Post a comment
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
Your Information
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
« City to Evacuate/Raze 310 Esplanade | Main | Pacifican Gets 10 Years for Child Porn »
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
Your Information
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Here are two links defining Measure D:
ballotpedia.org:
https://ballotpedia.org/Pacifica_School_District,_California,_Parcel_Tax,_Measure_D_(June_2016)
votersedge.org
http://www.votersedge.org/ca/en/ballot/election/area/39/measures/measure/1958?election_authority_id=41
Let's cut City Hall raises for a decade, and fund the schools instead.
Posted by: Jay Bird | May 25, 2016 at 06:31 AM
No one has posted on this recently. Thought I'd chime in if you are on the fence. We have kids at the schools. I attend some district board meetings. I go to PTO meetings, too. What I can tell you is $1,000 is a big, big deal to each school. That a grand or even less could allow three classes of 4th-graders to have a special literature/English/poetry enrichment class for a semester or NOT speaks, I think, to how badly any money is needed. How every penny matters. I'm not saying it's right that our local schools have to operate on a thin margin, but I don't think the inefficiencies are at the local level. There are always some inefficiencies everywhere (for example, the food service at the school seems wasteful), but the people at our schools/district are not wasteful. If anything, they are doing twice or three times their roles (as an example, we have a kindergarten teacher who not only juggles 24 kids but also juggles a few kids who could really use 1:1 teacher's aide help, but the district cannot fund that help. This same teacher stays late at night so the hall looks special for a big event. This same teacher puts on a little play at end of year because we don't have funds for a kindergarten graduation that most schools do. Another example is the district has funded building repairs to schools for years where another district could afford replacement construction. It seems spending the least possible to make it as long as possible is the mode of operation. STRETCH THE DOLLARS as there are not enough.
I also truly believe if you look at our neighboring cities (San Bruno, Daly City, Brisbane, South San Francisco), where we have similar-sized homes and slightly better schools, some (though not all) of our property values are higher in Pacifica. I feel there is a trend. Our slightly better-performing schools DO help with property values. So even if you don't want to support the school, consider if you want to support your home/neighborhood.
Posted by: Tarra | May 24, 2016 at 04:25 PM
With posts such as these...
Hell Yes, if the Measure is focused.
Hell No!, If the measure are diver usage wording (Fire, City Council raise, General Fund, etc.
and finally,,,
Where the hell is the link to the actual text of Measure D? (rhetorical, except you post emotionally positive pictures without details on the measure.
Posted by: Chris Romero | March 30, 2016 at 08:25 PM
"But notice that areas with very high property values (Los Altos, Cupertino, Mountain View, and Palo Alto) have very high-scoring schools."
That's true, but these are far richer communities as well. There is a significant percentage of Pacificans who are high earners and who send their kids to private schools. Public schools are in enough trouble without cutting off a minimal parcel tax such as this one.
As I've, ahem, grown older, I too have become very skeptical about local tax measures designed to fatten the public payroll. This particular one we've already been paying for years. Working-class people's children benefit from the schools having some public funding. That's why I support the measure.
Posted by: Lionel Emde | March 26, 2016 at 06:44 PM
How long does this tax last?
Posted by: Butch Larroche | March 22, 2016 at 02:57 PM
Butch: I think it's extended for the same term as the previous school parcel tax.
Posted by: big banker | March 26, 2016 at 09:15 AM
Vote no!!! It is ridiculous that our schools can't run on what they have. Take a look at some of these administrator salaries before giving more of your hard-earned money so kids can learn to play the recorder.
Posted by: John | March 25, 2016 at 10:12 PM
Lionel,
I agree with you a lot. I know music in the schools is important to you. I place an all-around importance to all the life skills learned in schools. Most of the people griping about this will file an exception.
My music in high school was limited to listening to Metallica as loud as possible.
But notice that areas with very high property values (Los Altos, Cupertino, Mountain View, and Palo Alto) have very high-scoring schools.
Posted by: big banker | March 25, 2016 at 04:17 AM
Wouldn't want the administration staff to suffer through life on a teacher's salary.
Posted by: todd bray | March 24, 2016 at 11:05 PM
Yes indeed. Seniors should be able to opt out as some seniors don't have the chips. I would bet that many seniors who can chip in will do so. An educated populace benefits us all.
Posted by: Dan B. Underhill | March 24, 2016 at 10:23 PM
"Is it just me?"
I'll give you one example of the pathetic funding levels of Pacifica's school programs. I played a benefit for the Pacifica School District (PSD) music program, and it had a chart detailing what it was doing and how much the yearly funding for the program was. Ready for this?
$164,000 for the music program for five schools for a year.
Down the Peninsula, they have fundraisers at which they raise millions of dollars in a single night. I'll be voting yes on the PSD parcel tax.
Posted by: Lionel Emde | March 24, 2016 at 07:56 AM
Is it just me?
Normally I am all for money for school improvements, but it never ends. The school district is sitting on a cash cow even if it sells the two fields at Oddstad School.
Is Pacifica really becoming a tax-and-spend city?
Does anyone remember when Ronald Reagan said Democrats are just tax-and-spenders and that was a really bad thing???
In the words of the immortal Led Zeppelin, "The Song Remains The Same."
Posted by: big banker | March 23, 2016 at 10:42 AM
To whomever is running the Measure D campaign: smart move placing it on the June ballot!
Our household supported Measure L in 2011 (which was an extension of 2008's Measure N), and we are on board with Measure D, which simply extends what we've already been contributing to our schools for another 10 years.
The way that Sacramento funds our state's schools is a travesty. I mean, it's really just unbelievable what local districts have to deal with every year.
Having had a minor bit of involvement with a local school PTO, I can assure everyone that these funds are badly needed and are managed and put to use very prudently. I hope I don't sound like a total shill for this thing, but the kids really need this funding.
D has my family's vote. Good luck!
Posted by: Chris Fogel | March 22, 2016 at 06:40 PM
I believe seniors can opt out of this tax.
Posted by: Thomas Clifford | March 22, 2016 at 05:00 PM
@Butch_Larroche: Ten-year extension for $1,180 total.
Posted by: www.Pacifica.city | March 22, 2016 at 03:07 PM
How long does this tax last?
Posted by: Butch Larroche | March 22, 2016 at 02:57 PM
Ask any Pacifica palindrome lovers how they'll vote on Measure D and they are likely to reply, "Yes on D, nosey!"
Posted by: Alan Wald | March 22, 2016 at 02:22 PM