MV Whisman eyes new school bond
Original post made on Nov 23, 2011
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, November 23, 2011, 11:02 AM
on Nov 23, 2011 at 2:27 pm
I would pay more taxes for schools.
I would also support the idea of collecting proper property taxes for schools from developments where the each unit is not assessed. I'm talking about the model where the owner leases the land to the developer, who builds 100 units for families, and no additional money will come to the schools, although there will be 100 new families in the school district. What's up with that? Why do we allow it? It doesn't do the schools any good, spreading resources thinner and thinner. And as the schools weaken property investments weaken.
on Nov 23, 2011 at 3:32 pm
This article creates the impression that the current Measure C parcel tax imposes larger assessments than is actually the case. Under Measure C, all lots of 8,000 square feet or less (which covers the vast majority of single family residences in MV) pay $127/year. It scales up for larger lots; only lots of 44,000 square feet or more pay the maximum amount of $1,016/year. Seniors and disabled taxpayers are eligible for an exemption.
Our schools do need our financial support--increasingly so as state monies are cut. Kudos to MVWSD for carefully assessing what is a realistic amount that property owners in our community can comfortably absorb to provide direct funding to maintain our schools.
on Nov 23, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Considering the awful mess that the school board made of the Monta Loma remodel some years ago I wouldn't trust them to spend the money wisely. The architects and contractors seem to have the controlling hand and the school board got manipulated into doing just as they were told. The last parcel tax is the last one that I voted yes on. From now on whenever they ask for more money they can count on my NO vote.