News

Defeat of Prop. 15 denies schools more revenue

Menlo Park City School District office. Photo by Michelle Le

Voters have rejected a large tax increase on commercial properties, depriving schools of what could have been a significant source of revenue. Backers of Proposition 15, the first major effort to revise the iconic tax limitation initiative, Proposition 13, since its passage in 1978, conceded defeat on Tuesday.

Although 1.5 million votes, about 10% of the total cast, remain to be counted, Prop. 15 has remained narrowly behind, with the margin of difference about the same as on Election Day: 48.2% for, 51.8% against.

The defeat leaves schools and community college without a prospect of additional long-term revenue while they're facing a pandemic that has hit low-income communities particularly hard, and potentially years of funding cuts and slow economic growth.

The initiative would have provided an estimated $2.5 billion to $4.5 billion annually statewide to schools and community out of an estimated $10.3 billion to $12.6 billion in revenue, with the rest going to cities and counties where the commercial properties are located.

The new revenue promised by Prop. 15 would not have provided any relief right away, however. The funding would have been phased in over five years, starting in 2022-23 -- a fact that both supporters and opponents underplayed in ads that emphasized immediate benefits or dire consequences.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Almanac Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

Nonetheless, Pedro Noguera, dean of the USC Rossier School of Education, called Prop. 15's defeat "a significant loss."

"We had a chance to really move California forward in per pupil spending," Noguera said on EdSource's most recent podcast. "We have made some progress, but at best we're in the middle of the pack now. We could do so much more and this has implications for California's future."

Dozens of prominent California Democrats announced their support, but Noguera said the lack of an identifiable spokesperson hurt the cause. Gov. Gavin Newsom nominally backed the initiative but didn't campaign for it -- unlike former Gov. Jerry Brown, who led the successful effort in 2012 to pass Prop. 30. It generated billions of dollars in additional temporary sales and income taxes.

Prop. 15 was an expensive and contentious campaign pitting Schools and Communities First, a coalition of community, religious and advocacy groups, and public service unions led by the California Teachers Association, against business and real estate interests, including the California Business Roundtable, the California Chamber of Commerce and the anti-tax California Taxpayers Association.

Next to Prop. 22, the successful $220-plus million mega-fight by Uber, Lyft and DoorDash to establish their drivers as private contractors, not company employees, Prop. 15 was the second-most expensive initiative, with more than $140 million raised. The No on Prop. 15 ended with a modest edge in money.

Prop. 15 would have changed rules for assessing properties for commercial and industrial properties while leaving Prop. 13's provisions for homes and all apartments intact. That's why it was referred to as a "split-roll" tax.

Under Prop. 13, the taxable value of a property can increase a maximum of 2% annually, and properties can be reassessed only when sold. Prop. 15 called for reassessing commercial properties every three years. Since some large commercial properties hadn't reassessed in decades, their taxes might have risen multifold, particularly in the Bay Area and parts of Los Angeles.

Losers take heart, winners feel vindicated

Proponents were unbowed in acknowledging defeat.

"Nobody said it would be easy, but the Schools & Communities First coalition took on this fight for the right reasons -- to address our state's most pressing challenges and inequities by investing in Californians," said Alex Stack, spokesman of Yes on Prop. 15. "Against all odds, Prop. 15 made history by taking on the status quo to ensure California becomes a more prosperous and equitable state for everyone."

Elisha Smith Arrillaga, executive director of the advocacy organization Education Trust-West echoed that sentiment. "Schools lack the financial resources necessary to provide a high-quality learning environment for all students. Prop 15 presented an opportunity to reimagine how educational resources are directed rather than maintain the status quo," she wrote in a statement.

California Teachers Association president E. Toby Boyd said he was heartened by the strength of the grassroots coalition that organized to pass Prop. 15. "We came very close, but we demonstrated the power of democracy in action. We demonstrated the difference we can make for ourselves and the next generation. That alone is a victory."

Opponents said the defeat proved their point.

"The one thing we did learn is that Prop 13 is still the third rail of California politics. You touch it even peripherally and you die."

-Bob Blattner, Sacramento-based consultant and a school finance expert

"From day one, we knew that if voters understood the harm this deeply flawed tax hike would impose on California's economy and its families, farmers and small businesses, voters would reject this ill-advised effort," said Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable and co-chair of the No on Prop 15 campaign. "Today's victory should send a clear message to the proponents and warn all politicians that voters will continue to reject attempts to dismantle Prop 13."

Added Rex Hime, president and CEO of the California Business Properties Association, "Small businesses and property owners now have the opportunity to focus on making ends meet instead of formulating plans to close their doors. Every tax gets passed along or increases the cost of everyday goods and services. And that was certainly the case with Prop. 15."

In several polls preceding the vote, support for Prop. 15 was just shy or slightly above 50%. But a rush of "No On 15" ads in the final weeks may have swayed wavering voters. Prop. 15 would have exempted owners of commercial properties valued less than $3 million.

But small business owners in ads said the increased property taxes would be passed on to them in rents at a time when they're already suffering losses due to COVID 19. Other ads falsely claimed Prop. 15 would equal a $900 tax increase for every family in the state.

Prop. 15's defeat will likely discourage future efforts to change Prop. 13 -- though it may not hold the same sway among young and middle-age voters born after its passage.

A more palatable version of Prop. 15, further raising the exemption for small business, with a tradeoff of less revenue, could rise again someday. But Bob Blattner, a Sacramento-based consultant and a school finance expert, dismissed that as unlikely.

"The one thing we did learn is that Prop 13 is still the third rail of California politics," he said. "You touch it even peripherally and you die."

Ryan Smith, chief external officer for the L.A. Partnership for Schools, said that he hopes that the defeat of Prop. 15 will create the conditions for a more constructive dialog with the business community.

"We have an economic imperative to ensure that our schools and communities are funded well because they are the future of our labor force," he said. "Our business partners should come to the table with our community-based partners and many others so that we can have a discussion about what's the long-term interest of the state."

With Prop. 15's defeat, many public school advocates will look to Washington for a significant federal bailout for schools, especially since CARES Act funding approved by Congress last March must all be spent by December. But the poor showing of Democrats in U.S. Senate races has dimmed those prospects.

"I think that most people believed that a Democratic trifecta, meaning a unified government where the Senate, the House and the presidency were all in same hands, was not only most likely but also would provide the most resources for schools," said Blattner. "That's looking pretty unlikely now."

USC's Noguera essentially agreed. "Education is still largely the state's responsibility," he said. "So we have to look to the state Legislature and to Gov. Newsom for some new ideas and new approaches to improve funding for our schools."

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Follow AlmanacNews.com and The Almanac on Twitter @almanacnews, Facebook and on Instagram @almanacnews for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Defeat of Prop. 15 denies schools more revenue

by /

Uploaded: Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 2:25 pm

Voters have rejected a large tax increase on commercial properties, depriving schools of what could have been a significant source of revenue. Backers of Proposition 15, the first major effort to revise the iconic tax limitation initiative, Proposition 13, since its passage in 1978, conceded defeat on Tuesday.

Although 1.5 million votes, about 10% of the total cast, remain to be counted, Prop. 15 has remained narrowly behind, with the margin of difference about the same as on Election Day: 48.2% for, 51.8% against.

The defeat leaves schools and community college without a prospect of additional long-term revenue while they're facing a pandemic that has hit low-income communities particularly hard, and potentially years of funding cuts and slow economic growth.

The initiative would have provided an estimated $2.5 billion to $4.5 billion annually statewide to schools and community out of an estimated $10.3 billion to $12.6 billion in revenue, with the rest going to cities and counties where the commercial properties are located.

The new revenue promised by Prop. 15 would not have provided any relief right away, however. The funding would have been phased in over five years, starting in 2022-23 -- a fact that both supporters and opponents underplayed in ads that emphasized immediate benefits or dire consequences.

Nonetheless, Pedro Noguera, dean of the USC Rossier School of Education, called Prop. 15's defeat "a significant loss."

"We had a chance to really move California forward in per pupil spending," Noguera said on EdSource's most recent podcast. "We have made some progress, but at best we're in the middle of the pack now. We could do so much more and this has implications for California's future."

Dozens of prominent California Democrats announced their support, but Noguera said the lack of an identifiable spokesperson hurt the cause. Gov. Gavin Newsom nominally backed the initiative but didn't campaign for it -- unlike former Gov. Jerry Brown, who led the successful effort in 2012 to pass Prop. 30. It generated billions of dollars in additional temporary sales and income taxes.

Prop. 15 was an expensive and contentious campaign pitting Schools and Communities First, a coalition of community, religious and advocacy groups, and public service unions led by the California Teachers Association, against business and real estate interests, including the California Business Roundtable, the California Chamber of Commerce and the anti-tax California Taxpayers Association.

Next to Prop. 22, the successful $220-plus million mega-fight by Uber, Lyft and DoorDash to establish their drivers as private contractors, not company employees, Prop. 15 was the second-most expensive initiative, with more than $140 million raised. The No on Prop. 15 ended with a modest edge in money.

Prop. 15 would have changed rules for assessing properties for commercial and industrial properties while leaving Prop. 13's provisions for homes and all apartments intact. That's why it was referred to as a "split-roll" tax.

Under Prop. 13, the taxable value of a property can increase a maximum of 2% annually, and properties can be reassessed only when sold. Prop. 15 called for reassessing commercial properties every three years. Since some large commercial properties hadn't reassessed in decades, their taxes might have risen multifold, particularly in the Bay Area and parts of Los Angeles.

Losers take heart, winners feel vindicated

Proponents were unbowed in acknowledging defeat.

"Nobody said it would be easy, but the Schools & Communities First coalition took on this fight for the right reasons -- to address our state's most pressing challenges and inequities by investing in Californians," said Alex Stack, spokesman of Yes on Prop. 15. "Against all odds, Prop. 15 made history by taking on the status quo to ensure California becomes a more prosperous and equitable state for everyone."

Elisha Smith Arrillaga, executive director of the advocacy organization Education Trust-West echoed that sentiment. "Schools lack the financial resources necessary to provide a high-quality learning environment for all students. Prop 15 presented an opportunity to reimagine how educational resources are directed rather than maintain the status quo," she wrote in a statement.

California Teachers Association president E. Toby Boyd said he was heartened by the strength of the grassroots coalition that organized to pass Prop. 15. "We came very close, but we demonstrated the power of democracy in action. We demonstrated the difference we can make for ourselves and the next generation. That alone is a victory."

Opponents said the defeat proved their point.

"From day one, we knew that if voters understood the harm this deeply flawed tax hike would impose on California's economy and its families, farmers and small businesses, voters would reject this ill-advised effort," said Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable and co-chair of the No on Prop 15 campaign. "Today's victory should send a clear message to the proponents and warn all politicians that voters will continue to reject attempts to dismantle Prop 13."

Added Rex Hime, president and CEO of the California Business Properties Association, "Small businesses and property owners now have the opportunity to focus on making ends meet instead of formulating plans to close their doors. Every tax gets passed along or increases the cost of everyday goods and services. And that was certainly the case with Prop. 15."

In several polls preceding the vote, support for Prop. 15 was just shy or slightly above 50%. But a rush of "No On 15" ads in the final weeks may have swayed wavering voters. Prop. 15 would have exempted owners of commercial properties valued less than $3 million.

But small business owners in ads said the increased property taxes would be passed on to them in rents at a time when they're already suffering losses due to COVID 19. Other ads falsely claimed Prop. 15 would equal a $900 tax increase for every family in the state.

Prop. 15's defeat will likely discourage future efforts to change Prop. 13 -- though it may not hold the same sway among young and middle-age voters born after its passage.

A more palatable version of Prop. 15, further raising the exemption for small business, with a tradeoff of less revenue, could rise again someday. But Bob Blattner, a Sacramento-based consultant and a school finance expert, dismissed that as unlikely.

"The one thing we did learn is that Prop 13 is still the third rail of California politics," he said. "You touch it even peripherally and you die."

Ryan Smith, chief external officer for the L.A. Partnership for Schools, said that he hopes that the defeat of Prop. 15 will create the conditions for a more constructive dialog with the business community.

"We have an economic imperative to ensure that our schools and communities are funded well because they are the future of our labor force," he said. "Our business partners should come to the table with our community-based partners and many others so that we can have a discussion about what's the long-term interest of the state."

With Prop. 15's defeat, many public school advocates will look to Washington for a significant federal bailout for schools, especially since CARES Act funding approved by Congress last March must all be spent by December. But the poor showing of Democrats in U.S. Senate races has dimmed those prospects.

"I think that most people believed that a Democratic trifecta, meaning a unified government where the Senate, the House and the presidency were all in same hands, was not only most likely but also would provide the most resources for schools," said Blattner. "That's looking pretty unlikely now."

USC's Noguera essentially agreed. "Education is still largely the state's responsibility," he said. "So we have to look to the state Legislature and to Gov. Newsom for some new ideas and new approaches to improve funding for our schools."

Comments

Enough
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Nov 12, 2020 at 8:29 pm
Enough, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Nov 12, 2020 at 8:29 pm
66 people like this

Local schools have been trying to squeeze more money out of residents for years, there are Bond measure after bond measure for the Elementary district, the High school district and the community Colleges. Then there are the Parcel taxes that they keep putting on the ballot which get approved more often than not. Let's not forget the increase in property tax revenue when property changes hands (Property tax revenue in San Mateo County has been going up over 7% for the last 5 years) Menlo Park and Atherton even more. How much do the schools want or need and where is this money going? There are not more students than there were 5 years ago.


Corporate Welfare
Registered user
Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Nov 13, 2020 at 11:01 am
Corporate Welfare, Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
Registered user
on Nov 13, 2020 at 11:01 am
99 people like this

So large landowners like Disneyland keep getting a free ride, while new businesses get saddled with MUCH higher property taxes.

Disneyland, built in the 50/60's is part of a 7 billion dollar revenue *per year* operation, pays next to nothing in property taxes.

Corporate welfare.


Samuel Y
Registered user
Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Nov 13, 2020 at 1:36 pm
Samuel Y, Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
Registered user
on Nov 13, 2020 at 1:36 pm
44 people like this

Perhaps the proponents can revise the proposition. The strongest argument against was that old commercial properties that are paying a very low tax rate, when they are reassessed to current levels, would see their taxes increase dramatically, and hence would pass it along to their tenants. Well, instead of reassessing them to current levels in one fell swoop, you instead just lift the cap on commercial properties from 2% to say 6%. Then they see their tax payments rise gradually and it won't affect their small business tenants and consumer prices as much.


Enough
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Nov 13, 2020 at 6:03 pm
Enough, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Nov 13, 2020 at 6:03 pm
91 people like this

Frankly I don't think the state needs to start taxing property owners more for any reason. Revenues for schools have been increasing rapidly with the higher valuations on property in our area. Just look at the rise in Property tes revenue over the past decade (more than 8% last year). That is pouring money into the schools. If they need more maybe the state can increase the allocation percentage of property tax revenue to schools. Raising it on commercial property seems like a good idea on the surface but it will increase rents on small businesses and that means residents will end up paying higher prices. given that our Sales taxes are increasing to support CalTrain and there is talk about raising bridge tolls this will just be another hit to everyone's pocket book. When do we say enough is enough?


lmmp
Registered user
Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Nov 15, 2020 at 9:56 am
lmmp, Menlo Park: Felton Gables
Registered user
on Nov 15, 2020 at 9:56 am
19 people like this

Disney paid about 55 million in property tax on Disneyland last year. Maybe it would be a little higher at fair market but they are not paying nothing.


Local Parent
Registered user
Menlo Park: Downtown
on Nov 15, 2020 at 11:33 am
Local Parent, Menlo Park: Downtown
Registered user
on Nov 15, 2020 at 11:33 am
64 people like this

I heard through various local conversations that most voters want something to change with Prop 13, especially for commercial entities that have been getting a free ride, but that there were concerns with this specific prop.

PLEASE go revise the prop again to something that will pass.

There are too many commercial loopholes allowing businesses to never pay their fair share. He with the best lawyers is winning, not the people.


Local Parent
Registered user
Menlo Park: Downtown
on Nov 15, 2020 at 11:41 am
Local Parent, Menlo Park: Downtown
Registered user
on Nov 15, 2020 at 11:41 am
66 people like this

And as to the comments on school funding...
1) the costs to maintain/improve facilities has grown radically in the last decades. Existing taxes don't cover it.
2) we have wildly unfair property tax situation where some school districts have 15K or more to spend per student and others have less than 10K. Is that fair and appropriate? Hell no. California schools have less funding per student than many other states... in a state where everything costs 2X as much.

Here are the 10 states with the highest per pupil spending:

New York ($23,091)
Connecticut ($19,322)
New Jersey ($18,920)
Vermont ($18,290)
Alaska ($17,838)
Wyoming ($16,537)
Massachusetts ($16,197)
Rhode Island ($15,943)
Pennsylvania ($15,798)
New Hampshire ($15,683)

California is closer to the bottom at $ 12,142

San Mateo 2017-18 expenditure statistics (per student):
Bayshore Elementary, $12,924
Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary, $11,019
Hillsborough City Elementary, $19,790
Jefferson Elementary, $11,930
Jefferson Union High, $12,615
Las Lomitas Elementary, $19,384
Menlo Park City Elementary, $16,583
Millbrae Elementary $9,859
Pacifica Elementary, $10,179
Portola Valley Elementary, $24,337
Ravenswood City Elementary, $17,993
Redwood City, Elementary, $12,834
San Bruno Park Elementary, $10,853
San Carlos Elementary, $12,296
San Mateo Union High, $17,787
San Mateo-Foster City Elementary, $11,503
Sequoia Union High, $17,546
South San Francisco Unified $11,520
Woodside Elementary, $25,025


Brian
Registered user
Menlo Park: The Willows
on Nov 15, 2020 at 3:14 pm
Brian, Menlo Park: The Willows
Registered user
on Nov 15, 2020 at 3:14 pm
31 people like this

Local Parent,

I disagree that "most voters want something to change with Prop 13" everyone I have spoken to wants Prop 13 left alone. Raising property on commercial buildings means raising rent on businesses which means we end up paying more for everything we buy locally.

Improving facilities, what like building the PAC at MA which was a huge waste of money. Schools continue to pass bond measure after bond measure that we all end up paying for to upgrade their facilities. We are also paying for Parcel taxes that go to the schools now you want to raise property taxes. When do we say enough is enough? As I pointed out property tax revenues for San Mateo are already growing, and have been for years, are a much higher than inflation rate. During this time the number of students is not increasing by anywhere near the same percentage. The result is more money spent per student and if that is not the case someone needs to look at the school books and find out where that money is going to.

"we have wildly unfair property tax situation where some school districts have 15K or more to spend per student and others have less than 10K. Is that fair and appropriate? Hell no"
That is how it works, Menlo Park School District does not get funding from the state, all their funding comes from property taxes. Other districts that do not get as much from property tax get funding from the state. People are willing to pay the high housing prices and the corresponding high property tax because they want to be in this district. That is their choice.


David B
Registered user
Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Nov 17, 2020 at 2:15 pm
David B, Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
Registered user
on Nov 17, 2020 at 2:15 pm
103 people like this

I'm amused by the headline "...denies schools more revenue". Sort of like "Voter decision to cook dinner at home denies revenue to restaurant".

PS: Only 40% of the Prop 15 money would have gone to schools.


sr21
Registered user
Atherton: other
on Nov 17, 2020 at 6:01 pm
sr21, Atherton: other
Registered user
on Nov 17, 2020 at 6:01 pm
5 people like this

The 750 million spent by both sides on all these ballot measures could be given to the schools every two years. Every one of the propositions was driven by the unions. Prop 22 and 23 where massive amounts of money were spent. Hmmm. Wonder if these propositions help their pocketbooks? Prop 13 for commercial actually helps the unions that are in the building trades.Hopefully they realize that It gives enough certainty to the developers to actually build a project. There are two sides to every issue. Certainly the yes on 15 have some valid points. But so do the no on 15 voters.


ReadMyHips
Registered user
Menlo-Atherton High School
on Nov 17, 2020 at 6:19 pm
ReadMyHips, Menlo-Atherton High School
Registered user
on Nov 17, 2020 at 6:19 pm
73 people like this

As someone who as battled the "tax everything, tax often, tax at as high a rate as possible without inciting revolution" crowd, it does my heart good to see a relatively reasoned thread of comments. My thoughts:

* As expected, someone pulled the 'prop 13' card. Here are the facts:

1: Prop 13 has never, ever redirect even 1 cent away from schools. Not. One. Cent. People that think so are simply misinformed. Prop 13 has absolutely NO ROLE in apportionment, and it's the apportionment in state assembly bill 8 ("AB8") that ACTUALLY took money away from schools...NOT Prop 13. The Assembly/State/Governor can fix the apportionment WHENEVER THEY WANT.

2: Property tax revenue in California, since the full enforcement of Prop 13 took effect, has grown at more than 7%/year on average for the last 40+ years. To put that revenue growth in perspective, that's higher than inflation and higher than the state's GDP growth. Collectively, property tax revenue is a cash cow in California.

3: While I'm pro-prop13, it's not perfect and I'd be receptive to changes provided those changes included the following:

a: I'm onboard with a split role, but the split shouldn't result in yearly reassessments for all commercial properties. Instead, just give commercial properties a higher cap than residential (another post mentioned the same thing, and I agree).

b: Any increases in property tax revenue must include a reduction in sales tax rates. The 9%, 10%+ sales tax rates are insane and regressive.

c: The abolishment of parcel taxes.


Local Parent
Registered user
Menlo Park: Downtown
on Nov 17, 2020 at 9:06 pm
Local Parent, Menlo Park: Downtown
Registered user
on Nov 17, 2020 at 9:06 pm
5 people like this

Dear Brian,
At the moment 59 people agree that something needs to change with prop 13 vs. 7 agreeing with you.

This highly unscientific survey tells us 89% of people that read the comment so far support the hypothesis that something needs to change.

And prop 15 narrowly failed with 52% of the vote to the 48% that supported it. 8 million people in California wanted it to change vs. 8.7m that didn't support this specific bill. I suspect the next version will pass.

May the best bill win, rather than the best lawyers.


Brian
Registered user
Menlo Park: The Willows
on Nov 18, 2020 at 9:47 am
Brian, Menlo Park: The Willows
Registered user
on Nov 18, 2020 at 9:47 am
37 people like this

Local Parent,

I somehow doubt that your "likes" really matter. The voters rejected Prop 15 and I am confident that, regardless of the misinformation that Anti Prop 13 people disgorge, the next one will also fail. I do find it interesting that no one is saying why the schools need more money. As I said property tax revenue has been growing every year by significant amounts (I wish I could get that rate on my accounts), Districts continue to pass parcel taxes, districts continue to pass huge bond measure for "Campus improvements" year after year. People are getting tired of being taxed from every side. Take a look at every dollar you earn and see how much of that you actually get, it is pitiful. No wonder people are leaving California in droves. Yes it is expensive to live here but the tax you pay on top of the higher cost of living is getting ridiculous. Having to pay more because small businesses are having to cover higher rents to pay higher property tax is not the answer. Figure out where the current money is being spend and insure it is not being wasted, that should be the first step.


RanchGal
Registered user
Atherton: West Atherton
on Nov 18, 2020 at 12:50 pm
RanchGal, Atherton: West Atherton
Registered user
on Nov 18, 2020 at 12:50 pm
77 people like this

I voted NO on Prop 19 because as to my understanding of “commercial real estate” non-profits like YMCA and the like would be re-assessed driving up membership fees to outrageous amounts.
NO MORE TAXES !
I only voted yes on the California State Lottery years ago because it promised to fund the schools. Lie, lie, lie.......


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Nov 18, 2020 at 7:22 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Nov 18, 2020 at 7:22 pm
60 people like this

If schools don't have enough money it is because the state is not giving them enough. Clearly the money is there. One only need look at the revenues collected in property taxes even after Prop 13 and it is clear there is plenty of money. If you want the schools to get more money tell your representative and demand the state start allocating more of the funds collected to the schools. The state has been stealing money from our schools for decades.


RanchGal
Registered user
Atherton: West Atherton
on Nov 19, 2020 at 12:45 pm
RanchGal, Atherton: West Atherton
Registered user
on Nov 19, 2020 at 12:45 pm
5 people like this

I meant “I voted NO on Prop 15
Sorry I could not edit...


So Tired
Registered user
Portola Valley: Brookside Park
on Nov 20, 2020 at 12:39 pm
So Tired, Portola Valley: Brookside Park
Registered user
on Nov 20, 2020 at 12:39 pm
10 people like this

Maybe the schools could stretch the dollars better if they started maintaining the properties in a better way, instead of deciding that complete rebuilds are in order. Redoing recent remodels of playgrounds and soccer fields because they were installed incorrectly, or plans changed and now they want to build something where they just put down some super special type of playground material. Poor planning + ego + too much money + keeping up with the Joneses = enormous amounts of wasted money that could be used in such a better way.

Prioritize the teachers' welfare---and ask them how. Prioritize the kids' welfare---extend lunch hour, so kids don't have to inhale food or choose between eating and running around at the elementary and middle school level. Supervise much more tightly to stamp out the insidious kid bullying (especially at the middle school level) and parent bullying (elementary and middle school). Get rid of known, much-reported teachers who are incapable of doing their jobs (high school level) and can't even be bothered to correct homework.

Local school systems have lost tons of local parent support financially, because we all have become numb to the constant ask, ask, ask----with no improvement in the core issues facing our schools.




pogo
Registered user
Woodside: other
on Nov 21, 2020 at 11:34 am
pogo, Woodside: other
Registered user
on Nov 21, 2020 at 11:34 am
5 people like this

Remarkable that 97 PEOPLE "liked" David B's post that took exception to this very misleading headline.

It's bad enough that California elected officials misname propositions to DELIBERATELY mislead voters.


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

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.