Julie says in her letter that she is a De Anza College instructor. How much does she already get paid? See Transparent California.com. Look under Community Colleges salaries. How much more will she be paid using money from $898 million bond measure G and parcel tax measure H? It would be up the the administration and board of the District. Measure G would free up tens of millions of dollars to pay Julie more. For example, if $100 million were used as teacher compensation in the form of housing, it would "free up" money otherwise due those teachers for Julie. Measure H will generate about $27 million over 5 years in pocket change to be used on anything but directly on administrators compensation. Another $27 million for Julie. And if the Chancellor wants more than her $425,000 compensation (as of 2018), no problemo. Freed up money can be used for that.

Julie says "as a resident and taxpayer" she will be voting yes on Measure G and H. She should have added she is also on faculty and would be receiving additional compensation if these are passed. I am NOT a Howard Jarvis fan and support schools, but Measure G in particular is the most reckless and unfair bond measure I have ever studied. Proponents will not answer questions because the answers aren't good or helpful to their cause to get more money.

There is a long list of projects that MIGHT be funded (new buildings, parking lots, solar panels, technology, raises, housing, disabled access improvements, gender neutral bathrooms, 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?

Ask a venture capitalist if they will fund a business where needs are vague, money request is huge and to be spent over next several decades, track record on past funding is poor (with no clear answers on how it was spent).

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.