|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Construction, engineering and architecture firms remained the top donors for the Mountain View Whisman School District’s parcel tax campaign through the first half of April, but contributions from PTAs and individual parents are beginning to roll in, according to campaign finance reports released Thursday, April 20.
Measure B is a $191 parcel tax on this year’s May 2 all-mail ballot. If passed by a two-thirds majority of voters, the measure would effectively replace the existing Measure C parcel tax, which expires at the end of June. District voters began receiving ballots earlier this month.
Campaign finance reports show that proponents have raised $62,425 in contributions to help pass the measure, with the biggest donations coming from local real estate developers and companies that work closely with the district.
The campaign received $10,000 from BHM Construction, a Napa-based company in charge of building new facilities at both Crittenden and Graham schools as well as the shared Castro and Mistral elementary school campus.
Additional big donations came from Hibser Yamauchi Architects ($5,000) and WHM Incorporated ($2,000), both of which work together to design the new campuses at Huff, Bubb and Landels.
The campaign got a boost from real estate developers, including $3,000 from the owner of Village Lake Apartments, FortBay; $1,000 from local real estate developer John Lovewell; and $1,000 from Mountain View housing developer Greystar.
Local education advocates and parent groups also stepped up contributions through April 15, with $5,000 coming from the Mountain View Education Foundation and $500 from Alison Barnsley, who spent years as the organization’s executive director.
PTA fundraising totals are $3,000 from the Landels and Mistral PTAs, $1,000 from Crittenden, and $500 from Theuerkauf.
Every school PTA has endorsed Measure B, and has committed to contributing an amount ranging from $500 to $3,000, said Cleave Frink, parent and co-chair of the Measure B campaign. The variance, he said, is dependent on the financial status and budget obligations of each organization.
Other small but notable contributions include $100 from both Jessica Speiser, a Los Altos School District board member, and Laura Blakely, a Mountain View Whisman school board member. Carol Fisher, the former executive director of Mentor Tutor Connection, also gave $100.
Campaign spending remained close to flat through April 15, according to the finance reports. Expenditures totaled just over $3,200, almost all of which was spent on campaign signs. Frink said the campaign has boosted spending since last week, including mailers and newspaper ads.
“We have been putting together a vigorous effort to ensure the success of Measure B, which will be more apparent when you see the next filings,” Frink said in an email Friday.
The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters has not received campaign finance reports from opponents of Measure B.
Anyone know the theshold amount of a individual expenditure that triggers the requirement of filing a report?
@Stan $1,000 by any one person.
That explains it.
I’ve no doubt that the PTA’s are being strong armed into making campaign contributions. Really not a good use of hard earned PTA funds.
So bashing Google and Prometheus is a national pastime, but no one comments on the school builders making sure that their taxpayer-funded contracts come through?
If voters are willing to pass a highly regressive tax, and there is trust in the wider community of taxpayers and voters – then it will probably pass this 12th hour off-election. Do you trust the leadership? Was the Parcel Tax money that’s been spent on Teach To One Math well vetted and well overseen? (Measure C last oversight meeting packet)
Politics is money driven. The large MVWSD contractors – oh well, The Large developers and property owners – they like a $200 tax on their large properties (New Measure would reduce it 500% from the current $1016).
Why is this a 12th hour election? It was put on a special ballet, at significantly higher district cost, rather than the June 2016 or November 2016 elections. It needed a Special Meeting to meet the time deadlines. THAT is another example of IMO of poor district leadership in planning (like the Teach To One: Math fiasco).
President Gutierrez, here is an example of a “FACT:” that is wrong in your material – wrong to the point of being a big fat (political) lie: the proposed state budget increases yet again, it’s a suggestion for increased K-12 funding. It only slows the increase, over what Gov. Brown had projected two years ago. Jose, a slower increase, is not a decrease – that is just a lie! But, perhaps your political consultants just forced you to mail that out!
FPPC political spending / reporting requirement. Calif. If a committee is formed, for a local measure (for or against) then it must report only if its spending is over a total of $1,000. If a ‘formed committee’ accepts donations, it must report them by name, only if the total, from one source – exceeds $100. A total going up to $99 in services and cash does not have to be reported.
So, if Trustee Wheeler, wanted to contribute $5,000, or $500 total, that must be reported. If she contributed $50, that total contribution would not have to be reported.
$99 contribution – no name. $100 contribution, it goes on the record. [the federal election reporting is similar, but not the same $s – if you want to see who and how much was contributed by local political people to federal election candidates, that is also on-line]
What a lack of support from the MVWSD trustees and leadership!
The only contribution I have seen to date from a current trustee is Laura Blakely who donated $100 to support Measure B, see http://public.netfile.com/pub2/RequestPDF.aspx?id=164727930 and http://public.netfile.com/pub2/RequestPDF.aspx?id=164265516. Nothing from Supt Rudolph or anyone else on his team!
It’s good to know where they really stand on this issue!
In Los Gatos, the superintendent Diana Abbatti and Trustee Daniel Snyder have both given $1,000. Even the LGUSD exec assistant Michelle Strachan gave $125, see
http://public.netfile.com/pub2/RequestPDF.aspx?id=164235918
I wonder if there are ways to support this without signing a check? No, that would be impossible, hahaha.
Thanks to ALL for their support, monetary or otherwise.
Can the District Personnel and Board Members legally give money to the campaign?
I know there are legal rules about what they can say about it. No personal opinions, etc.
Actually, it is a very good use of PTA funds and MVEF funds.
IF this does not pass, the school district will be down by about $3M. There are things that parents want for their kids that the current parcel tax is paying for.
The PTAs and MVEF will be looked at by parents to help out, but they will not be able to cover all the lost things. Therefore, the kids will be losing out, the parents will not be happy with what is lost.
VOTE NO ON MEASURE B!
This is why all voting should take place once a year. November.
All in person, all on the same day.
Voting off cycle.. by mail.. promises this passes with ease.
Another $191 a year going into the black hole. Awesome.
You ask above why this is a 12th hour election. Look in the mirror! You and Coladonato refused to support a parcel tax that wouldn’t be legally challenged. This has nothing to do with poor planning by leadership but rather trustees who refuse to see the right thing to do for the children in this school district.
You were a horrible trustee and we are glad that you are off the board so you can’t do any more damage. Get a life and leave the school district alone,
As a Board member, I specifically asked that a Parcel Tax measureI specifically be added to the Agenda discussion in a time period that would allow it to be considered in November, 2017. I was looking for (check the Minutes of June 2017) a fair tax that would raise $3.4M, enough to start to match the inflation adjustment needed for the last 8 years. President Wheeler and Superintendent Rudolph prevented it from coming up for discussion, at the first Aug 2017 meeting – in contradiction of the Board Bylaws. Ech! We have seen from the Teach To One fiasco, that ignoring Board Bylaw policy, was common for this leadership duo.
If “contiguous commercial property exemption” grandfathering had been included in Measure B, contrary to Borikas court decision, I would myself have run a legal challenge against it (if that provision had been kept, and B had won).
The right thing to do for the community, is to have fair taxation, clear revenue use with responsible oversight (not TTO type stuff), and thus the trust of the community for More local support. Why do YOU THINK there is so little community support, in MVWSD, for a tax burden matching the rates of tax burden (as % of residential property wealth) of our close neighbors. COMMUNITY (90% of electorate households are not MVWSD parents) does NOT really TRUST the leadership.
@Steven Nelson
“If voters are willing to pass a highly regressive tax,”
We voters do it all the time. It’s only those who would put
their subjective views on “social justice” ABOVE the needs of
our kids and communities who would decide a vote on such a basis.
“and there is trust in the wider community of taxpayers and voters”
We don’t need to fully “trust” our “Trustees” or other district leadership in order to vote for school funding measures. We just need to recognize that we are all better off with the schools funded as best we can and work in other ways to reduce any waste. Like making darn sure to raise a stink when something like TTO happens. NOT to then punish the kids for it by voting down school funds.
“- then it will probably pass this 12th hour off-election.”
You want to know the reason the new Parcel Tax Measure B got delayed until this “12th hour”???
Simple, we were waiting to get a new Board seated that could actually get it done rather than waste all the time with a dysfunctional Board that we had before.
“Do you trust the leadership?”
I never trust politicians, nor should anyone else, but somebody has to do the job that politicians do and the rest of us are supposed to keep an eye on them and take them out to the woodshed when they screw up or take them to jail if they can be proven corrupt.
Our system of government(as I’m sure you are aware) is the worst form of government in the history of humanity, except for all the others that have been tried or proposed.
@Steven Nelson
“As a Board member, I specifically asked that a Parcel Tax measure I specifically be added to the Agenda discussion in a time period that would allow it to be considered in November, 2017.”
Nobody wanted to deal with the issue while it still meant negotiating with you about it in Board meetings. Another example of you being your own worst enemy.
Had you been a more collaborative Trustee, many more of your issues would have gone your way. You make it extremely painful to be on your side of any issue, even when somebody fully agreed with you.
“The right thing to do for the community, is to have fair taxation,”
According to YOU!
Trustee Wheeler is fond of saying:
“Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good.”
A flat parcel tax is good, not perfect, but good.
Measure G at $198 million was good, not perfect like the $423 million the district really needed, but still, it’s much better to have had the $198 million than get nothing by holding out for a “perfect” school bond.
As I recall you strongly OPPOSED Measure G and without that the projects like building a new school for the Whisman/Slater neighborhood and the desperately needed repairs to most of our schools could never have been accomplished.
Now, here you go again, opposing money to help our kids because you “feel” that what our politicians could do was not “perfect” enough for your subjective sense that “fairness” and “social justice” is more important than what we can actually do for our kids and future.
YOU want to make a moral stand for yourself, fine, just don’t try to bully the rest of us to sign up to your priorities.
“Why do YOU THINK there is so little community support, in MVWSD, for a tax burden matching the rates of tax burden (as % of residential property wealth) of our close neighbors.”
Partly because of the level of satisfaction with our schools as they are and partly because parents make up such a small percentage of voters here and partly because so many of the voters are low-income and partly because so many of the high-income people send their kids to private schools.
Anyone who decides to reduce school funding to punish the leadership has got a serious problem in understanding who actually always gets hurt.
HINT: It’s NEVER the adults that get paid by the district.
Anyone about Measure B.
Suppose we had a supposedly “fair” tax?
What I have heard proposed was a tax based uniformly on the square footage of constructed working/living space. (With exclusions for the elderly, which is it’s own problem)
So, a typical house on a 1/4 acre lot built to 900 sqft would get taxed on that 900 and the neighbors house that got rebuilt into a 2-story 1,800 sqft house would get billed double and an 8-story office building of 9000 sqft would get taxed 10 times more.
Well, that seeeeeeems “fair”, right?
I mean, after all, we all KNOW that how many sqft of constructed space is the “fair” measure of what level of taxation a land owner can afford, right? I mean, that’s just “common sense”, right?
So, what if Google had a huge parcel (or several parcels) they left as open space park for the exclusive use of their employees? No buildings, no tax paid. That’s “fair”, right?
What about the person who lives on a 10 acre parcel lot with an 800 sqft house and no other buildings? He would get charged even less than the guy with the 1/4 acre parcel. Fair?
What about the guy who owns a 100 acre farm or orchard with ZERO constructed buildings and thus ZERO sqft to tax?
What about the guy in my neighborhood who bought 2 back-to-back houses, tore out the back yard fence and totally removed both houses and the foundations and left the land vacant for many years. He only used the land to park RVs, a big motor home and boat on a trailer when he was not using them. He had 2 parcels there, but according to this “fair” tax, he would have paid nothing.
Any construct for a tax will be “unfair” because life is not uniform and fair, reality is complex and messy and unfair. There will ALWAYS be cases where the taxation is unfair to some people. No matter how carefully you craft the tax laws, they will never be perfectly fair.
Hold out for perfect “fairness” and you will never get anything good done at all.
@ST Parent Thanks for your discussion of what a FAIR SCHOOL TAX might possibly look like. As you say, maybe “fairest” is just some utopian scheme. But “fairer”?
Discussion did not take place – so the per square foot of constructed living space = is incorrect. It happens to be the Richmond (West Contra Co.), Emeryville (Emery) and Berkeley “special qualified taxes” all use a uniform per-square foot of building. A uniform per square foot of parcel, or a combination of the two (1 cent per square foot of building and 1 cent per square foot of parcel) uniform yapplied to all property in the district, would also pass judicial review.
No exemptions, other than those allowed under the Brakes court decision (2nd Appeals Court, confirmed by the CA Supreme Court).
Fair is in the hearts of the beholder / and implemented by the Votes of the Electorate. And sometimes – fair is upheld by the decisions of the highest courts. The rest, my friend, is just political discussion. Thanks for your perspective on FAIR SCHOOL TAX.
opps Borikus (without auto-spell-correct)
Borikas et al v. Alameda Unified School District — state law requires “uniformity” in a parcel tax, i.e., a tax that will “apply uniformly to all taxpayers or all real property within the district.”
Uniformity, of course can also be $191 applied uniformly to all taxable parcels of real property in MVWSD. But, what about the $100M new Google headquarters, on a 50 year lease on City land? If written poorly, that $100M of real property, privately owned, will not even be taxed $191. If 1 cent per-square-foot of building? Real property, privately owned on public lands is taxable, if a Measure is written right. If the district was not astute in what they asked for – the private Google headquarters school taxes for the General Fund, will be $0 total. (Shoreline district will get all new general property taxes! – MVWSD will only get Facilities Bond rate taxes)
ST Parent – I hate Shoreline’s quasi-redevelopment district also! It diverts about $4,000,000 out of the General Fund of MVWSD each year! But that is a different FAIR TAXATION issue, I think we would both agree!
I voted NO on Measure B.
The barrage of marketing material for this
measure reeks of a shakedown, highlighted by the remarkable absence
of salient facts.
Measure-B’s purpose is to continue the taxpayer money
made available via a temporary measure passed in 2004
and renewed in 2008. Meanwhile, property tax revenue
has been increasing and yet, the MVW school district still needs
to raise more money !!
This is reflective of a culture of mugging the taxpayer
in the name of the children and avoiding the simple
fiscal pillars of living within one’s means
and a transparent accounting of its budgets.
One would be wise to note that Measure-B is trying to
extend the taxpayer squeeze for 2.8Million, when we have
been squeezed to the tune of 198Million dollars for
4500-students courtesy the grossly misrepresented Measure-G
in 2012. Our property tax bills in 2016 reflected a nearly four-fold
increase in MVW ELEM OR UNIFIED SCHOOL BONDS due to this,
which will continue past 2040.
See https://ballotpedia.org/Mountain_View_Whisman_School_District_bond_proposition,_Measure_G_(June_2012)
Without citizen action and oversight, this rot will
continue here and elsewhere into the future.