MVWSD hasn’t a clue on how to handle money, period.
Many of us still remember this district handing over Slater School to Google. BIG mistake. Disastrous spending for Castro School. Low test scores no accountability. Voters are now finally paying attention. NO on T.

The Superintendent and his school board could have stated in Measure T how the money would be spent. They refused. if Measure T passes (which is likely with the special interests bankrolling the campaign and this newspaper's going along), the uses will be determined by whoever is Superintendent and on the school board in the years ahead. Read the ballot arguments in your county voter guide.

There are some very good proposals (not enforceable by a new Bond Oversight Committee) that the MVWSD has put forth in Board Meetings. But, as noted above, they are not enforceable. Any Board Majority (3 of 5) can alter the choices of any previous Board concerning facilities spending / old borrowing payback. The Board showed no desire to constrain EVEN A QUARTER of the money to high priority items like Old Roofs and Old Heating/Air Conditioning or Borrowing Payback (COPs).

I just think that is bad government. There is also some bad administration in the three recent facilities projects: all have significantly overrun their 10% construction contingencies. This now eats into the General Fund. (see recent Questions From Trustees postings). Without an experienced "construction" chief business officer at the MVWSD, I personally think this will continue [wish for the best though]

been there, done that

The whisman school district is absolutely awful with money. Literally any time I hear about the districts administration, its always about how they didnt allocate funds correctly and then asking for more money.

No matter how much more money we give the Whisman school district, they will change their ways. This is an easy choice for me: NO

A well-funded school system leads to better governance. Measure T deserves a YES vote.

School bonds are notoriously vague in their details, relative to other bonds on Tuesday's ballot, Measure T is far more detailed than the others. Some may recall that part of the Prop 13 (1978) deal, which dramatically cut CA school spending was a shift to partial local control of school funding.

Those who grew up in CA before Prop 13 (1978) remember how good CA schools were, and people did not complain about governance. Yet when dollars are short, rash decisions are made, and crises often replace thoughtful planning.

Fund your local schools, and then pay close attention to your school board elections in November. There is not a single example of a district short of funds of attracting top talent. Don't confuse MVWSD for MVLA, MVWSD will have financial troubles without Measure T. Vote YES on the funds, Yes on T, and then in November, vote for the best people to be stewards of them.

Between measures G, H, and T, my family's property tax bill will increase by ~$1,000 a year. Due to the new $10,000 limit on state and local taxes (SALT), we can no longer deduct property taxes from our Federal taxes. Although G, H, and T each have their merits, the combined tax increase is simply too much at one time for me to support it as a homeowner.

I will vote NO on T, and would encourage other homeowners to consider the financial impact on their households.

Even with this wool they keep pulling over my eyes, I can see that something is very fishy with Measure T. The issue is similar to Measure G for Foothill/Deanza, but not exactly the same. MVWSD is not truly specific about how they will spend the money, which they need to be to use a 55% majority Prop 39 bond like this. So it could be challenged in court as they reserve the right to change their minds. They cannot do that. But what is truly horrifying is the crud they cite as being something they want to spend money on. Adding extra restrooms to the parks near each school so that kids on the playing fields don't have to go back to the classroom area to "go." Isn't that sort of a luxury? During school hours the kids are under supervision on the playing fields, and they aren't there for very long stretches of time. So this is just for the few cases where a kid needs the restroom while being supervised outside the classroom. During lunch and recess they should have easy access to the schools' existing restrooms. Sorry to get down in the weeds, but this could be a very expensive construction project for NOTHING,
or at best an extreme frill.

The other types of things they state an intention to splurge on are equally distressing. Almosst nothing that is truly for educational purposes. What is this school district doing anyway, if not educating our children?

Vote No. They need to save bond money for true needs. They don't have the true needs covered in the description of this bond, in a way that is legally executable. They are trying to get away with cheating on using the 55% "win" percentage.