With voting scheduled to occur on Tuesday – the question locally will largely come down to Measure G. Will Measure G pass? While a two-thirds vote is a high hurdle, I believe that Measure G will narrowly pass for a number of reasons.
First, while there has been a slight uptick in the number of opposition letters in the last two weeks after the announcement that they were launching their official campaign – overall the yes side has an overwhelming advantage of at least a 3 to 1 margin.
Along the same lines, as we have noted a number of times, the one close call, Measure A in 2011 was proceeded by a prolonged period of controversy and we just don’t see it.
Third, and this is probably less important, the few arguments against Measure G that we have seen have had serious factual errors – supporting taxes that cannot be used for school funding and more.
I pulled the last three opposition letters to Measure G in the Enterprise to get a sense for who is writing and what they are arguing..
The first thing I noticed was who the three were: Janet Zwahlen – a past parcel tax opposition leader who was a litigant on the lawsuit. Jose Granda and his wife Imelda. Jose Granda has opposed pretty much every parcel tax and ran for school board several times, finishing relatively low.
While not definitive, who is writing the letters is suggestive that the pool of opposition is not expanding.
Looking at the arguments…
Janet Zwahlen focuses on several points.
First, she argues: “It imposes parcel taxes that never expire and increases every year forever, for generation upon generation.”
It is misleading to suggest that the taxes increase year after year. What the tax does is have an escalator to keep pace with inflation. So the number increases, but if they calibrate it 
correctly, it simply moves with constant dollars.
“But, those who benefit (all school district employees), even those who make $200,000 a year, and even those on part time jobs are exempt. Is it fair that they can vote for a parcel tax that they do not have to pay?”
Parcel taxes are definitely unfair and there will be a large amount of people who can vote for a parcel tax who won’t pay it. But everyone who makes that argument conveniently forgets that the tax system addresses this point by requiring a two-thirds vote. In essence, it takes two yes votes to equal one no vote.
She adds: “Since landlords no doubt will pass on the tax to renters…”
Except that in multi-family dwellings, each parcel still only pays $200. So if you have 100 units, each unit would be responsible for about $2. Even in rental home, $200 over a year period is less than $20 per month – and given that rents increase about $70 to $100 per year, Measure G is likely not to impact most renters.
Jose Granda writes: “In the past, I ran for the Davis School Board on a platform of fairness and responsibility to the taxpayers; 9,253 Davis voters joined me in opposing Measure E and others. This means that not everyone in Davis agrees with the idea of unfair parcel taxes.”
While true, he is ignoring three key facts here. First, parcel taxes have all passed by more than two to one margins. Meaning that while not everyone agrees, the vast majority do. Second, Jose Granda finished poorly in the two races he ran. And third, Jose Granda actually underformed the no on the parcel tax.
He later adds: “I ask those 9,253 voters who believed in me, as well as my opposition to these unfair practices, to go out and vote no on Measure G.”
That’s rather ironic, because those 9253 voters were not enough to defeat the parcel tax in previous years.
Finally, Ms. Granda argues: “It is disingenuous. How can it be that those who benefit from the measure (all school district employees) do not have to pay the parcel tax?”
That seems like a strange argument. Much of the time, the people who benefit directly from taxpayer assistance are not the ones paying the taxes.
She adds, “It is not just for teachers. Measure G makes Davis homeowners and renters pay salary and pension increases for all school district employees!”
“Measure G does not improve instruction. It is an abuse of the good heart of Davis homeowners, who in the past have supported temporarily parcel taxes to help with state budget shortfalls. Measure G has no time limit, it is forever and it has no limit on the cost to you either. It increases every year and without a time limit, the accumulative amount is unlimited. It is not fair to ask homeowners and renters to pay for the salary increases and pensions of all district employees at an increasing rate every year and forever. This makes Measure G the most expensive parcel tax ever in Davis history.”
There is a lot to unpack here. Again, the number increases, but it is calibrated to inflation. The voters always have the option of voting to repeal the parcel tax.
She argues in several places, “Throwing money like this does not make better staff, better teachers or better schools.”
That’s a debatable point. There are several factors here. First, there is at least a reasonable chance that without Measure G passing, the district decides to make cuts to program. Second, the alternative is that they allow teacher compensation to continue to lag which when more senior teachers retire, could result in a large number of teachers leaving.
That doesn’t guarantee that schools will get worse – but certainly that is not helpful.
For the most part the arguments against the tax remain focused on the inherent unfairness of parcel taxes, the size and cost of the parcel tax, and things like exemptions and the fact that it doesn’t expire.
At this point, we just don’t see a lot of opposition to the measure coming out of the woodwork and it looks like it should pass – albeit narrowly.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Would such a repeal vote require only 50+1, or 2/3 to repeal? Or, 1/3 +1?
That’s an interesting question
Yeah… just thought of that question, reading the article… one could plausibly argue for either of the three ‘thresholds’… no one sees to want to discuss the details, only that it “subsequently may be repealed by the voters”…
I don’t think the threshold to end it matters because if it gets 2/3 going in its hard to see how it would get even 50.1% to get out.
So, Ron G, are you implying that the proponents, pointing out it could be repealed, have been (on a ‘practical basis’) covertly deceptive?
Not deceptive at all. I also have no idea what they have been saying but if you think it through its obvious. If you get 2/3 yes its simply hard to see how you get 50+1 no for repeal.
I think at the end of this debate the question comes down to whether DJUSD will maintain a stable long term teaching staff or become, in large part, a post graduate training program for other districts.
I hope people vote yes.
Previous parcel taxes have passed. So what might make this one different?
1) The parcel tax is different. There are features of this tax that are unique: the exemption for school employees, the lack of a sunset clause, the pegging to inflation. All these might tip some people from yes to no.
2) Davis is different. The EMC Research poll from last year shows that priorities have shifted enormously for many residents in the last 6 years when it comes to affordable housing and land use policies. Arguments in favor of propping up property values ring hollow for renters hurt by their rise.
As one point of anecdata: my wife and I were not in Davis for the parcel tax votes in 2011 and 2016 but we both voted no on this one.
“the pegging to inflation”
That’s not different. That has been in school parcel taxes for about a decade.
As David Greenwald pointed out in another blog piece, a school parcel tax is not a perfect instrument for raising money locally, but it’s all that’s available.
Josh Pollich: The way I see it, Measure G is an attempt to address another criticism of Davis you leveled elsewhere:
I don’t know what that means to you, but to me it means having public schools that are better able to employ and pay graduates of our local public university, and to be able to have their kids go to public schools that are appropriately staffed.
I just received the following e-mail. A question to those who know more than I do. Is it accurate?
https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Screen-Shot-2020-02-29-at-8.39.57-AM.png
If we were to do a fact check – it would be true but misleading. It has to do with seniority. Davis teachers are on the top end of experience, so they get more than other districts because it’s not an apples to apples comparison.
If you compare the bottom teacher to bottom teacher, Davis teachers are heavily disadvantaged.
If you compare top teacher in the step and column to top teacher, Davis teachers are still disadvantaged but the gap is considerably smaller.
However, at no point when you make an apples to apples comparison does a Davis teacher make more than a comparable district.
It is a straight average of all of the salaries in the district, and there are more experienced teachers in Davis than in other districts. At this point, newer teachers tend to go to other districts because the salaries are higher, so that skews the salary average to be higher in Davis.
Thank you Hiram and David. That is very helpful.
That was my first guess, too, Hiram and David, but didn’t know… I always like to see methodology and data sets before drawing conclusions such as shown in the graphic. Possibly an indication of “figures don’t lie, but liars can figure”?
This is an interesting statistic.
I suspect that information like this could contribute to a defeat for the proposal, especially if it had been widely-distributed earlier.
It will be interesting to see what happens, as it seems to be less than a “sure thing”.
Also wonder about the potential impact of the coronavirus, regarding voters’ willingness to approve any tax increase during a time of economic uncertainty.
You are absolutely correct Ron O… late-breaking disinformation can affect elections particularly if negative… witness…
Wonder away… @ $198/yr, just can’t see why either above should affect any rational person’s vote… but not all voters are rational…
It was pointed out to you previously (by another commenter) that a couple of hundred dollars/year (increased annually) could be substantial, for some people. (Perhaps not you.)
True. Witness what’s occurring in the stock market. Witness what’s starting to occur with face masks (with probably more to come), which I understand are not particularly effective in protecting oneself.
If enough people are significantly-impacted financially (or fear that they might be), this can increase the importance of another $200/year.
As they say, it’s only “a cup of coffee/day” (but, they fail to mention that it’s for the next thousand years). Some people were already forced to “give up coffee” altogether, a long time ago.
Since this proposal is (already) apparently right on the “edge” of approval/rejection, it wouldn’t take much to change the result either way. (That’s really all I was noting.)
“It was pointed out to you previously (by another commenter) that a couple of hundred dollars/year (increased annually) could be substantial, for some people.”
You would have to own a house and not be a senior or otherwise eligible for an exemption. Is that possible? Yes. But my guess is not that many people would fall into that category.
Maybe not, but this could also be passed on to renters (e.g, in single-family minidorm conversions).
I actually think it’s more likely to impact a few who “stretched” to buy houses, more recently (e.g., perhaps at The Cannery, for example – where fees were already pretty high). Those folks might also have a high rate of participation in the stock market, through 401(K)’s, etc.
As Bill pointed out, not all voters are rational (especially during times of crises).
Just a thought – not a “prediction”. But in general, voters are more likely to support new taxes when the economy isn’t crashing, I would think. There’s a lot of fear out there, at the moment.
Passing it to renters who live in a minidorm is negligible – $20 a month for the entire house divided by total occupants. Non issue.
But at the end of the day here’s what you have:
* A public vote
* A no vote is worth twice a yes vote
* Exemptions for allowable classes of people
If you are still impacted, then you might be too close to the margin and you should consider selling your home and buying one that is more affordable for you.
At the end of the day, there are all sorts of protections for people in that spot, but some people may have to fall into the crack and if they do, perhaps they can’t afford this house, in this town. That’s not a good thing, but sometimes public policy calls for tough decisions.
OK… mini-dorm is like 4-5 folk/unit/parcel?
So max effect for a renter is like $50-40/yr… really?
Your logic on this topc, isn’t, in my opinion.
If, by substantial, you mean something like lose housing, have to starve, give up a few 6-packs over the course of a year… well, if it is “substantial”, they are already in a ‘world of hurt’.
Pretty gratuitous, unless that amount (<$200/yr) is substantial to you…
Good point.
As a separate point, there has been some anger expressed on here regarding high housing prices, presumably (partly) as a result of “good schools”. I’m not sure that paying teachers more necessarily results in “good schools”, but that’s a separate issue.
Regardless, I don’t think it’s a good idea to purposefully make schools “worse”, for the purpose of lowering property values. I’m not sure how widespread that sentiment is.
I don’t think that an argument like that would be received very-well, by someone in that position. Especially for those who need to stretch (e.g., to buy that “first home”).
Given your past concerns regarding the cost of housing, I’m kind of surprised to hear you make a statement like that. Not that I would necessarily disagree.
But, I do stand by my statement that (in general), voters are more likely to approve new taxes when the economy isn’t crashing. Again, I suspect that there are some who may have “stretched” themselves out (e.g., at developments like The Cannery).
Another factor (again, based upon “fear” at this point), is that some people may not be as secure as they previously-thought, if the economy actually does tank (due to the coronavirus and earlier over-valuations).
That’s when job losses occur, etc.
This is actually pretty big news, if you haven’t noticed. The full impact simply isn’t known, at this point.
There are always going to be trade offs in any public policy decision. You can never address 100 percent of the costs of a given policy. You can only take reasonable steps to mitigate and minimize that risk.
Has there been any discussion regarding the amount (per teacher, or other employee) that they would actually receive, if this is approved?
Seems to me that when talking about money, actual numbers can be used. Especially since they’re known in advance.
The average teacher would receive $71,171 “plus” what amount, exactly?
Yes, there has been, and I think it that info has been posted on the Vanguard a while ago. It comes from school board agenda packets that can be found at http://www.djusd.net. I don’t have time to look it up at the moment.
Woops – I was looking at the wrong location (regarding Matt’s post, above).
The average Davis teacher would receive $72,256 “plus” what amount, in salary (excluding benefits)?
Just saw Hiram’s link as I was writing this, but it doesn’t seem to be working for me.
But again, shouldn’t the actual number be “front and center” – at all times when discussing this? I understand it’s a “flat” amount (regardless of level), so it shouldn’t be that difficult to include it in the articles.
Try this: http://www.djusd.net
Thanks, Hiram. But like you, I don’t have time to search a general website. I took a quick look, and found plenty of other statistics/nonsense.
Again, why isn’t this simple (and extremely relevant) amount readily disclosed up-front (and provided in the articles) at all times? Why would anyone have to “look it up”?
Is the up-front disclosure of the amount somehow “less-important” than all of the comments on here (my own, included)?
And by the way, thanks to Matt for including the “average” salary. Why wasn’t this discussed, prior to this point?
[Moderator: You have now exceeded 7 posts on this thread. Thank you for your participation.]
‘Again, why isn’t this simple (and extremely relevant) amount readily disclosed up-front (and provided in the articles) at all times? Why would anyone have to “look it up”?’
Go to the November 7, 2019 school board meeting and look at some of the attached board documents and agenda descriptions. This link might take you there. (May not work).
These kinds of conversations can go a million different ways, and everyone has their own preference and threshold for information they want on this issue.
I think you would benefit most by scheduling an appoint with a school board trustee and asking your questions.
“Previous parcel taxes have passed. So what might make this one different?”
What makes this one different is the circumstances that led to the need to have the proposal. In 2014 the state, under Gov. Brown’s leadership, changed the funding formula for education in a way that seriously underfunds DJUSD relative to other districts both locally and statewide.
As a result DJUSD is no longer competitive in attracting and retaining new teachers. Also to keep from falling even farther behind DJUSD has spent down its reserves to the statutory limit. In other words its either raise revenue or cuts going forward.
In the past parcel taxes were to pay for the extras that enrich the educational experience. This one is to fund the core mission of the schools. That is a major difference.
“As one point of anecdata: my wife and I were not in Davis for the parcel tax votes in 2011 and 2016 but we both voted no on this one.”
Welcome to Davis, Josh. Your comment the other day about the relative size of the city compared to other college towns was spot on and offered an impressive new perspective on a decades old debate within this community.
In welcoming your new voice to the conversation I would like to point out that the portion of your comment quoted above leaves out too much information to tell us much about the context of your family’s votes against Measure G. Still it is disheartening for those who support public education at all levels to see no votes anywhere.
I’d be interested to know why you moved here and the circumstances of your current situation as a way to better understand your thinking. It would still be anecdotal information but it might better inform the community about new trends that might shape the future of the Davis electorate.
Ok… using my seventh (and final) comment on this thread… [some don’t get called on that until they have posted 8-13 times, on a thread]
Spouse and I have cast our votes… I URGE ALL TO VOTE!
I care not how… but for those who live in the DJUSD boundaries, and are eligible to vote (some have, already) please vote… if you don’t vote, I will give no credence to any complaints on the results of the vote… I give tiny credence to those who do not live in the District, but may own property (not eligible to vote on the issue), as <$200/year is truly de minimus, if you own a rental property. And you can always pass it on to your tenants, so don’t cry us a river, no matter the outcome…
That goes pretty much for all the candidates, other measures on the ballot… if you are eligible to vote, and don’t, please spare all of us from becrying the results… you have no ‘standing’…
PLEASE VOTE!
Early votes have G failing (64% yes), Q passing (80% yes).