Posted by Marti, a resident of the Martens-Carmelita neighborhood, on Jun 9, 2010 at 1:08 pm

This is Great! Thanks to all who voted for Measure A.

Posted by James, a resident of the Whisman Station neighborhood, on Jun 9, 2010 at 1:22 pm

I think it's clear that people who care about schools tend to vote in larger numbers than those who don't. They should go ahead and put a measure on the November ballot to raise the parcel tax to a level where the districts (MVLA,MVW) are properly funded.

Posted by Parent, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Jun 9, 2010 at 2:49 pm

@James: One big parcel tax measure to provide adequate funding would be nice, I agree. But while recent bond and tax elections have received overwhelming support, it's not always that way. In my 16 years as a local parent I have seen one bond measure (MVLA HS, prior to Measure D in 1995) and two parcel tax measures (one for LASD and one for MVWSD) fail by very narrow margins. So districts have to be judicious and go for these measures when they can really justify them. Especially when considering parcel taxes -- meeting that supermajority is a very high bar.

Posted by vfree, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Jun 9, 2010 at 2:57 pm

1. It's sad only 15,000 voters took the time to vote.

2. It's sad the $41 million will not fix our schools.

Posted by steve, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jun 9, 2010 at 3:30 pm

Just a little reminder that 53% of state education funds go to administration costs. Ever try running a business with 53% overhead?

Bonds just push debt onto very kids we are supposedly trying to help. It may make you feel good about yourself, but it is ultimately hypocritical.

We will never fix our problems until Californians realize that the issue isn't taxing more or increasing state debt by selling more bonds, but rather fixing the gross inefficiencies and outright waste that is inherent in the system, and by cutting programs, benefits entitlements where they make utterly no sense. Unless we do this, this state will become bankrupt. How will that work out for your kids?

Posted by eric, a resident of another community, on Jun 9, 2010 at 3:40 pm

You need to back that stat up, Steve

Posted by the299crew, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jun 10, 2010 at 11:04 am

Steve:

I'll back it up. Bonds are good for certain things, especially for the investors. For the borrowers, in this case the schools, with no real business or other income growth, the provebial can is just kicked down the road. For Measure A's can, our kids will be kicking that one down El Camino way out into the future.

Posted by Question, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Jun 12, 2010 at 11:40 am

I do not see any way for schools to build or improve campuses other than bonds. It's simply not possible to "save" enough money to pay for millions of dollars in construction.

And when you say 53% overhead -- what are the specific items you consider overhead? I would think just about all of a school's budget is overhead. There's no profit involved. Salaries, books, supplies, utilities. That's pretty much it. What would "non-overhead" costs be for a school?