While I am waiting for the first person to step forward with a proposal that cuts six million from the school district’s budget, I have read the comments from the last few days and frankly I am appalled by some of the arguments used in the debate, particularly by people who ought to know better.
As they say, all are entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts.
What? The person who wrote this should know better. The General Fund cannot cover any debt payments for the projects that are funded through CFD (community facilities district), which is facilities money, an entirely different animal.
We can certainly argue about what the district priorities should have been. I think a compelling case could be made that the district should have prioritized Emerson or even the High School Multipurpose room over the high school stadium.
I would also say that, having observed the old facility, it also represented a danger to a lot of students.
That is fine, and reasonable people can disagree on which project should come forward. However, there are facts involved here and the money that went to the DHS Stadium could not have been used to pay salaries, as it did not come from the general fund.
The writer adds, “I wonder how much of this bond measure would be necessary if the Board were more fiscally prudent?”
All of the bond measure would have been necessary unless we want to go all the way back to a different board and a different administration and argue that wasted expenses on King High and other projects could have avoided having to take out bonds for current facilities. But that is a stretch, to say the least.
When called on it, the person comes back with, “But that begs the question of fiscal priorities. I will go on record there. For instance, why prioritize a sports facility over academic facilities?”
The person continues, “Why were these CFD funds not directed towards the decrepit high school MPR renovation which was slated to happen when the rest of the high school was redone? Why were these funds not used to renovate Emerson Jr High?”
The person then goes on to talk about the problems facing Emerson. Fair enough. That is that person’s opinion, and he or she is entitled to it.
However, let us not pretend that they could have spend facilities money in the classroom. Let us not pretend that fiscal prudence somehow would have led to them being able to do these repairs without taking out bonds.
In my opinion and in that of the district’s engineers and site evaluators, while Emerson certainly has problems that will need repair, the school is structurally safe. The stadium was a safety risk. It was. I was walked on the facility and it was a huge risk.
I see the same arguments coming up all day. One argument made is that the district did not support our children and instead “threw them under a bus.”
How did they do that? First, according to one poster, by closing Valley Oak.
I opposed the closing of Valley Oak. I still do. But guess what, the kids who would be hurt the most by the failure to pass this parcel tax are the very same kids who went to Valley Oak. So how is the closure of Valley Oak a reason to vote against Measure A?
Second, there is still some resentment over the discussions about closing Emerson Junior High. I was at the special meeting at Emerson until late in the night three years ago.
It was a proposal that would have saved the district $600,000 at a time when over 100 teachers were facing layoffs. It did not make sense to me to close the school. When the district evaluated it, it did not make sense to them either.
The geography of Davis precludes it and it would have been a logistical nightmare.
One thing I think people fail to understand from 2008 is that the district was really in an emergency situation at that time. They had a very short period of time and had just hired a new superintendent, and thus had not done the long-term planning that they have now.
As much as a six million cut would be serious now, the heartache will be far less simply because the district knows its budget so much better.
There were a number of proposals, including closing Da Vinci and cutting music, that probably will not re-surface now simply because of the community response and the analysis that the district has done.
I will address a couple more points. First, there is a suggestion that the district “failed to inform citizens about the dire situation of the MPR before they received donations for the stadium – showing the district will hide key details of the school situation from the public- then ask that public for more cash.”
There is no evidence that any of that is true and the person who posts it fails to offer any. That is an example of opinion not based on any known or at least articulated facts.
Finally, there is the claim that Measure A is going to cause apartment complexes to raise their rents to cover the cost.
The additional cost per unit is $20 PER YEAR. That means if the owners of an apartment complex want to pass the cost forward, it would be somewhere around $1.70 per month. That is not much cost to have to be concerned about.
I have rented for the a number of years, and our rental rates have not risen in at least six years. That covers the time through two parcel taxes. The rental rates are largely market-driven. As the economy has worsened, the vacancy rate has eased up.
So in response to that concern, it seems very unlikely that the apartment owners would raise their rates due to the $20 per apartment per year parcel tax. And if they did, it would amount to $20 per year, or $1.70 per month.
I do not think that is cause for much alarm, but then again that is just my opinion.
There are legitimate reasons to vote for and against this measure, but there is a lot of misinformation going around and as we reported earlier this week, a lot of people have not even looked up the laws that mandate how money can be raised for schools. People should know better and perhaps that is the most disappointing part of it all.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“I have rented for the a number of years, and our rental rates have not risen in at least six years. That covers the time through two parcel taxes.”
Lucky you David that you rent from a landlord that hasn’t raised rates in six years. So in my opinion you’re advocating for a measure that someone else is going to have to pay for, how is that fair? Now you’re writing that “it seems very unlikely that the apartment owners would raise their rates” so in essence this tells other renters that they won’t have skin in the game either so go ahead and vote yes because someone else will have to pay for it. At least Dunning had a $200 stake when he voiced his opinion.
I would vote yes if I had to pay for it as well. In fact, in past years, I have donated more than that to the schools anyway.
Sorry but there is no requirement that I have to pay in order to vote for the measure. The schools need the money. If you don’t like the law, change Prop 13.
At least when the argument was being made that rents would be raised everyone had a monetary stake in the measure unless you were a senior. But thank you David for pointing out that is not true.
I’m going to take a slightly different tack. I resent the “silo” method of funding. It is the excuse various gov’t agencies use to spend money freely w/o repercussions. Their refrain: oh, that is “facilities funding” – it cannot not be used for “operating expenses” is the common excuse (as in the article above). Silo-ing funding is what is killing our federal, state and local gov’ts ability to be fiscally responsible. It is what allows needless schools to be built – the facilities money is there, even if there is not enough in the way of operating expenses to fund the new facilities built. Interestingly, the judges around CA objected to just this sort of “silo” effect, complaining the state was building new courthouses as it was laying off court personnel. The judges were asking that the money for new courthouses be transferred to pay to keep court personnel working rather than paying for new courthouses that could not be manned with court personnel. Perhaps it is time to stop putting funding in “silos” and put it towards what is really needed right now – JOBS – keeping people employed.
Secondly, I just don’t understand why anyone would think castigating others for holding a different opinion than the proponents of Measure A is in any way helpful to the passage of Measure A. Insinuating that detractors of Measure A are somehow ignorant, uninformed, etc ad nauseum is not helping the Measure A cause. There are valid reasons on both sides of this issue to vote either way – so let people vote their conscience in peace w/o all the perjoratives for heaven’s sake! Just my opinion for greater civility 🙂
Examples of perjoratives used in the above article:
“they are not entitled to their own set of facts.”
“Wrote someone who ought to know better”
“The person who wrote this should know better”
“But that is a stretch, to say the least.”
“One thing I think people fail to understand”
“There is no evidence that any of that is true and the person who posts it fails to offer any. That is an example of opinion not based on any known or at least articulated facts.”
“a lot of people have not even looked up the laws”
“People should know better and perhaps that is the most disappointing part of it all.”
Elaine: It is also misinformation to suggest that the stadium was built at the expense of teachers’ jobs. If you can explain how CFD funds can pay for teachers’ salaries, I want to know. We in Davis have to work as best we can within the confines of those rules.
wdf1: “Elaine: It is also misinformation to suggest that the stadium was built at the expense of teachers’ jobs. If you can explain how CFD funds can pay for teachers’ salaries, I want to know. We in Davis have to work as best we can within the confines of those rules.”
The point can be made w/o the perjoratives, no?
[i]The point can be made w/o the perjoratives, no?[/i]
I agree. I do my best, but I do get frustrated at times.
David ,
“””””While I am waiting for the first person to step forward with a proposal that cuts six million from the school district’s budget, “”””‘
Simple , cut 6 million worth of teachers , and then work with what you got left .
Good idea Avatar. By my calculations $6 million dollars comes to about 90 teachers. The district has 350 teachers overall. So you are advocating cutting one quarter of teachers.
Avatar: [i]Simple , cut 6 million worth of teachers , and then work with what you got left.[/i]
And possibly space issues in most classrooms since you’re dealing with class sizes of 40 and above. I can see that we will need the fire marshalls out at all 14-15 sites to figure out where and how to [s]store[/s] seat students. I wonder if that means the city will have to increase the budget of the fire department…
“comments from the last few days and frankly I am appalled by some of the arguments used in the debate, particularly by people who ought to know better.”
I couldn’t agree more with that statement. but since we’re all getting on our self-righteous high horses:
DMG: I see the same arguments coming up all day.
so do I.
DMG: One argument made is that the district did not support our children and instead “threw them under a bus.”
How did they do that? First, according to one poster, by closing Valley Oak. I opposed the closing of Valley Oak. I still do. But guess what, the kids who would be hurt the most by the failure to pass this parcel tax are the very same kids who went to Valley Oak. So how is the closure of Valley Oak a reason to vote against Measure A?
I’ll tell you PRECISELY WHAT VALLEY OAK has to do with measure A. THe same district that made a reckless financial decision at the students expense will be the same board that controls the purse strings on the measure A parcel tax. THe same board that pleads ignorance of the state of affairs of the MPR to excuse their stadium move, now wants more control of our money. the same district that will say, “give me money, help our children” will try to close their school once the tax is approved. and who is kidding who, the emerson stunt was not a “discussion” because enough people (including yourself) protested what they thought was inevitable.
so, 40 teachers or so will be laid off if the tax does not pass? suppose it does pass. then what? everything will be all right? no, we’ll be back to square one, and the district will threaten to lay off 40 more next year if we do not pass their next increase (its financial blackmail) and how long are we going to continue this? how many more years is this going to go on before someone calls it quits?
so you are appalled? I am appalled that someone looks the other way on the school boards behavior to soak other people, then talks about concern for taxpayers in the next breath.
Musser: [i]how long are we going to continue this?[/i]
That depends on what happens to the economy. Statewide, employment is picking up, and more revenue will likely be collected on 2011 income tax receipts than they were for 2010. Government tax receipts are a lagging indicator in an economic recovery.
“failed to inform citizens about the dire situation of the MPR before they received donations for the stadium – showing the district will hide key details of the school situation from the public- then ask that public for more cash.”
DMG: There is no evidence that any of that is true and the person who posts it fails to offer any.
so which is it DMG? did the school board know about the condition of the mpr or not? if they didn’t know they should have, and if they did know….. then what? are you going to argue with a straight face they informed the public about the dire state of the MPR and asked for the cssh before the stadium?
Increasing class size and instituting teaching assistants, paid or
parent volunteers would not be the “end of the world”. The Davis Spanish Imersion Parents Assoc. stepped up and ran a great program,in its early years, WITHOUT the assistance/adequate funding(or effective control,on the positive side)of the District Administration . It CAN BE DONE! The historic culture of arrogance and political self-preservation exuded by the School District administration and current Board members School Board members has nurtured a “credibility gap” with the voters.
[i]Increasing class size and instituting teaching assistants, paid or
parent volunteers would not be the “end of the world”.[/i]
What loss in student performance is acceptable to you under your plan?
Musser: If you’re concerned about the MPR vs. Stadium funding, then start by researching the Dec. 18, 2008 school board meeting. Superintendent Hammond and the school board commissioned a facilities master plan to evaluate the condition of all buildings in the district, assess potential maintenance and upgrades, and make recommendations for which facilities to address first. The top three priorities presented at that meeting were Emerson, DHS MPR, and the DHS Stadium. Hammond recommended upgrading the stadium first and the board agreed. Shortly after that the board approved funding for the stadium. With the facilities master plan, the DHS MPR was deemed a high priority, but was not determined to have the problems that eventually developed.
Elaine:
I fail to understand how it pejorative to point out that people are posting things, and this really includes you, will out a good sense of the law. You point out the silo approach. You are welcome to change the law. But right now, by law, money for teachers comes from a different revenue source as money for facilities.
But let’s say you were right (which you are not), let’s say the district could get money from CFD, which are bonds, and use it on teachers, are you recommending the district go into debt in order to avoid raising taxes and avoiding firing teachers?
“did the school board know about the condition of the mpr or not?”
Why don’t you do as WDF suggests and look up the staff reports from when this issue came up and then read the facility reports. The answer is that the district did prioritize the MPR but the problems that later occurred were not identified at the time they made the decision. This is the equivalent of knowing that you need to replace the fuel pump on the car, waiting until you have the money for that part, and suddenly the transmission gives out. Obviously you could not have foreseen the second problem and it had nothing to do with deferred maintenance on the first. But you need to go look this up for yourself before you cast allegations at people.
several readers have weighed in, and said he same thing.
DMG: “I think a compelling case could be made that the district should have prioritized Emerson or even the High School Multipurpose room over the high school stadium.”
sorry DMG, even you appear to agree the district did not do the right thing here, and you saw the staff reports. now you want to take it back because I am able to use it to argue my point about measure A.
in regards to your other point about mingling funds or what have you, the davis schools foundation is not bound by those paramaters – raised a lot of money, money that went to constructing that stadium which could have been saved for those salaries, money that is now lost.
dmg: “I fail to understand how it pejorative to point out that people are posting things, and this really includes you, will out a good sense of the law. You point out the silo approach. You are welcome to change the law. But right now, by law, money for teachers comes from a different revenue source as money for facilities.”
Read carefully what I wrote: “I resent the “silo” method of funding.”
Now how could you possibly take that to mean there is no silo method of funding, and therefore facilities money can be spent for operating expenses?
I’m going to make a comment here that I hope you will take in the kindly spirit it is meant. From MY PERSPECTIVE, too often you are so obsessed with your position, you take umbrage before truly reading and analyzing what a person actually said. Pick apart the arguments W/O THE PERJORATIVES – I thought that was what this blog was all about.
I am very clear of the “silo” effect, and that it is alive and well and perfectly legal and the way things are done. (And I believe you are well aware I know that.) I am also well aware of its repercussions, which is to allow things like stadiums to be built at a time when people are getting laid off. I think the “silo” policy needs to change. Furthermore, the “silo” excuse misses one basic point – if you build a facility, there must be money available to “operate” it. So that is how we got the closure of Valley Oak and the near miss of closing Emerson. Facilities were build bc the “siloed” funding was available. What wasn’t there was the funds to “operate” the new facilities when all was said and done. Seems to me there ought to be a mechanism that does not allow for a facility to be built if the agency involved cannot justify how they are going to come up with the funding to operate the new facility.
Now you explain to me what is wrong w me making a comment like this, how is it somehow wrong, ignorant, I don’t know what I’m talking about, I don’t know the law, ad nauseum? Now let’s suppose for arguments sake I was wrong about something – do you really need to rub my nose in it by insuating ignorance, stupidity, etc.? You are not going to bring people over to your side that way I shouldn’t think.
I am certainly far from perfect, have been on occasion corrected where I have been incorrect, and have learned a great deal on this blog. I thoroughly enjoy reading other people’s opinions, and often disagree. But I do try and be civil and respectful about it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it is a wrongheaded one. I frequently think people are wrongheaded in their opinions, but I respect their right to voice their opinions w/o perjoratives being slung at them. Uncivil discourse is just not helpful/desirable – and certainly is not persuasive argument.
dmg: “Why don’t you do as WDF suggests and look up the staff reports from when this issue came up…”
As you well know, staff reports do not always reflect reality…they reflect only what staff wants the public to know and bolsters staff’s recommendation… We’ve seen these kinds of antics with city staff, so it would be surprising to not see the same thing from the school district staff. Furthermore, from what I read, the school district staff has known about the MPR roof problem for a number of years…they just thought they could get away w scotch tape and paper clips to hold it together for a while, and said as much. Personally, I think that shows very poor judgment on their part. Prior to that, the whole facilities funding pot was rife w rampant corruption and led to the closing of Valley Oak debacle, and the close shave closing of Emerson…
If you choose to hang onto every word the school district says as gospel, that is your privilege/right, but I’m a bit more cynical. And considering the school district’s past track record, I don’t think my cynicism is unwarranted…
Musser: [i]in regards to your other point about mingling funds or what have you, the davis schools foundation is not bound by those paramaters – raised a lot of money, money that went to constructing that stadium which could have been saved for those salaries, money that is now lost.[/i]
Please do your homework before commenting. The Davis Schools Foundation had absolutely nothing to do with raising money for the stadium. Not one red cent of their money went toward the stadium. All of their fundraising has gone toward programs and salaries.
ERM: [i]If you choose to hang onto every word the school district says as gospel, that is your privilege/right, but I’m a bit more cynical. And considering the school district’s past track record, I don’t think my cynicism is unwarranted…[/i]
If the district had not closed an elementary, or if they had closed a different elementary school, would you really be satisfied?
If the DHS MPR had been chosen as the top project to fund, would you not then complain that the district should have chosen Emerson? Or if the district had chosen Emerson, would you then discuss how the district had hidden the true problems of the DHS MPR, just to keep powerful interests in west Davis from revolting? Or what a disgrace it was that the district was spending extra money to rent out space at UCD to hold HS graduation?
I suspect that by nature you are cynical, no matter what circumstances or alternatives occur.
Musser (from comment to an earlier article): [i]it is obvious the district at the time did not plan, plain and simple, and threw out bs to the voters about needing a new school. but the current one does not get off the hook, because they needed to close one of the newer schools, that should not have been built in the first place. but doing the right thing means the school board would have looked like the incompetent boobs that they are.[/i]
Just to make sure you understand: The planning to have 9 elementaries took place under a Superintendent and school board that is no longer around.
WDF1: I suspect that by nature you are cynical, no matter what circumstances or alternatives occur.
that argument cuts both ways. in your eyes, the school board can do no wrong.
“Just to make sure you understand: The planning to have 9 elementaries took place under a Superintendent and school board that is no longer around.”
I understand perfectly, the current school board should have closed a newer school.
Musser
Two questions :
1) What would you see as the advantages of closing a newer school ?
2) Did you go before the school board to present your ideas prior to their decision ?
wdf1: “I suspect that by nature you are cynical, no matter what circumstances or alternatives occur.”
In my experience when someone cannot make a reasoned argument, they then resort to attacking the person. Doesn’t make their position on an issue any stronger, but I guess it makes them feel better about their indefensible position…
ERM
I agree completely with your point that attacking the person does not strengthen one’s position and am in favor of your plea for civility.
I would encourage all who post here to follow your recommendation, including you. I have included two examples from your previous posts on other blogs to illustrate my point:
1) “When someone is killed, or does that even matter to you” – I certainly found it an implied perforative that someone might not care about the death of another person.
2)” and to imply otherwise is downright undemocratic” I may be incorrect, but I felt as though you were using ” undemocratic” as a perforative.
I particularly enjoy your posts precisely because our views often differ and I frequently learn or at least gain new insight from you. I find it much more enjoyable and instructive when there is an absence of implied ridicule, name calling, and finger pointing.