Our pockets are not bottomless.
This is death by a thousand cuts.
Should we skip 10 lunches at $4.80 to pay for this?

FHDA is a tremendous asset and good value — well worth the modest investment! Many of us in this area have achieved our success through education. Let’s pay it forward by investing for this generation of students and beyond.

Maybe the author will post a comment and tell voters: (1) why Measure G promises no particular projects, (2) what the interest rate for CA community college bonds is currently, (3) what the interest rate will be on bonds sold over each of the next 18 years ($898 million at no more than $48 million per year under the measure's language, (3) how many College District employees already receive annual compensation from the District in excess of $175,000 (see TransparentCalifornia.org) and (4) what percentage of District students were residents of the District before enrolling.

Measure H is simply not needed. Measure G is highly excessive. We already spend hundreds of millions per year to support Foothill and Deanza. That doesn't need further approval. That funding has been increasing. It's enough.

If you give these turkeys another Billion they will squander it on worthless stuff. Do we really need a fancy new gym facility for these JC's? How about more parking garages? Maybe some nice high rises. a Billion will buy an awful lot of paint.

This is the most reckless and unfair bond measure I have ever studied. There is a long list of projects that MIGHT be funded (new buildings, parking lots, solar panels, technology, raises, housing, etc.

It reads as if there isn't already a school there. There should be a SPECIFIC need or set of needs clearly articulated. Then the funding necessary to pay for this should be secured in a responsible way. And when enrollment is down 13% and 77% of the kids are from out of district, this is further reason to question. Oh, and don't forget there has been almost $750 million in the last two college district bond measures (most recently in 2012)...where is that money going? Crickets when you ask that question to the proponents. Any we should give more money to them and trust they will "invest" another $898 million?

Structuring and assessment is also problematic: $898 million spread over 20 years at unknown, future (probably higher) interest rates. And then the tax is funded in a way whereby the YOUNG generation disproportionately pay for it since it's based on assessed value (doubling down on the old Prop 13) whereas old timers who made millions on their home and already pay low property taxes pay very little. Everyone should pay a reasonable and same amount of money. Don't screw the youth.

The proponents just say the sacred cow word "Schools" and "invest in kids". I'm all for investment in schools, but it needs to be done responsibly.