Does this mean there were so many unimportant projects on the list ? Is this the decision process the district will use? The district is also trying to decide the purpose and design of the Flint Center replacement on the DeAnza campus. This could also be used for faculty housing. The question is, what is the real plan? Bottom line: there is NO plan except to ask for $900,000,000 dollars from the local residents.

Well actually, total repayment could be way more than $1.5 billion. Way more. Double. Triple. Here is why: the $1.5 billion is based on the currently low - very low - interest paid on bonds. As the interest rate doubles or triples, the total repayment soars. But how could that happen? - you ask. Partly because Measure G limits the sale of bonds to $48 million per year. At that rate, it will take at least 18 years to sell the bonds (aka borrow the money). Interest rates on bonds will only increase. The point is made in the ballot arguments on Measure G and Mountain View-Whisman Measure T ($259 in bonds sold at no more than $18.6 million per year). This is a new feature and grave concern. How did the author of the article from the Palo Alto Weekly miss this key drawback? As to use of the money, the measures have almost no limits. The state prohibition against using bond money for administrators is just rhetorical. Both bond measures and parcel taxes FREE UP money that then is available even for more administrators and higher administrator pay. The story floated by these districts about maybe using some money for teacher housing illustrates both how money can be easily squandered and how even money raised by selling bonds can FREE UP money for other uses - such as still higher administrator compensation. When teachers are partly compensated with housing, they can be paid less in salary and other benefits.

It's amazing how much misinformation and insularity can be packed into a short reader's comment. Let me start by noting that just because the Palo Alto Weekly republishes a 2 week old article doesn't mean that anyone wants to read the same reader's comments again (Senior Tax Payer). First off, enrollment decline in the Community Colleges has been state wide. If it's been a steeper drop at Foothill-De Anza, that may have to do with the fact that its enrollment was precipitously higher before the decline. The District is still serving 60,000 students a year.
Secondly, how do you balance complaints about enrollment dropping with your insistence that the District should not allow students from outside the District? They're PUBLIC community colleges, not gated communities. Students come here because they recognize the excellence of the Colleges. You'd seriously prefer them on the welfare rolls? In homeless encampments? Are you willing to give them the bus ticket and seed money to restart their lives in the Central Valley? Isn't that just perpetuating the very concern you're declaiming. Let's give them a chance to get started on a career path instead of the corporate welfare subsidies given to the likes of Apple Computers (which still hasn't fully paid its property tax).
And I might add that these students pay into our economy, in however limited a fashion. When they finish school and get jobs they'll invest back into our communities in taxes and necessary services. Where else do you hope to get the nurses, the electricians, the paralegals--this is one of the central community functions of our colleges, a resource you profess to find "a valuable asset." Thankfully, there are enough voters who won't pay these libertarian echo chambers any mind and will vote yes on G and H.

People should make factual comments when responding. FHDA may have been 60,000 in late 1990s (DA 36,000, FH 24,000), but as of this fall 2019 the headcount was 30,954.Fall is always the largest of the quarters. Also FHDA has lost 28% of the headcount over the last 10 years. Each of the campuses have built new instructional facilities over this time, which is more space in a declining enrollment. What significant steps has FHDA taken to increase enrollment?

The students within the FHDA district have declined from 32% to 23%. Mountain View has gone from 6.5% to 4.2%. We should not be paying for G & H if it is for the Bay Area, maybe the State should pay.

There was no real

I’m getting lots of expensive glossy mailers from the Yes on G H folks. How much taxpayer money is being spent on those?

If you can't commit to a sustained engagement but are willing to post comments, we would love to inundate comments to the following articles with cogent, persuasive and ardent postings. I'm happy to coach anyone who wants tips, and even provide some samples of previous postings our group has done, which you can pilfer for ideas, details and methodology. But if you're comfortable posting a couple of ¶'s to an article just hitting on one or two talking points (there are generally many to choose from), you can also take the initiative on your own.

Here are a few suggestions:

· Winning the election is more important than winning the argument. Don't fall for "troll baiting" responses to your comments. Post quickly and move on.
· Avoid invective. Ridicule (in the satirical sense) can be effective, but focus on the ideas rather than the person.
· Avoid the "H" and "S" words (housing and salary). Such direct references did not poll well. Concentrate on students and the struggle of living in Silicon Valley..
· Don't worry so much about "facts" that others present--anecdote would be a very effective rebuttal to some of the Howard Jarvis data driven types.

And here are the major articles we're working on, in priority. Please feel free to contact me offline. Let's inundate these mothers!

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

Tim Shively
Faculty Association President
fatim@fafhda.org

Borrowed from the Palo Alto posting. This confirms there is no plan to spend the monies in Measure G & H. I wish someone would give me a billion dollars and not ask how I am going to spend it.

The Faculty Association Union (Shively) continues to provide comments with no substance but just subjective motherhood. They admit there is NO PLAN! See below.

Here are notes from the FHDA Faculty Association December 4, 2019 minutes:
"Parcel Tax/Bond Measure: Both the Parcel Tax and the Bond Measure were approved at the
December 2 Board of Trustees meeting. If successful, the Parcel Tax will bring the district $25
million over five years and the Bond Measure will bring $900 million. Shively, who has been
asked to join the campaign committee, noted that there was no specific wish list for either.
Shively shared the lists of possible areas for spending the funds, noting that the campaign
committee members had been told how they should address complaints about the vagueness of
this list. Some suggestion has been made that funds could be used to form a private sector
partnership in order to purchase and develop The Oaks shopping center across from De Anza. "

If the above message is what Shively is asking faculty to do, that shows their bias and lack of plan. This is unfair coercion of our voting!

Here is the web link to the FHDA Faculty Executive Board Minutes of Dec 4, 2019.

Web Link

I did vote No. Why is answer for any problem (real or not) is to put another special assessment and increase taxes? Districts need to learn how to balance the budget, giving them more money does not provide any incentive for them to be smart with money they already have.

@Teacher Due - "Concentrate on students and the struggle of living in Silicon Valley..."
There is no reason for a struggling student to be living in Silicon Valley. Students can study anywhere in the state for nominal fees and the cost of living (and the competition) is considerably less in other areas. Enough of this entitled attitude of needing to live in the most expensive location in the country.

Does anyone have details on how their plan to spend their $300 million housing portion? Do they have certain land or existing properties already in mind? Thank you for any info.

There is no plan. Just a story about how maybe they might spend on housing. Whatever you want, they might spend money on it. Campaign propaganda. Use of the money to be borrowed under bond measure G and collecting from an additional parcel tax (Measure H) is loosely limited by state law and not further limited by the language of the measures. Realize that if some employees are ever paid partly with housing, it would FREE UP other funds for any other lawful use - such as still more administrators and still higher administrator compensation. Look up the district under TRANSPARENT CALIFORNIA. ORG.

@taxpayer

I agree with you. I am merely alerting people to an email that Tim Shively is circulating amongst faculty to drum up support.

I support teachers, but I don't support unsavory, unethical attempts to sway our elections. This bond is not the answer. It will not help faculty in the long run, and it will hurt taxpayers.

The Palo Alto Daily News and other papers have posted the salaries of district employees before. Anyone know where we can find those articles?

I just checked on Transparent California for salaries. I encourage you all to do the same.

Some people need raises, honestly. They aren't getting paid enough to live here, but I believe that is problem the district needs to work out, not us.

Others are being paid insane amounts, which points to corruption. See below. Scroll down for faculty. Something fishy.

Elizabeth Barkley, Kathryn Ripp, Lydia Hearn...why are you making so much money?

Web Link

I care about supporting the community, but let's be clear: the district does not currently support the community. It would be great if they did! Hey, I support teachers! The job is tough, and there are reasons it's a 10 month contract. It burns you out! (Former teacher here.)

But, many of the students are not from our community, yet they want to tax us for them. FHDA made a clear decision years ago--not to support the community. Instead, they decided to do outreach OUTSIDE the district. They have forsaken their actually community. And, now that they need help, suddenly they want us to help.

Make no mistake, this is not a xenophobic comment. I welcome international students. They pay A LOT in tuition. The college bilks them. The problem is, again, the district made the decision to do outreach to areas outside the district. They ignored the actually community.

See these facts:

Using data from De Anza college (FHDA and Foothill don't provide this data on their web pages) for Winter quarter 2020, only 23% of the students are from the FHDA tax area. Of the 77% not FHDA residents, 9% of the headcount are International students whose parents do not pay any taxes.

I live in the Foothill De Anza (FHDA) Tax area. I was an academic Dean at Foothill College for 9 years.

The actual facts shown in the prior comments, especially from the Faculty Union on Dec 4, 2019 that there is no real plan to spend the bond (Measure G) monies. G when completed will cost us over $1.5 BILLION. This is a blank check for the college district to spend with very few restrictions.

The crux of the decision is whether the Foothill De Anza Administration and Board has shown they can allocate the monies effectively. They had the same bond prepared for the last election but polling data was negative. Did they spend the time between then and now to develop a real plan? NO. Did FHDA build a new classroom center in Sunnyvale for $41.5 Million on donated land which De Anza would not support and has gone virtually empty since fall 2016? Yes. Has FHDA, whose colleges are registered as Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) apply for additional funding like all of the neighboring districts? NO. Did FHDA at the last moment decide that they MAY use $200-300 Million for faculty and student housing. Yes. BTW: of the 112 California CC campuses, 11 offer student housing and all are in very rural areas. Has FHDA Administration and Board year after year watch the enrollment drop since 2009-10 fiscal year and offering up any major innovations? NO. Is FHDA also undecided on the functionality and funding of the building to replace the De Anza Flint Center; will it also have faculty housing? Yes.

Using the FHDA District Fall 2019 data: 1,300 students attended from Mountain View (4.2%) while 3,304 (10.7%) are International students. Only 23% of the students come from the homes who will pay for Measure G.

So ask yourself: do you have faith the monies will be spent effectively? Shouldn't the state pay for Measure G since so many students are out of area?
I am voting for Measure H, since they should increase the student salaries and hopefully increase employee salaries with less than 5 years working at FHDA. Faculty are the ones that develop and deliver the product.

These are both part of an outrageous effort to ram something through that is not needed now and probably not for a very long time going forward. It's shameful to have an effort to just raise tax money and then think about what it could be spent on.

The Parcel Tax is bad too. They have lost so many students they should consider some faculty layoffs if they need to save operating funds. They have a bloated size due to past history before they lost 35% of their students at Foothill College. Obviously they kept too many staff on board after the reduction in need.

The Voice (and figure the sister paper north: the Palo Alto Weekly) Friday has an editorial for Measures G and H - ignoring most of the opposition arguments. Check the story in the Palo Alto Daily Post today (Thursday) about the Tim Shivley post above. Shivley is the faculty president who signed an op-ed run in the San Jose Mercury News for the measures. The MN promised to run a response. Check Friday for that. You can see the post above calls on supporters to CON VOTERS. It appears to be an email to fellow faculty members that was leaked by someone by forwarding it to newspapers as a post.

Colleagues,

We're in the final stretch for the March 3 primary election, only 10 days to go. And now more than ever, our District's "G & H" bond and parcel tax campaign need your active participation. I've previously requested donations, food for volunteers, etc. But I'm limiting this "ask" to one crucial need: your time and energy phone banking at campaign headquarters. Please, even a couple of hours makes all the difference in ensuring that these measures pass--the health and welfare of our district and our students depends on it.

Sign up at Web Link

Campaign headquarters is conveniently located across the street from De Anza campus in the Oaks center--you can't miss it. And if you have any questions, the G and H campaign website can be accessed at Web Link , or feel free to contact me directly.

Thank you,

Tim

--
Tim Shively, Foothill-De Anza Community College District
English Instructor, De Anza College
President, Faculty Association, FHDA

Students stay in these districts for a myriad of reasons. Are we to expect that they should move away from family, friends, and support systems to more affordable areas? De Anza is the #2 community college in California and it serves our district as well as the surrounding districts. Students come here for excellent education and opportunities. Why wouldn't we invest in the next generation of Silicon Valley taxpayers who could potentially improve life here? These schools need funds to retain well trained, invested teachers who will work for pennies! There are students sleeping in their cars just to attend a college that will help them better their situation. We are not asking for welfare checks here, only a few cents to $100 to provide support for young people who are working hard to transcend their tough situations and become the futures working class who will support our generation.

"Are we to expect that they should move away from family, friends, and support systems to more affordable areas?" Cry me a River... Yes, of course we expect them to move to more affordable areas if they can't afford to live in Silicon Valley. These are not children anymore - students from all over the world move to new locations to obtain education. Moving to where you can afford to live is just part of life.

As for receiving "the best education"- please - these are community colleges not Ivy League universities. The kids can get their basic education in any CC in the state and then transfer to 4 year colleges if they desire to go further. And these are not "pennies" on a tax bill. They're an added percentage of already enormous tax bills. And to boot, the use of the money is undefined which is completely unacceptable and a total waste of taxpayer dollars.

Hmm no one will move away if G and H fail. The colleges get hundreds of millions per year. They do not need cream cheese topping added to that.

Now that it looks like Measure G will pass, is there anything we can do about it?

I am a first time home buyer (purchased about 1 year ago) and used to be a renter before. In learning about this measure, I find it misleading to the voters and the rebuttal written against to not include some great points mentioned in this thread:

1. This is a tax on local property owners for a college who's student body is 77% outside the district. Local residents should not subsidize student body from other districts, either those districts or the state should pay.
2. Enrollment is down 28% in 10 years, and even more so for students who physically come to campus (due to online classes). Why then do we need facility improvements when less students use them?
3. Raising property taxes of taxpayers affects renters too! The taxes will be passed onto renters, even if you are in a rent controlled property.
4. The broadness of the plans don't comply with Prop 39, which requires specific guidelines, and spending money on student / faculty housing is (1) unprecedented for a community college and (2) likely not compliant with Prop 39.
5. For first time home buyers especially suffer as property tax rates increase despite the enormous assessed values. This exacerbates the problem it is trying to fix
6. Limits on spending are rhetorical as money is freed up for other spend (like increasing compensation of proposers of said measure)
7. Finally, school districts need to learn how to balance a budget. Assessed values rise on average 2% per year, and transactions (purchases) double assessed values on average. Combined the funding for schools already grows faster than inflation. Why do they need more money if the budget already naturally increases?

I feel like if the average voter had known these facts this would have failed easily. Is there anything that can be done now?

Keep in mind it's way too soon to know the final decision on this and other contested election questions, with nearly half the ballots yet uncounted. (The county Registrar site includes a running estimate -- not the different and extremely misleading "Precincts Reporting" percentage, which only indicates precincts that began returning ballots for counting).

The infamously slow California ballot-counting process is routinely ignored by pundits who leap to predict outcomes prematurely, as if reading tea leaves. The last MV City-Council election wasn't decided until weeks after "election day."

I'm voting for it.

*voted

Next time too.

@drekin: Not sure you can do much now. Trying to overturn an election is one of those things that seems to get frowned upon. But you _can_ hold your elected leaders accountable for following through on what's in Measure G and getting the most out of it; maybe there's a detail of one of the projects that could be improved in a way that makes it more valuable to you?

Important to realize that this community supports its schools. I hope everyone who buys property in Mountain View realizes that. Sure, it was bad strategy to put a parcel tax and bond for the same district on the same ballot, but the bond still passed.