Alan Fernandes always knew it would be an uphill battle to get a parcel tax on the ballot for November, needing 6000 signatures – even under the best of circumstances. However, there were enough questions lingering about the process that a number of people, who otherwise might have not only signed the petition but also helped to get signatures, simply stayed out of the fray.
Alan Fernandes indicated that he is looking at turning in a petition with 6000 signatures sometime in November or December, with the hopes of a special election in the spring. That means that his plan is to continue to collect signatures on the petition as written.
He has 180 days from June 21 to get the signatures collected, which means the deadline is December 18.
Now that Mr. Fernandes has conceded he will not gain sufficient signatures, let us re-examine some of our concerns that we hope he will reconsider when this comes forward again.
The first problem is that by placing it as a citizens’ initiative, he has to go through the city rather than the school district. This adds all sorts of wrinkles that figure to complicate things.
For example, while most of the voters in the district live within the city limits, a number of people don’t. That means not only do they not get to vote on this measure, but they also do not have to pay for the tax. That of course raises a number of fairness issues. Then again, we have had to deal with that issue for some time with inter-district transfers, and it has been fatal.
The bigger problem is the 25 percent that MUST “be used by the city for hiring an additional school resource peace office and increasing emergency first responders” caused a lot of problems. My 
biggest objection is to the idea of adding another school resource officer. I lay out a lot of my reasoning in this July 7 commentary, which includes citing a number of studies, but the basic problem is that putting police on campus exposes children – read children of color and at risk children – to law enforcement at a much younger age.
Washington University Law Review found, “The consequences of involving students in the criminal justice system are severe, especially for students of color, and may negatively affect the trajectory of students’ lives.” The study concluded that “a police officer’s regular presence at a school is predictive of greater odds that school officials refer students to law enforcement for committing various offenses, including these lower-level offenses.”
Others expressed concern that as much as $1.5 million in money would be going to relatively highly paid firefighters rather than teachers. Firefighters, they reasoned, are already at the very top of the compensation chart among government employees locally, while teachers are at or near the bottom. Using the lowest level employees to bolster resources for the highest paid strikes many as wrong.
While I can see why getting a majority vote parcel tax on the ballot looks inviting, I would also point out in a way it is fool’s gold. You would basically be doing the same level of work upfront to get the signatures as you would on the back end to get the voters to the polls.
Given that, it is probably better to marshal your forces to attempt to pass a parcel tax, that is the normal two-thirds vote and not vulnerable to challenges and lawsuits, than attempting to circumvent that process and get the signatures needed to qualify it for the ballot.
The district is going to need to deal with several heady issues regardless.
The teacher compensation issue is a huge problem. But to date, teachers have not lined up in support of either a normal parcel tax or this special parcel tax. Alan Fernandes said he was hoping to meet with leaders of the Davis Teachers Association in August, with the goal of getting their support for the proposed parcel tax measure.
It is hard to see a measure getting on the ballot, let alone passing, without teacher support – but to this point, the teachers have been reluctant to back their measures.
Second, there is a general concern that voters might be nearing their threshold for the parcel tax. Voters were given this statement in a poll this February: “Taxes in this area are already high enough; I’ll vote against any additional tax increase, even for Davis schools.”
Thirty-six percent of the voters said they agreed with this statement. As it turned out, in June about 42 percent voted against the city parcel tax for roads. Numbers like those are likely driving Alan Fernandes to seek another way.
Finally, a number of people expressed concerns that the school district, at the same time it is seeking facilities money and suffering teacher compensation gaps, is nevertheless approving salary increases for top administrators – many of whom are making over $200,000 while the typical teacher is making less than $50,000 and in many cases less than $40,000.
Everyone is in a bind locally – both the city and school district, because they do not have revenue needed to maintain current levels of programs or services.
But the solution offered by both is to try to do this piecemeal. We need to have a broad quality of life discussion in this community. The community needs to understand that, while we still have good schools, good parks and nice city amenities, and a high quality of life, we are about to see that decline sharply without an influx of revenue.
This isn’t a call for more taxes necessarily. It is a call for the community to understand where we are and where we are going. There are alternatives available, especially in terms of economic development, that are worth pursuing. But none of this can happen in the current climate and it cannot happen without strong discussions.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
Any reason why you do not mention Measure M? It will be on the November ballot. Unclear from flyer just received, term of the bonds (20-30-40 years?), unclear if there will be any Senior, SSI/SSD exemptions. $60/$100k AV. Original owners in Cannery will be paying much more than original owners in Mace Ranch, Covell Park Northstar, Wildhorse. For Cannery, AV will pretty closely match “market value”. Looks like it is part one of three anticipated to meet their “needs”…
Also unclear when the existing CFD’s 1 & 2 will sunset.
A “special election” is likely to be “all-mail” for the Fernandes proposal… with or without City/District boundaries voter eligibility, that may skew things, as well…
LOTS of discussion needed, to be sure!
That’s DJUSD CFDs…
Any reason I didn’t mention it? Isn’t that the facilities bond? In which case, I did mention it. Or is that something else?
Oh… missed those 5 (five) words…
I just looked at the “Preparing for the future” flyer that says the district hopes to get $150,900.000.00 from measure M so who needs a parcel tax when you expect to have that much cash coming in.
P.S. I hate it when people add the number after the decimal place to make numbers look bigger, but thought I would do it this time in the hope that others know how stupid it is (and to agree with Howard that the Davis housing office should learn to round to the nearest dollar and don’t need to price the cost of dorms to the penny).
P.P.S. It sad that the public sector can take $150mm in Davis (or $1 Billion in SF) to fix up the schools (using politically connected contractors that kick so much back in totally legal campaign contributions) and it will be hard to even notice what work is done.
https://sfpublicpress.org/news/2016-11/744-million-bond-would-upgrade-sf-schools-but-wont-be-the-last
The $150 million would only be able to be used on facilities, not instructional money.
Why is it the number of thoughts and the stated number of thoughts no longer match up?
Ironically in a town filled with aging educators and others with a great affinity for perpetual academic pursuits, they also have a tendency toward change-aversion that leads them to block economic development that would otherwise provide greater tax revenue to fund the schools and increase pay for the educators and help improve the learning opportunities for the students.
There seems to be a lot of shooting of one’s self in the foot here.
Change aversion: Not believing when someone else tells you something they are doing that harms you and they are profiting from is actually good for you.
aging educators: in some cultures known as wise elders
Inane.
If Davis’ “economic development” quadrupled, the amount DJUSD gets from the State, via new taxes, generated in Davis, is likely de minimus (State would make out quite well!). Not the way the funding works… at least in the here and now.
Red herring, as to topic at hand…
Talk about inane.
What other local tax revenue generation is going to help Davis schools if an increase in property tax? Do you have magic bullet that other communities are relying on?
And if you don’t like the state looting more of our local money to had out to other districts, then stop voting for the looters.
Economic development has the net impact of increasing the wealth of a community. The alternative (and the current “Davis Way”) of raising taxes, does the opposite, reducing the net wealth in the community. Wealthier communities support wealthier school districts.
While Howard’s comment is technically correct, it ignores the ‘multiplier impact’ implicit in Jeff M’s comment.
Howard,
I think you’ve hit on a critically important point here. All having to do with what is mean’t by and encompassed within the term “economic development”.
As example, I take complete exception to your assertion – arguing that a quadrupling of economic activity would radically change the revenue and fiscal picture for both the city and the district.
Point being that neither the city nor the district has been transparent or forthcoming in their willingness to explore the issue.
David seems to believe the concept is obvious and self evident, however, based on your comment it must be considered anything but….
Let me be clear(er)… EconDev Could be transformative for City finances, and I support it… big time… DJUSD is another animal entirely… I was challenging,
So many weird false stereotypes, and an inane/ill-informed assumption as to how DJUSD would gain meaningful revenue from the State…
So guess I’m challenging your assertion that my assertion is false as it relates to the topic, DJUSD…
The main topic is not EconDev, nor City finances…
Basically the thing that increases revenue to the schools is an increase in the number of students.
Increasing the number of students. Increasing the base of property tax revenue. Increasing the number of businesses that contribute to the schools outside of the government funding mess.
Seems like Howard must have some idea for how a city meets its school funding needs if not from these things. However, so far I have not read anything from him that demonstrates he understands how it is done in other communities. What am I missing?
Increase the number of parcels being levied special taxes.
Yup (I was including that in the general property tax point)… but again, points out the disconnect in Howard’s post… unless he has other ideas.
> Basically the thing that increases revenue to the schools is an increase in the number of students.
That’s it! Outlaw birth control in Davis! Now we are getting somewhere.
Yet, Don, except for certain “fixed costs”, additional students comes with an increase in expenditures, along with more revenue. If revenues/student vs. costs/student was currently favorable, why are we having this discussion?
Just think how ADA funds would drop if this idea catches on:
“A democrat congressional candidate in Pennsylvania has desires to tax parents who have more than two children as “irresponsible breeders.” Scott Wallace is a population control zealot who has donated over $7 million to population control groups.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-25/millionaire-democrat-wants-tax-parents-more-two-kids-irresponsible-breeders
P.S. I still can’t see Jeff’s posts (and without reading what Jeff posts I won’t know the RNC/Fox talking points of the day). Is there any way I can fix this myself?
Ken: I looked at that link, and noted that it was written in a very inflammatory manner (including the use of the words “zealot” and “totalitarianism”). Makes me question the entire article.
Having said that, I see no reason to provide tax breaks beyond two children (“replacements” – as I believe Jerry Seinfeld once noted).
Our culture is still heavily biased (for lack of a better word), regarding the sanctity of producing more children. Our culture might be viewed as the “zealot”, at this point. (To some degree, that even infiltrates who pays to educate children.)
Howard,
With a daily enrollment of 600-700 out of districts students – it raises serious concerns over how one addresses the structural fiscal challenges associated with reduced local enrollment. Why enrollment is below target? How will district be made whole on transfers with respect to district parcel taxes?
These are basic ??????.
They overbuilt facilities based on projections that didn’t account for the impact on housing development of Measure J/R.
They won’t. There is no mechanism to achieve that. Everyone probably needs to just get used to that, since this question comes up over and over again.
The only way to achieve ‘fairness’ with respect to interdistrict transfer students would be to cancel those transfers and send them back to their districts of residence. At that point you’d have to close at least one elementary school. There is no way to compel the parents of those students to pay parcel taxes. And at least some percentage of them have a legal right to remain as interdistrict transfer students, depending on the basis on which they came here. It would be a fiscal and political mess of little benefit.
Don answered your questions more correctly and succinctly than I ever could.
I agree with Don on this… but I still need to be convinced that right-sizing, even if that means ‘downsizing’, is a bad thing…
They didn’t notice Measure J/R when making multi-million dollar decisions? WTF?
They planned and built Montgomery Elementary to open in 2001. Measure J passed in 2000. So it was already in the works, and there was broad consensus that South Davis needed another elementary school.
Korematsu had been promised to relieve severe overcrowding of the 1990’s, and new home buyers in East Davis expected it. Although enrollment was already declining, they went ahead and built and opened it. At that point Valley Oak had to be closed and they barely could fill the two new elementary schools. The mistake, in my opinion, was opening Korematsu, but it was already well along in the planning process by the time enrollment declines were evident.
Closing Valley Oak was a big fight. Reconfiguring the school boundaries was another huge fight. But the reality is that the full impact of Measure J was not recognized or factored in to the projections. Home building came to an almost complete halt and very few young families moved into the district.
Interdistrict transfer students, who they had tried to throw out just a decade prior, now became a relief valve allowing the facilities to be used closer to capacity.
It looks like when making the “multi-million dollar decision” they also “didn’t notice” that:
1. The population of Davis is aging (and few older people have kids in grammar school).
2. Families are getting smaller (and smaller families have less kids in grammar school).
https://tgem.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/average-number-of-children-per-household.jpg
3. The population of Davis is getting richer since poor people can’t afford homes for over $750K and the wealthy are having even less kids on average (the rich also sent their kids to private schools in higher numbers meaning even less kids in grammar school)…
Thx DS, informative.
Howard and Jeff,
Like it or not, an increase in our population of local, employed workers – particularly well paid workers as is more common in the technology fields – is a big part of the economic development equation.
Namely, their employers – unless they are a non-profit – will be producing additional new property taxes and – in certain cases additional fee income to the local district. Another, often-overlooked funding element (direct donations and program specific grants in some districts) have been contributions from those employers and their employees to the district.
Lastly, the additional revenues attributable to increased sales tax and commercial property taxes to the city can go a long way towards unfunded liabilities and deferred maintenance at the city level – which in turn relieves the need for city parcel tax initiatives which often compete with programs needs of the district.
These are but two examples of what regularly transpires in technology rich communities around the world.
Why we are lagging in these areas should be a legitimate topic for discussion – if we are serious about improving our prospects and those of the younger generation about whom this conversation was commenced.
Yes John, agree. I don’t know how long you have been reading the VG, but I have been using ink by the buckets over the last almost decade to beat on these points. For any community, strong economic vitality better feeds the beast. It is synergistic and enabling. Demographics matter.
Though I don’t agree completely that only high-tech provides the bump. It just so happens that the US has shed a lot of industry as it advanced in high-tech. However, it was a stupid bit of policy that caused us to give away the production store to China thinking we could sustain ourselves on high tech and financial services… when now China and other countries are leveraging the theft of our technology intellectual capital to take those production markets too… and financial services is going to software and robots… if not English-speaking people in India.
High tech jobs tend to pay better, so there is an upside to the demographic bump in terms of who spends money in a community. But you can find economic vibrancy in cities with other manufacturing and service business. You can find economic vibrancy in agriculture and entertainment. You can find economic vibrancy with a mix of these things. I look at other communities that are economically vibrant, and most of them are a mixed bag of business and demographics. Davis is not economically vibrant and the reasons are pretty clear to me. But the root of the problem are attitudes of the voters and their Measure R tool which allows them to resist needed changes.
By the way, I am starting an ag-related manufacturing business in Winters… so I am maybe a bit sensitive to the idea that only high-tech business benefits a community.
Jeff,
Didn’t mean to give short shrift to manufacturing of all types – and particularly ag endeavors that translate into good jobs and additional value-added taxable revenues, and in some cases new revenue streams back to our research universities and institutes.
It’s truly remarkable how little attention is paid to this discussion or the potential opportunities for mutual prosperity and shared success – between the community and the university – seems like the conversation is perpetually stuck around all the problems facing the community.
I guess I just don’t get it.
John – There was a lot of conversation around those concepts several years ago when Robb White was hired as the chief innovation officer. Those conversations died when all three of the proposed innovation parks went down due to Measure R or fear of Measure R. There is no real leadership in the city left to push these concepts to the front of the discussion. I believe everyone knows it is a waste of effort as the forces of NO CHANGE NO GROWTH have the power in this city.
I have a long career pushing organizational change to a finish line, and what we know is that people, in general, have a hard time with change. The majority of people cannot envision a future state unless they are planted there and get to live there to fill their immediate senses with the experience. So those that can should… and eventually all the vision-challenged will get there and say “well, this isn’t so bad after all… in fact it is better!”.
There is a saying “lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.” It is an apt principle as allowing those that can only get in the way the power of resistance… well that is the primary reason that our nation is not a direct democracy. People will mob for immediate comfort at the cost of long term benefits. It is a progress weakness of human nature that probably has some behavior roots in survival. Only a minority of people are visionaries… people that can really see a future state and lead the rest to that goal. Steve Jobs is a profound example. How many people told him he was crazy, mean, ignorant, foolish, hazardous, destructive, etc… that is the language of the change-averse / risk-averse…. the defenders of the status quo. They are not supposed to have decision authority unless the goal is a stasis existence.
We know with Davis there are opportunities for an explosion in benefits to the human condition… but those opportunities cannot be realized with Michael Harrington and his resistance army of old no-growth old-Davis neighborhood pals get to exploit Measure R and lies about air toxicity and killing of Murder Burger to frighten the rest of the easily-frightened Davis hippies to vote against every significant development. The only reason that NISHI #2 passed is that housing has become a social justice cause that the Davis hippies are starting to get behind. But that isn’t going to help bring us economic vitality.
Measure R needs to be defeated before the conversation can begin again.
What’s the plan, Stan?
Continued education of the voting population.
How’s that strategy been going for you?
Frankly, you need to be called out for Change Averse Shaming.
> Why we are lagging in these areas should be a legitimate topic for discussion
Like it hasn’t been?
Don posted:
Financially, see no downside to that… will cut down on facility rehab needs, and staffing needs… “right-sizing”, as it were… on financial side, does the ADA allotment for transfer students cover the costs?
If not, we are funding a public ‘benefit’/amenity for non-residents, and it amounts to ‘charity’… I could live with that, if it is recognized for what it is… let’s be honest in the discussion…
I agree, regarding “right-sizing”.
And if some parents complain, then let them pay for the unnecessary/extra school. (Yet another “self-inflicted crisis”, as it were.)
I was trying to be logical… you imply vindictiveness… I eschew your response. Your thing, not mine…
Not “vindictiveness”, but “responsibility”.
If parents are clamoring for a school to be open (solely for their convenience, or perhaps because they are “change averse” – despite declining enrollment), I don’t have much sympathy, nor would I want to open my wallet to support it. (If you want to call that “vindictiveness”, than that’s certainly your prerogative. I’d call it “logical”, as well as “right-sizing”.)
How so? I thought my answer was about as brutally honest as it gets.