Commentary: Now That the Parcel Tax Has Passed…

Parcel-Tax-Chalk

Lost in the tumult surrounding the presidential election is the fact that, once again, the voters overwhelmingly approved the school parcel tax.  While the district and campaign volunteers can now rightly pat themselves on the back, I want to raise a few issues that have troubled me for some time.

I have always been a strong supporter of the parcel tax – we have had good experiences in the school district with our children and, without the parcel tax, this would be a below-average funded school district.

My view from the start was that we actually asked for too little – a view I think that is largely confirmed by the 71 percent for the measure and the lack of organized opposition.

At the same time, my concern is that the district often walks on egg shells any time a problem arises, out of fear that any sort of controversy will cause voters to oppose the parcel tax.  In my view, that fear is silly and it actually ends up eroding trust, transparency, and confidence in the district.

Ironically, the fact that Measure H was passed as an eight-year rather than a four-year tax might help in this regard.  But I think the whole notion is flawed, if not somewhat insulting to the voters in the district.

The impending parcel tax, interestingly enough, did not prevent the district from making dramatic and controversial changes to the AIM program.  While there were some frustrated parents threatening not to support the parcel tax – those threats were not only hollow, but self-defeating.

Board President Madhavi Sunder and incoming board member Bob Poppenga made it clear in their public statements that the district needed the parcel tax.  While parents may have been frustrated at a number of things, in the end they knew that they would only be hurting things for their kids if the parcel tax failed.

A secondary strategy of opposing this parcel tax to send a message and then approving one in the spring would have been fraught with risk and certainly would have increased the heartache for teachers in the district – who were not involved in the controversial decisions.

In the end, the implicit message should have been – if you have a problem with the school board, vote out the members that you have a problem with.  Don’t take out your anger on the kids.

And that’s precisely what happened.  The voters voted for Measure H in an overwhelming manner, while incumbent Susan Lovenburg was narrowly voted out.  Agree or disagree with AIM or that decision, that is the right way to approach this.

So now that we know that the voters are intelligent and discerning, can we drop the charade about keeping quiet about district controversies?

The district has actually had more than its share of controversies, and yet the voters renewed the parcel tax – increased its base value and increased its length.

The district has managed to survive the biggest local controversy in recent years – the Nancy Peterson volleyball saga.  Decisions by a sitting board member to take her feud with a volleyball coach public ended up with Ms. Peterson resigning in 2014.  Two board members may have lost their political careers over it – Sheila Allen lost a bid for city council and Susan Lovenburg did not win a third seat on the school board.  But it didn’t cost the district the parcel tax.

The AIM issue had some bumps in the last year and a half, as well.  The decision to blindside people with more extensive changes to the program.  The 3-2 decision to not retain Deanne Quinn.  The 3-2 decision to reduce the number of strands to two, when the parents were promised three.  The poor handling of a testing error.  Parents were angry at these, but they took their anger out on the school board candidates, not the parcel tax.

The Vanguard this fall pulled no punches.  We published a controversial letter by a parent against a school psychologist.  We published a lawsuit filed against the former principal at North Davis.  And we published a letter from a parent about the AIM testing snafu.

The fact is, those three articles were among the most widely read articles the Vanguard has published this fall – each of them getting multiple thousands of reads – and yet the voters still voted for the parcel tax.

To me, that is evidence that we do not have to pull back on critical stories even during an election.  We don’t have to bury problems in the school system.  We can be out front and open when something goes wrong, and attempt to fix it without fear of retribution from the voters on the parcel tax.

The voters are not going to punish the kids for some errors by the leadership.  There could not have been a bigger controversy than the Nancy Peterson one, and yet two years later the parcel tax was renewed by a fairly wide margin.

Make no mistake – while I am grateful to the school district for the education it has provided my kids, this district has at times sat back on its laurels.  We have not addressed the achievement gap in a satisfactory manner.  We have a very good district, but we still have a ways to go to become a great district.

Hopefully we can have these discussions without fear that the parcel tax will be voted out – the voters in Davis are not going to do that.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Breaking News DJUSD Elections

Tags:

74 comments

  1. My view from the start was that we actually asked for too little – a view I think that is largely confirmed by the 71 percent for the measure and the lack of organized opposition.”

    I do not know whether the amount asked was “right” or “too little”. I do not believe that the amount requested should ever be based on what is believed will pass but rather on how much is needed to achieve specific goals. This is yet another area where I believe there would be much to be gained by transparency instead of gamesmanship.

     

    1. I do not believe that the amount requested should ever be based on what is believed will pass but rather on how much is needed to achieve specific goals.

      Shouldn’t we also consider how much requested should also be determined by the ability of those that are actually being taxed to be able to afford it?

    2. Tia wrote:

      > and the lack of organized opposition

      Keep in mind that anyone that “organized in opposition” in town will be hated more than Trump himself and their kids (if they had any) would probably get beat like a Trump supporter on a regular basis…

      http://abc7news.com/news/peninsula-teen-attacked-at-school-for-support-of-trump/1599714/

      P.S. Does the county release the number of senior voters who vote for the tax (and higher home values to help with there reverse mortgages) then file forms so they don’t have to pay it?

      1. SoD:  Does the county release the number of senior voters who vote for the tax (and higher home values to help with there reverse mortgages) then file forms so they don’t have to pay it?

        The county will never release information on how voters vote, only whether they turn in a ballot or not.

        The county will make a list of seniors who have asked for the exemption, if you make a request.  David G. has done that before.

        1. BP:  at what age can one get an exemption

          65 or older

          BP:  My understanding is if a member of the household is 65 or older.

          Person must also be owner of the house, and live there.

        2. Once you turn in your ballot, there is no way to know who turned in what ballot (therefore how they voted)… ages are not shown on the roster… the County cannot “release” information they do not have…  DUH!

          Now, there may be other “databases” out there where somewhat might be able to figure out how many seniors are in a given precinct, perhaps even how many were likely to have filed an exception, and hypothesize from there.

        3. wdf…  am recalling it is more nuanced… the parcel has to be owner occupied, and must have a household member 65 or older… the senior does not have to be ‘on title’ as “owner of record”… think it only applies to SF properties…

        4. I looked it up:

          To qualify for a senior exemption from the parcel tax, you must be the owner-occupant of the property in question and at least 65 years old.

          http://www.djusd.k12.ca.us/parceltax

          Wdf1 is correct as I knew he/she would be, otherwise people could just say their parent or grandmother is living with them to get the exemption.

      2. South of Davis

        Keep in mind that anyone that “organized in opposition” in town will be hated more”

        There is something to be said for having the strength of your convictions. If you are not willing to take the chance of being criticized for your beliefs, then one probably should remain silent. But then, you can hardly blame those who choose to speak their minds using their own names to do so.

    3. Tia… example… DJUSD CFD #2 is a ‘charity’ assessment  for us ~ $550/yr, for facilities that our kids never used…  you are not assessed that… so, for credibility, please remit $550 to DJUSD, and then I’ll listen.

      1. Let me go back and look at it. It may be better to reduce the number of opt outs than try to increase the base rate. I am very skeptical about the poor old fixed income pensioner storyline though it may in fact be true. Since H has passed the opportunity to supersede it with a more restrictive plan at the same base level may be the way to go.

    1. To what end?  Shaming?

      Am thinking this “transparency” thing has gone way too far… public employees with their names/salaries/pensions on-line (“transparentcalifornia”) have been a gold mine for solicitors/scammers… pretty easy to cross-check names with phone #’s, mailing addresses, etc.

      Suspect it also increases possibilities for identity theft…

      Suggest we don’t add to the mayhem…

      1. hpierce:  Am thinking this “transparency” thing has gone way too far…

        And if you’re a public employee, don’t delete any e-mails.  It’s career suicide.

        1. BP… you can see no difference from a cabinet level employee and a municipal employee making sure sewer blockages are fixed?  Wdf’s comment is only slightly less weird…

          Please note, if you have the cognitive abilities to do so, I said “don’t add”… I did not say “roll-back” (but I do think things have gone too far…)

        2. > if you’re a public employee, don’t delete any e-mails.  It’s career suicide.

          You can always just put a server in your closet at home for your e-mails…

      2. hpierce wrote:

        > public employees with their names/salaries/pensions on-line

        > (“transparentcalifornia”) have been a gold mine for solicitors/scammers…

        If I was selling high end items and found a list of people that made about a million a year I would try to let them know about my product.

        http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/all/

        > Suspect it also increases possibilities for identity theft…

        [moderator] edited, off topic.

  2. David,

    I appreciate the quality and quantity of coverage provided on DJUSD issues by the Vanguard and think you should keep up the good work. However, I think you are too confident in the strength of support for the parcel tax.

    You characterize Lovenburg’s defeat as “narrow” and support for Measure H as “overwhelming,” but the data suggest the opposite. Measure H was passed by only 911 votes (71 percent of the total when 2/3 was required). Lovenburg was defeated by Fernandes by 1151 votes and a lot more by Poppenga.

    Yes, the voters properly targeted the school board as the core of the problem(s), and collectively maintained support for school funding. But, that support and collective wisdom should not be taken for granted. DJUSD has a long way to go to be “great,” and I hope the new board is up to the task.

    I’ll continue to look to the Vanguard for better coverage of DJUSD than that other so-called newspaper in town. Oink!

    1. I think that if Measure H had not been running in the same election as the school board election, Lovenburg probably would have finished stronger.  A lot of volunteers on Measure H were supporters and past volunteers of Lovenburg, but had made the choice to volunteer time and money on the school parcel tax, because a worse outcome, IMO and that of other volunteers, would actually have been to lose school parcel tax if Lovenburg had won.

      1. Reality check… for a home owned and occupied for 20 + years, the Parcel taxes:

        DJUSD 2000 bond :            $67

        DJUSD C & E                       $531

        DJUSD CFD #1                    $217

        DJUSD CFD #2                    $591

        Total:                                   $1,406…   which has gone up with H, and doesn’t include the portion of property taxes siphoned by the State, for schools…

        1. It’s a fair point, and that argument was raised in different ways during the campaign.  But a voter would weigh that against the value of those school taxes — what that money goes toward.  It is subjective up to a point (is this too much for me to pay for this?), and that’s why we vote on it.  2/3 vote to pass is already a higher than a traditional threshold (50% + 1).

          I don’t think anyone on the Yes on Measure H campaign took anything for granted. There are always others in the community who take it as a foregone conclusion that it will pass. I don’t.

        2. Actually, I made no point… I shared facts… CFD #2 was not voted on by the public (fact)… it was ‘voted on’ by developers, as a condition of approval, and obligated the property (fact).

          Will not address your opinion on “value”, as not sure folk buying in to properties subject to CFD#2, were really cognizant of the cost/implications.

          Side note, since WDF has pursued, CFD # 2 was for a 30 year bond, according to a district employee… CFD#1 is forever, “to her knowledge”… (fact, as to conversation and what I was told)

    2. Good point. My point wasn’t to take it for granted, but also not to use the parcel tax as a reason to shield the district from criticism and scrutiny.

  3. There is a little wiggle room in the senior exemption:

     

    A under 65 property owner who has an over 65 spouse who is not the property owner qualifies for the exemption as long as they both  live on the property.

    Historically about 1,200-1,500 households have applied for the senior exemption.  The district is in the process of writing the measure H exemption application and it will be released in January.

    1. That sounds ‘not wrong’, as I understood it differently…

      Both on clarification of the exemption and the # applied for… sounds like we’ll know by the end of January…

    1. “but we still have a ways to go to become a great district” I agree but the real issue is what students are we going to become “great” for first. I had my kids at LAUSD for K+1. Many of the policies in place there were counter to the interests of my children and the other parents felt the same way. When we pushed back we were told that LAUSD is predominantly low SES students so all policies are designed to support low SES students and don’t be so selfish. With Lovenberg what I heard from her coded messages and saw in her actions was “we are going to focus our attention and resources on low SES students in the name of social justice so don’t be so selfish.

      When I heard this message from LAUSD I had admit there was some reason in it so being out of step with their priorities I moved my kids to a district that looked a lot more like my children. They went from complaining about school to being so engaged that they asked to go to school even when sick. That is what I am looking for in DJU.

      1. quielo:  That is what I am looking for in DJU.

        Public education is political, and there’s no way around it.  Higher SES parents (as defined by either income and/or education level) are likelier to show up and participate.  Lower SES parents, not so much.  State and federal policy ask for a certain recipe of accountability especially for lower SES students.  In part it’s supposed to keep higher SES parents in the district from ignoring the needs of lower SES students.  It’s a balancing act.

        1. As an example at LAUSD all classes must use the first three weeks of school for review (Reteaching) whether or not that is the amount the kids in that class need. 15 days wasted out of 180 and you are losing 8% of the school year and boring the hell out of the kids at the same time.

    2. Ok… back to your points… AIM and achievement gap being the main two, as I read it, and the “walking on eggshells” thing regarding those.  Noted… arguably if AIM is needed to improve achievement for some, does that not imply the achievement gap will likely grow worse?

      You miss a third point, which I postulate… how will the passage affect the “sunshine” requests for raises, benefit enhancements for teachers, administrators, and other staff?  Bet it will be much more than maintenance of benefits (allowing for inflationary factors), and maintenance of salary (with inflation running close to zero).   We shall see…

       

  4. So how many people who think the amount is “too little” or simply don’t care and voted for the measure don’t actually own property and pay the property taxes?????  Lots of renters in Davis and why would they care how much the property taxes go up…….

        1. That’s just the point, apartments used to be taxed by the unit but no longer.  So they will see no rise in their rent.  Home renters possibly could if the homeowner decides to pass it on.  Either way homeowners have no choice, they have to pay.

        2. More than half of this town are renters.  So there were very many renter votes and my guess is they were almost all yes votes.  They definately tipped the scale.

        3. It’s not just college students who rent here.  With the high home prices many people who aren’t college students rent and vote here.  An example would be the owner of this blog.

        4. Have you looked at the numbers?  We did two years ago when the city was looking into a parcel tax.  Students voting numbers are low and most renters are students.

        5. quielo said . . . “The way around these problems is to align the city and school district boundaries. Then you can get rid of parcel taxes entirely.”

          You have made similar statements in the past and they were just as bizarre then as this one is now.  What reason do you have for believing such an alignment would solve anything?

        6. Well I think you’re wrong here.  I feel there was a big enough number of renters voting that they swung the vote in favor of Prop H.  Maybe someone knows the actual number of non students who are renting in Davis and could supply a link.

        7. quielo:  The way around these problems is to align the city and school district boundaries. Then you can get rid of parcel taxes entirely.

          I think that would either require a city vote to annex those areas of the district outside of city limits, which would have a tough time passing, or invite a lawsuit for disenfranchising district families/residents who live outside city limits if the district were hypothetically to cut them out of the district.

          I think this is probably an easier thing to do with landlocked cities, like San Francisco.  In the case of SF, the city coincides with the county, so it is really the county government that runs the city.  That allows for added flexibility for them.

        8. “What reason do you have for believing such an alignment would solve anything?”

          The parcel tax is the vehicle available to school districts. If the schools and the city had the same tax base you could use any form of municipal taxation to support the schools. You could tax rentals, have a sales tax, there are hundreds of options. With the current arrangement it’s a parcel tax or nothing. Does that answer your question?

        9. “I think that would either require a city vote to annex those areas of the district outside of city limits, which would have a tough time passing, or invite a lawsuit for disenfranchising district families/residents who live outside city limits if the district were hypothetically to cut them out of the district.”

           

          In most cases (but not all) school district boundaries are controlled by the county board of education. You would almost certainly have to offer annexation to The Binning Tract, North Davis Farms, and other adjacent areas. Whether you look at that as a good or bad thing depends on where you sit.