In the end, it was over early on election night as the first polls showed, with 16,000-odd votes cast, Measure C passing with 72.5% of the vote. And while the final numbers dipped slightly, it was effectively over at that point, with the final score 72.3% and 12,435 yes votes to only 4,756 no votes.
Unlike the razor-thin margin of Measure A, 1000 votes would have had to switch hands to have changed the outcome of this election.
Measure C will fund $6.5 million of programs over a five-year period. Its passage leaves us with two burning questions. One is how the district will bridge the final $3.5 million gap in its budget deficit for the next fiscal year. The second is what will happen once Measure A sunsets at the end of next year.
But for the most part, supporters of the parcel tax chose to celebrate last night and marvel at the remarkable support that the Davis residents provide their schools. This marks the fourth time, since 2007, that Davis residents have stepped up and supported a parcel tax, three of them with overwhelming numbers.
Barbara Archer, one of the co-chairs of the Measure C campaign, told the Vanguard, “I am thrilled with the overwhelming vote for the passage of Measure C. I am so proud to live in a city that has put education first since 1984.”
She added, “Measure C funding will preserve so many programs that Davis students and parents hold dear. Thank you to Davis voters for supporting our schools.”
Board President Susan Lovenburg marks the fourth different board president in the last six years to oversee a victorious parcel tax campaign.
She marveled, “Time and again, Davis votes its values. We speak for the students and we do everything possible to hold the line against the erosion of funding for public education.”
She also thanked those who did the hard work to see this effort through: “Kudos to the outstanding volunteers who rallied the community and a huge thank you to the voters of Davis.”
Board Member Sheila Allen was exuberant, as well.
“I am so proud to live in Davis,” she told the Vanguard on Tuesday night, following the release of the election totals that made it clear once again that the parcel tax had been approved by the voters. “Davis gets it. They understand the importance of education. They understand the importance of children and they understand the importance of our future.”
“While there are all sorts of problems here in Davis, we wrap our arms around our children and each other and say, not here. We’re going to continue with the great programs that we have for our kids,” she added.
Sheila Allen said that a week ago she was very concerned about what the outcome of this election would be. While she did not think the measure would lose, she feared the election would be extremely close and worrisome.
However, things changed in the last few days, in her mind. She had this feeling that the message got out to the voters and that it would be all right.
Like the Vanguard, she believed the final vote percentage would be 70%. “It’s even better than that,” she said.
Unlike past years, the parcel tax proponents ran a broad community campaign.
“It really felt good to run such a broad community campaign, working on it,” Ms. Allen said. “Really, with other campaigns it was fairly small. It kind of focused on the usual suspects. This time it was really much broader and that felt really good.”
“I think that it reached farther and deeper into the community because different kinds of people were truly invested in it,” she added.
While the evening represented another validation to the school district that the community is willing to continue to step up and continue funding, the future, however, is less clear.
“I think we’re going to have to do some additional belt tightening like others districts,” Sheila Allen told the Vanguard. “Hopefully it’s temporary belt tightening. Measure A expires after next year. So we’ll have to talk about what we can do as a community to address that.”
She was not willing to talk about another tax, but she did suggest that perhaps it was time to do more community fundraising through the Davis Schools Foundation, to help shore that up.
“Or maybe things will start to get better,” she said implying that if the statewide economy improves, the schools could get more funding.
The next critical step is finding $3.5 million to cut, which unfortunately may mean additional layoffs unless teachers are willing to take some concessions this year, to prevent as many as 50 positions from being cut.
Longer term, as we have noted, there are three tax measures that could come before the voters in November. Polling has shown support for both the governor’s tax measure, as well as the millionaire’s tax, which is favored by some teacher organizations and progressives in the Occupy movement.
The presence of multiple tax measures, though, reduces the likelihood that one would pass. So that is a point of concern.
While we did not discuss it on Tuesday night, there is also concern about the impact that water rate hikes might have on the ability of the school district to continue raising money locally.
For now, the voters passed the measure by slightly more than the margin we predicted.
We sensed a relative lack of opposition to the tax measure, and the arguments put up by those few vocal opponents bordered on the absurd. However, we believe that much needs to be discussed going forward and we hope the victory does not preclude that discussion from occurring.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great news !
But how long till we need to ask El Macero to leave our district– they lower the likelihood of future tax increases which will be necessary given that the State of California continues to put prison guards ahead of K-12 (and higher) education.
Dr. Wu, if they keep raising taxes it will be more than just El Macero that will leave the district.
This doesn’t raise taxes.
rusty49: [i]Dr. Wu, if they keep raising taxes it will be more than just El Macero that will leave the district.[/i]
I bet that El Macero residents pay much much more in HOA fees to maintain their golf course and community services. I doubt they will leave over a school parcel tax. And El Macero home prices look like a steal compared to Bay Area home prices.
Ok… the votes are in, a decision has been made. May I suggest that the DJUSD board, administrators, teachers, classified staff, etc. demonstrate to the community that the funds preserved are used in an effective and fiscally prudent manner. That might be a better way of winning over enough of the votes to make it “all green” [b]if we need[/b] to extend the levy in the future. Remember that perhaps 66.0% of the red areas supported the levy. A little early to talk about “shunning” or “succession”. The first two comments, once the community has made the decision, seem petty. I say this as someone who cast a NO vote. I became convinced that the measure would pass in any event, but I was disturbed by the elements of the DJUSD and others who came across as “demanding” my affirmation rather than asking or convincing me. I’m over it. Let’s move forward, responsibly.
“This doesn’t raise taxes.”
David, once again you miss the point, my post was in response to Dr. Wu’s post of “future tax INCREASES”.
Should have looked at the pricint summary before I posted… only two precincts had less than a 50% approval… a total of 18 voters.
Sorry Rusty. I did miss that your post was in response to Dr. Wu’s point. I’ll blame it on lack of sleep.
[i]”Measure C will fund $6.5 million of programs over a five year period. It’s passage leaves us with two burning questions. One is how the district will bridge the final $3.5 million gap in its budget deficit for the next fiscal year. The second is what will happen once Measure A sunsets at the end of next year.”[/i]
And what will happen when this parcel tax comes up for renewal again in five years?
Seems like the developing education funding methods are going to cause a lot of stress going forward. They are also going to eventually cause a lot of grief for Davis.
However, at least today we can happily thumb our nose at other school districts like Sacramento and proudly thump our chests for helping to ensure those high Davis property values. Bravo!
[i]”We sensed a relative lack of opposition to the tax measure, and the arguments put up by those few vocal opponents bordered on the absurd. However, we believe that much needs to be discussed going forward and we hope the victory does not preclude that discussion from occurring.”[/i]
Most school tax measures never have any organized opposition, and that is unfortunate because without opponents, there is no debate and very little space to question how the school administrators are spending the public’s money.
This campaign, with a No group formed from the start, should have benefitted by having two sides. We could have had an actual debate. Unfortunately, the leading opponents were pathetic and did not have any understanding of how to appeal to the mostly liberal and mostly intelligent electorate of Davis.
Mr. Granda’s and Mr. Randall’s campaign was almost exclusively focused on the fairness of an all-mail ballot. Their argument was downright moronic. They just made up sh!t and hoped no one was paying attention. Granda called the voting process “fraudulent” in a piece he wrote in The Enterprise, but it is not clear he knows what the word even means.
Hopefully, the next time there is a tax measure before the voters of Davis, there will be two sides and both will make their cases well.
“Granda called the voting process “fraudulent” in a piece he wrote in The Enterprise, but it is not clear he knows what the word even means.”
Explain, then, Mr. Rifkin, how someone was able to break into Freddie Oakley’s office, inspect everyone one of our ballots (except the few latecomers like David’s) and know exactly how all of us voted (down to the last tenth of a percent) 75 hours before Freddie claimed she was giving us the first human view of the results. This may go down in history as the Davis Dos Equis Deception.
Obviously, Mr. Granada was on to something here; all visionaries are ridiculed when they first attempt to enlighten the populace. Now that we know our mail-in system can be tapped into, how long will it be before our results are “adjusted” to meet the desires of the powerful government and columnist types as we saw with Putin’s recent win? (Or, has it already happened? Even Ms. Allen and the Vanguard knew that 70% was the lid–how did 3.2% additional cushion get into the system? Mail-in coincidence or…mail-in fraud?)
“..there is also concern about the impact that water rate hikes might have on the ability of the school district to continue raising money locally…”
We are in an era of limits as water, sewer, and electric providers aggressively monitor(and control) our usage through “smart meters” and a tiered consumption rate. As a result, the average Davis citizen will have less discretionary income in the future. It is a numbers game, and a school funding measure will ultimately fail. Plan now for this!
Rifkin once claimed to be friends with Nate Silver and just like with me claiming that I played football with Bill Cosby and know Thomas Pynchon nobody believes me. You do need to wonder the numbers don’t lie.
[i]”We are in an era of limits …”[/i]
We are always in an era of limits, though perhaps your point is that we are in an era where more of us understand that.
[i]”… a school funding measure will ultimately fail.”[/i]
This has happened before. In 1997, a school tax known as Measure H failed to get 2/3rds of the vote. It “only” received a 62.8% yes vote ([url]http://www.yoloelections.org/sites/elections/archives/19971104/djusd/measure_h.html[/url]). If I recall correctly, Measure H was opposed largely in Mace Ranch and South Davis, where the school buildings it would have funded (Korematsu and Montgomery) were not yet built.
[i]”Rifkin once claimed to be friends with Nate Silver …”[/i]
Not friends. I met him at a SABR convention in San Mateo about 14 years ago; and then spent time with him (and a common friend we have) at another convention in Scottsdale. Nate later became a bigshot in the world of sabermetrics. I was actually better known in that world than he was in the early 2000s before he invented PECOTA, but I never contributed any research which amounted to anything.
Jeff: “[i] at least today we can happily thumb our nose at other school districts like Sacramento and proudly thump our chests for helping to ensure those high Davis property values.”
[/i]
Every Republican candidate for president is urging decentralization of education decision-making, with emphasis on local control. Local parcel taxes are the ultimate local control: designed by your locally elected school board for specific purposes, voted on by the local electorate. I would urge “school districts like Sacramento” to pass such parcel taxes for the programs they consider worthy. And if districts like Esparto choose to vote down such taxes, thereby rendering their districts less competitive, do you actually believe the state or federal government should somehow equalize the resources for their students?
I thought conservatives liked local control. Yet when you see it applied, you don’t like it.
I would guess the majority of those voting ‘Yes’ on C didn’t care a whit about property values. Hey, a lot of them are renters.
[i]”Every Republican candidate for president is urging decentralization of education decision-making, with emphasis on local control.”[/i]
If by “local control” you mean family control, then I agree. Of course, lacking that ultimate level of local control, most GOPers prefer local community control over state control and state control over federal control. That is the nature of the conservative beast… to reject central control in favor of more individual freedom to decide what is right and good.
Every Democrat candidate is demanding fairness. Do you think it is fair that affluent districts buy extra programs for their kids while less affluent districts cannot afford it?
As reported by Jeff Hudson in the Enterprise ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/home-page/featured-stories/measure-c-wins-comfortably-with-72-3-majority/[/url]) and Hudson Sangree in the Sac Bee ([url]http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/07/4317478/davis-voters-again-approve-school.html[/url]).
JB: You clearly are a strong proponent of vouchers for education. In that spirit, do you think it really would make more sense to have the City of Davis give us all water vouchers for our water needs rather than pass this upcoming tax/assessment for building new water facilities?
Jeff: I think it would be perfectly fair for Sacramento and any less affluent district to vote for a parcel tax to fund special programs of their choosing. They can afford it, or they can choose not to.
So, just to turn it around: do you believe the state should equalize funding between districts that choose to vote parcel taxes? Or are you saying it should be illegal for districts to vote parcel taxes?
[i] most GOPers prefer local community control over state control
[/i]
How would you prefer that local communities express their control, if not through local tax measures?
Now that the election is over can all those that placed Yes on C posters kindly remove your trash from our city? The No on C posters were already stolen so they don’t have to worry about it.
I wonder how long before we get sued for providing our children a better education by providing more money than West Sacramento for each of students.
Rifken, can you tell us anything about how you got the results to the Nth degree. Some careful research and evaluation? Dumb luck?
Just, here ([url]http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/even+a+blind+squirrel+finds+a+nut+once+in+a+while.html[/url]) is your answer.
[img]http://appraisalnewsonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/01/blind_squirrel.jpg[/img]
Now that this is over with maybe the school district can move on to recruiting another 400 out of district students, giving those teachers their hard earned 5% raise, and putting together that 20 million infrastructure bond measure to replace the MPR at DHS and refurbish Emerson Hr. High.
Well done, Rich, in any case. You’re facing a real dilemma, though. Should you head for Cache Creek with everything you’ve got assuming you’re on some unfathomable roll. Or, should you stay away from any predicting, assuming you’ve never come close to anything again, so your obituary reads, “Rich Rifkin, renown in Yolo County for calling 2012’s Measure C election results to the exact tenth of a percent, died Tuesday….”
Rifkin’s obituary would also include, “The most interesting man in the world ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Interesting_Man_in_the_World[/url])”
This is what Rich looked like when he had hair:
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Jonathan_Goldsmith_2009.jpg[/img]
Jeff
“However, at least today we can happily thumb our nose at other school districts like Sacramento and proudly thump our chests for helping to ensure those high Davis property values. Bravo!”
Or maybe we could just be happy that the Davis kids, who I am sure we would all count as blameless in the political wars of their elders, will continue to enjoy the educational advantages they currently have.
I believe that most liberals share the belief that all of the state’s children should have the same advantages, and many of us would be willling to pay much more in taxes to see that happen. It seems to me that it is usually the more conservative and tax averse members of our state that prevent that from happening employing the catch phrases of “throwing money at” and “enough is enough” with regard to any tax increase. These members of our community do not usually seem to be concerned about either “fairness” or adequacy of funding unless it is tied to their desire for privatization.
[quote]I believe that most liberals share the belief that all of the state’s children should have the same advantages, and many of us would be willling to pay much more in taxes to see that happen. [/quote]
With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, it is easy for you to say you are willing to pay more taxes bc you can afford to. Many in the middle/lower middle class cannot, especially seniors on fixed incomes and young families with children…
Elaine:
First, with all due respect to you, you don’t know medwoman’s financial situation.
Second, we have a democracy that actually heavily skews away from taxation by requiring a two-thirds vote. I don’t have a lot of money but spending on education would be one of my priorities before a lot of other things.
[i] “Rich Rifkin, renown in Yolo County for calling 2012’s Measure C election results to the exact tenth of a percent, died Tuesday….” [/i]
It is a dilemma. However, I need to (brag some more) inform you that I also called Measure A exactly right, down to 1/10th of 1 percent. The question is whether I can hit a third straight or should I stop and rest on my laurels.
[i]”This is what Rich looked like when he had hair:”[/i]
Jonathan Goldsmith is a far better looking fellow than I am or was when I had hair. But when I had hair, it was beautiful, thick rich wavy, shiny, luxuriant hair:
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-odfFhiXrJ2Q/T1kVXJR9CjI/AAAAAAAAAjg/xBLQNuMgqC4/s400/Yearbook.JPG[/img]
For those curious: the fellow on my left in the picture, David Reynolds, was then and is still one of my best friends. He is one of the foremost experts on the Hatfields and the McCoys, among other things. The girl on my right is Carrie Riggins. We grew up near each other. Her brother John was a good friend of mine, especially when he was a senior and I was a sophomore. Infamously, John and his girlfriend, Sabrina, were murdered when they were freshmen at UCD. The trial for their killer is about to start, 32 years after the fact. And the boy right below me is Andy Roberts (nee Fink). He tragically passed away when he was a student at Chico State. His older brother was my next door neighbor in Isla Vista when we were both Gauchos. Andy is buried at the Davis Cemetery.
[quote]First, with all due respect to you, you don’t know medwoman’s financial situation. [/quote]
She has indicated in other posts she is fairly well off…
[quote]Second, we have a democracy that actually heavily skews away from taxation by requiring a two-thirds vote. I don’t have a lot of money but spending on education would be one of my priorities before a lot of other things.[/quote]
Many seniors on fixed incomes would literally be driven from their homes if taxes become too high…
ERM: [i]Many seniors on fixed incomes would literally be driven from their homes if taxes become too high…[/i]
Which is why there is a voluntary senior exemption. This in spite of the fact that the opposition to local school parcel taxes regularly uses that feature as a reason to bash those measures. I know seniors who use the exemption and others who choose not to use the exemption, because it is one of the few ways that citizens can know that money is going directly to local schools and not to pay for state prisons or state high speed rail lines.
Local school parcel taxes are not an ideally constructed set of rules, but on the whole, I view the benefits as far outweighing the downsides.
“With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, it is easy for you to say you are willing to pay more taxes bc you can afford to. Many in the middle/lower middle class cannot, especially seniors on fixed incomes and young families with children…
I take no offense. Your point is well made. This is why I am a firm believer, as I have posted many times in higher taxation on our more affluent ctitizens. For me, that includes not only the 1% but also those in my category which would probably be most aptly categorized as the top 10%.
If I have ever posted anything to cause you to believe that I do not believe the burden should be carried predominately by those who have benefitted the most, then I have been unclear.