The school board is awaiting the results of a poll to determine the public’s willingness to extend Measures Q and Measures W, passed in 2007 and 2008, respectively.
While the board is awaiting the results, critic Jose Granda, who got a lot of play in the Davis Enterprise article Friday, apparently somehow already knows that the voters won’t support this.
He warned the trustees that “you do not have the public support” to approve a parcel tax renewal.
What was the basis for this contention? He argued that the voters approved Measure A by a margin only very slightly larger than the required two-thirds majority.
Never mind that the two parcel taxes are actually completely different. Measure A represented an increase in the parcel tax rate and not just by a small margin, by a full $200 per year. While the new parcel tax figures to be around $320 per unit, it is a renewal, meaning that the public would pay about the same amount of money as they do now, should the measure pass.
That’s a tremendous difference that renders it, at best, problematic as to whether the two measures results are comparable.
While it is true we have argued that the water rate hikes may harm the chances for the parcel tax to actually pass, we believe that is a problem that the city is going to have to take into consideration, and that is not a reason for the district not to put the measure forward.
Mr. Granda continued, “I am here to give a voice to the 5,403 voters who voted against Measure A.”
Perhaps he was, but there is no real way to know if the two issues are that compatible. I would also point out that 5,403 represented less than one third of those voters who turned out to vote in the May election. If he is to give voice to that minority, who should represent the vast majority of voters?
He continued: “You are wasting money doing polls. You must do away with this idea of forced tuition to public school. Taxpayers’ money will be wasted on another election.”
Really? How does he know that? I mean, the number he cited, which sounds big, is actually less than one-third of the voters. Shouldn’t the board make the determination based on actual polling and real numbers, rather than a critic’s assertions and guesswork?
Taxpayer money will be wasted on an election? So, based on your assertions, we should simply forego $6.5 million in funding to education?
He finally said, “You can’t have people registering to vote (in a multi-week election) while other people are voting. It’s a mess,” Granda said. He termed the outcome “disenfranchised democracy.” And he called on the school board to “organize a public debate before officially calling an election.”
I would say for all of the phony consternation about a well-practiced principle of mail-in voting, the election went smoothly, without any hitches. It cost far less and produced a much greater turnout.
Board President Richard Harris had the perfect response: “I think we’re going to have plenty of public debate between now and March 6.”
The fact is, Mr. Granda has never seen a parcel tax election he has liked, and you can go back into the archives, finding similar predictions in the past that proved incorrect.
The point being, given the amount of money at stake and the harm done to the district, they have to try to pass the parcel tax renewal.
Mr. Granda, who also wrote a letter to the Davis Enterprise editor, has never articulated how the school district would be able to fund their programs after a $6.5 million hit.
In his letter, he argued, “These taxes amount to forced tuition in public schools for every Davis resident. We must do away completely with that concept. The taxes do not directly benefit the students, but are maintaining the school district’s payroll and benefits.”
We are talking about funding that supplies additional teachers and support staff, lowers class size, and increases the number of math and science classes. I do not see how you can realistically make that point.
Furthermore, he argues, “Most certainly the trustees did not listen to a voice of wisdom from Bob Dunning, who told them it would be unwise to bring these taxes up again, that they should look elsewhere.”
Where else would they look? It is not as though there is some money tree out there waiting to be utilized.
“I am sure that the 5,403 voters who voted no on Measure A will do so again and this time they will not sit still and wait for the board to send them the unwanted bill.”
It sounds good, but that of course assumes that the same people who voted against an increase would vote against an extension. We don’t have polling yet, but, generally speaking, there is greater voter support for measures that maintain current rates as opposed to those that increase them.
Mr. Granda has pledged to form a committee to oppose the parcel tax. That is what it is all about. The only problem that I have is that his vote counts for twice mine. Even with that advantage, Mr. Granda was unable to prevail last time around.
The city’s water rate hikes put the measure in jeopardy. The water rate hikes will eventually dwarf anything that the parcel tax will cost the typical ratepayer.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]”You can’t have people registering to vote (in a multi-week election) while other people are voting. It’s a mess,”[/quote]The ‘window’ for registration should be the same as for the standard ‘vote by mail’ process we use for every election. I say this as a ‘permanent’ VBM voter. If the DJUSD does anything different, Mr. Granda may have a good point.
hpierce: [i]The ‘window’ for registration should be the same as for the standard ‘vote by mail’ process we use for every election. I say this as a ‘permanent’ VBM voter. If the DJUSD does anything different, Mr. Granda may have a good point.[/i]
That’s a completely misplaced criticism. The district does not run the election. The Yolo County Elections Office does. If Mr. Granda has a complaint, then he should take it up with the county. He’s wasting his and everyone else’s time railing against the election process in front of the school board.
Again and again, we should be asking first for Bob Dunning’s advice then his permission before we make any move in this city. I was greatly relieved this week to hear that the city is delaying any more parking for ZipCar until they get the go ahead from Mr. Dunning. I do so hope that he runs for the Council. Then we will have the wisdom of this man where it belongs.
That was not a criticism. I assumed that the County elections folks would do the normal drill, unless DJUSD asked for special consideration. Based on my knowledge of at least two members of the Board, I doubt that would be issue. This was the ONLY point of Mr. Granda that was reported in David’s ‘analysis’ that I opined had a scintilla of veracity. I have not expressed ANY opinion of the other points that David reports that Mr. Granda has raised.
Please “back off”.
GreenandGolden states:
“Again and again, we should be asking first for Bob Dunning’s advice then his permission before we make any move in this city. I was greatly relieved this week to hear that the city is delaying any more parking for ZipCar until they get the go ahead from Mr. Dunning. I do so hope that he runs for the Council. Then we will have the wisdom of this man where it belongs.”
I agree, I’m glad you see it too. For the most part Bob Dunning gets it right. I would love to have him on the council. We could use his wisdom. Great post! Would you like to head his election committee?
Hpierce,
It’s school bond time. Wdf1 is on the warpath again.
He/she can’t “back off”.
hpierce: [i]That was not a criticism. I assumed that the County elections folks would do the normal drill, unless DJUSD asked for special consideration….Please “back off”.[/i]
It was not directed at you, but Granda. Granda was involved in the No on A campaign. If he had a legitimate grievance against the election process, the correct thing to do would have been to file a complaint at the time of the election, not several months later.
rusty49: [i]It’s school bond time. Wdf1 is on the warpath again.[/i]
You’ve got that right. 🙂
[quote]The city’s water rate hikes put the measure in jeopardy. The water rate hikes will eventually dwarf anything that the parcel tax will cost the typical ratepayer.[/quote]
I’m confused… bc of the referendum and initiative, aren’t the water rate increases stayed until after the election in June? Secondly, are you now conceding that the water rate increases will always be “in competition” with school parcel taxes? If yes, then is your position that we can never raise water rates bc it might interfere with the ability to pass a school parcel tax?
[quote]It was not directed at you, but Granda. [/quote]Sure felt like it was aimed at me… or, if you ARE on the warpath, was the ‘sot’ at me “collateral damages”? It is clear from your response that no apology was intended. None accepted.
hpierce: My apologies if my wording felt like it included you. I cannot gesture, inflect my voice, wink, watch your reactions in such a way to appropriately adjust for a lack of precision in wording on my part in communicating through these comments.
hd: You and I could do it. We really could. Now for some funding. Any ideas?
We’re good, WDF.
“I’m confused… bc of the referendum and initiative, aren’t the water rate increases stayed until after the election in June?”
We don’t know that yet.
” Secondly, are you now conceding that the water rate increases will always be “in competition” with school parcel taxes? If yes, then is your position that we can never raise water rates bc it might interfere with the ability to pass a school parcel tax?”
No I think once the rates are stabilized and people adjust their spending and inflation comes into play that the impact of rates will be less than during the time when they are increasing on annual basis. I also believe that when the economy finally improves, it will lessen the impact of rates.
but guess what, this is the time when we need the parcel taxes the most.
Let me me this straight, David… city workers should give up salary/benefits significantly, to save taxpayer’s dollars for capital purposes (roadways)… we should delay any water/sewer capital improvements to avoid rate increases to protect the passage of school tax rates (particularly for ‘special needs’ kids who are brought into the district because their natural parents are ‘failures’)… teachers/administrators/other staff @ DJUSD should have NO ‘sacrifices’ (maybe even some enhancements?) because it’s “for the kids”… do I understand your position?
“Let me me this straight, David… city workers should give up salary/benefits significantly, to save taxpayer’s dollars for capital purposes (roadways)”
That’s not really a very good understanding of the reason that workers need to give up salary and benefits. The real reason is the $7 million in increased costs in pensions and retiree health in the next three years.
[quote]No I think once the rates are stabilized and people adjust their spending and inflation comes into play that the impact of rates will be less than during the time when they are increasing on annual basis.[/quote]
This makes no sense at all. In order for rates to be “stabilized” so “people adjust their spending”, the rates cannot be increased – otherwise they won’t be “stabilized”… which means you are essentially conceding the point “we can never raise water rates bc it might interfere with the ability to pass a school parcel tax”, which is essentially the position of the initiative you have so roundly criticized as illegal…
[quote]Let me me this straight, David… we should delay any water/sewer capital improvements to avoid rate increases to protect the passage of school tax rates (particularly for ‘special needs’ kids who are brought into the district because their natural parents are ‘failures’)… [/quote]
That is what I get out of DMG’s comments…
“This makes no sense at all. In order for rates to be “stabilized” so “people adjust their spending”, the rates cannot be increased – otherwise they won’t be “stabilized”… which means you are essentially conceding the point “we can never raise water rates bc it might interfere with the ability to pass a school parcel tax”, which is essentially the position of the initiative you have so roundly criticized as illegal…”
What I’m saying is that if you have to increase rates, now inot the best time to do it.
The other point is, “”we can never raise water rates bc it might interfere with the ability to pass a school parcel tax”, which is essentially the position of the initiative you have so roundly criticized as illegal”
The illegal part was tying rate increases to CPI. If we do it voluntarily out of policy preference, it’s not illegal. That said, that is not my position.
[quote]What I’m saying is that if you have to increase rates, now inot the best time to do it. [/quote]
If not now, when? There will always be another school parcel tax to pass… your position just doesn’t make sense…