Town Square

Post a New Topic

Stogner's message to SMC voters re: Measure H $564M

Original post made by Michael G. Stogner, another community, on Oct 15, 2011

If you are a voter who does not own real estate in San Mateo County, please take a few moments to think about this before you vote to obligate those who do for a 30-40 year debt. Do you think it is fair to vote and obligate others when you don't have to pay for it. If Measure H was voted on by only the people who would be paying for it, and if it passed, that would be fair and a level playing field.

The Measure H committee has received $250,000 in donations so far. They will be contacting the voters who have nothing to lose to pass this.

I would ask you at a minimum to Not vote on Measure H. and if you feel as I do that the property owners are at a disadvantage (the $250,000 mentioned above) vote NO on Measure H.


I am a candidate for SMCCC Board.

Comments (12)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Michael G. Stogner
a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2011 at 5:29 pm

Just received my first glossy Measure H piece in the mail today.

It states Get the Facts about Measure H.

Nowhere does it mention $564,000,000

No cost per 100,000, no nothing about cost.

Good Luck property owners in San Mateo County, if this is a low turn out, they only need 55% to pass it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Taxpayer
a resident of another community
on Oct 17, 2011 at 4:43 pm

Michael:

Property owners and renters alike pay for bond measures (and parcel taxes.) It is a myth that only property owners bear the cost - property owners pass the cost on to their renters.

A more salient question is: Why do you oppose the will of the voters? Voters in San Mateo County have overwhelmingly supported both parcel taxes and bond measures. Perhaps this is because most voters in SM County believe that we have a shared obligation to provide quality public services to ourselves, our children and our neighbors?

I think that is the case, which is why I will be voting 'Yes' on Measure H.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by voter
a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Oct 17, 2011 at 11:12 pm

We won't know what the will of the voters is until after the election, will we?

The community colleges have already indebted voters to the tune of many millions of dollars. From what I have read, it appears that the colleges have not spent that money prudently. But they have little motivation to be careful with capital costs when they can always come back to the voters for more.

When I read the ballot statements, I found it interesting that the H supporters were mostly politicians. The opponents were primarily students, suggesting that this is another boondoggle supported by moneyed interests.

That impression was corroborated when I got a glossy, expensive piece in the mail from the H campaign. Someone stands to make a big profit if this passes. It's not getting my vote.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by new guy
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Oct 18, 2011 at 7:20 am

Please vote no. There is no oversight, and money has already been spent wrongly.

Please read about measure A spending and visit the PRIVATE GYM built with homeowner taxpayer money. The grand jury acknowledged that no gym was on the 468M bond but did nothing to find wrongdoing. There is no oversight, even at the highest level. Please do your homework and realize given yet another half billion will not buy "us" what we are being sold.

Web Link

Despite a state law requiring bond money to be spent only on voter-approved construction projects, a grand jury has found that the San Mateo County Community College District did not abuse public funds when it surprised voters last year with a members-only fitness club at the College of San Mateo.

By law, bond money may be spent only on projects listed in a ballot measure. But no fitness club was listed on Measure A, the college district's $468 million bond approved by voters in 2005, the grand jury acknowledged.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Taxpayer
a resident of another community
on Oct 18, 2011 at 10:02 am

Our community colleges are critical to the success of our communities. There are ample provisions in place to insure that the funds are spent per the ballot measure. And yes, of course, some folks will make money on these projects - contractors, plumbers, electricians, steel workers, consulting engineers, architects, heavy equipment operators, painters, glaziers, shall I go on? In other words, our students and communities will benefit from modernized facilities, our community will gain jobs and our infrastructure will be maintained and improved.

Or, you can go the Stogner way, and let our public institutions crumble. I don't agree with Stogner. And I am not a politician nor am I a contractor.

Yes on Measure H.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Michael G. Stogner
a resident of another community
on Oct 18, 2011 at 11:32 am

Taxpayer,

"It is a myth that only property owners bear the cost - property owners pass the cost on to their renters."

What about property owners who don't have renters?

What about property owners who are on a fixed income?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Taxpayer
a resident of another community
on Oct 18, 2011 at 1:55 pm

Mr. Stogner:

Your post indicated that it was wrong for non-property owners to obligate property owners by voting for bond measures. My point was that this is a myth - everyone is either a renter or a property owner (or both) so in every case, each person contributes, either directly or indirectly, in paying for the resultant tax.

What about property owners who are on a fixed income? There is no such thing as a fixed expense. Variations in the cost of living, whether it be the cost of food, gasoline, sales tax variations, health care, etc., are a fact of life that anyone has to deal with, whether they are on a fixed or a varying income. Many property owners who are of retirement age (and thus more likely to be on a fixed income) have owned their property for a long time and are already paying much less in property taxes than neighbors who purchased their property more recently. That was the intent of Proposition 13, was it not, to "protect" those long-term property owners? So, they benefit from reduced property valuation and thus pay less for bond measures (which are based on property valuation.)

Again, I plan to vote 'yes' on Measure H. Thank you for reminding me why.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Michael G. Stogner
a resident of another community
on Oct 18, 2011 at 9:53 pm

Just received my 2nd glossy Measure H mailer today. To prepare our future nurses,technicians, and engineers.

Again no mention of the $564,000,000 or the $13.00 per 100K assessed value for 30-40yr.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Outsider
a resident of another community
on Oct 18, 2011 at 10:58 pm

The $13 per $100K of property value does not include interest costs, right? The interest over 30 years could double the cost.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Taxpayer
a resident of another community
on Oct 19, 2011 at 11:20 am

Outside:

Please educate yourself about the bond process. The amount per $100K of assessed valuation is codified in the measure and cannot be exceeded, that is why the term is variable (30-40 year, not an exact number of years.) The District will be constrained from selling bonds if sale would result in an assessment that exceeds the amount (per 100K of assessed value) that is in the bond measure.

It does take some math to figure this out. Fortunately, there are math classes available to you at our local community colleges!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Michael G. Stogner
a resident of another community
on Oct 19, 2011 at 12:44 pm

"It does take some math to figure this out. Fortunately, there are math classes available to you at our local community colleges!"

What would be really cool is if the supporters of H would put any of this simple math in the glossy mailers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jahzebel
a resident of another community
on Nov 1, 2011 at 12:10 am

I attended both CSM and Skyline in recent years.
I have always voted for education bonds in the past.
However, this is no longer an education issue.
It's a bond for construction companies to make bank in this tough economy.
I do not have construction workers in my family.
Therefore, I cannot wait to vote this one down.
You pulled a fast one at CSM!


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Local picks on 2015 Michelin Bib Gourmand list
By Elena Kadvany | 6 comments | 3,423 views

Ode to Brussels Sprout
By Laura Stec | 20 comments | 2,617 views

Charter School Proposal Steeped In Unintended Consequences
By Erin Glanville | 46 comments | 1,945 views

Go Giants! Next Stop: World Series!
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,940 views

Measure M-- I am not drinking Greenheartís expensive potion
By Martin Lamarque | 14 comments | 609 views