|
|
Santa Clara County, California - June 6, 2006 Primary Election $490.8 Million of Foothill-De Anza Community College District General Obligation Bonds |
||
|
|
Welcome to the Silicon Valley Property Taxpayers’ Association - Why You Should Vote No on Measure C portion of our Web Site. We’re ALL for better public education! However just because an institute of education proffers a new tax measure neither means education per se is really at issue, nor that the measure itself is warranted. Measure C is an example of the principle. Rather than being about “education” Measure C is really about irresponsibility, half-truths, Foothill-De Anza Community College District’s [“the district’s”] shameless use of “the education card” and employing high-priced [at the public’s expense] professional political consultants to manipulate the electoral process in the name of “the ends justifying the means.” Too often the public blindly accepts educators’ “sky is falling” pleas for more money simply because of “labeling” [after all education’s a “sacred cow,” isn’t it?]. However when one takes the time to educate him/herself concerning the real issues raised by new taxing measures such as Measure C, many times he/she discovers another side to the story. This opposition is intended to share the other side of the Measure C story. We hope you find our discussion helpful, and thanks for taking the time to look.
The district wants you to believe Measure C represents nothing more than “permission” to borrow $490.8 Million. NOT SO! Measure C really seeks approval to levy new ad valorem taxes to repay the interest and servicing costs on $490.8 Million worth of new I.O.U.s! If you want to learn the truth of why Measure C IS really a tax in a bond’s clothing, you’re invited to click here. Now why would an agency of the State intentionally mislead you into thinking a ballot proposition was something other than what it really is? And why would you ever trust such an agency that intentionally relies upon half-truths and deception to make you think Measure C is not a tax when as you will see, it is?
Nor does Measure C cost $490.8 Million. According to the district, the cost [once interest and servicing costs are computed] totals a whopping $1.15 Billion [that’s right, BILLION] of new ad valorem taxes [and this is the district’s figure, not ours]! And if you agree with us the district’s “conservative assumptions” are wrong [see below], the true cost will be even more!
The district asserts Measure C is smart notwithstanding the fact that with servicing/interest costs over next 40 years, Measures C and E end up costing property owners over $1.8 BILLION [again these are the district’s figures, not ours]! In contrast, comparable special taxes would cost taxpayers at least $1.1 BILLION LESS [if you want to learn how we’ve come up with this much waste, you’re invited to click here]! Now why would an agency of the State intentionally force its taxpayers to unnecessarily pay a wasted $1.1 BILLION? Because bonds require just 55% voter approval, whereas special taxes require two-thirds! Therefore just like the County’s sales tax Measure A [also on your ballot], the district is guilty of electoral manipulation at taxpayers’ expense. What do you think about an agency of the State whose mantra is let “the ends justify the means” even if it means unnecessarily taxing local residents?
The district estimates Measure C “only” costs the average taxpayer [i.e., property owner (see below)] $24/year for each $100,000 of assessed valuation, or “less than $10 monthly.” But this estimate is based upon a number of allegedly “conservative assumptions” which as you will discover are wrong [if you want to learn why they’re wrong you’re invited to click here]. Even assuming arguendo the district can actually deliver on its “assumptions,” combined with Measure E the real cost to the average taxpayer totals $14,000 or more over the 40 year life of these bonds [if you want to learn how we’ve come up with the $14,000 figure you’re invited to click here]! And if you live in Palo Alto or Los Altos Hills, that cost is as high as $28,000! And remember, this $14,000-$28,000 is: in ADDITION to the $70 Million property owners already pay the district; and, thousands more in other “special” exactions landowners only are assessed [if you want to learn more about these “other” exactions you’re invited to click here]! Now why would an agency of the State tell its residents a new bond was going to cost “less than $10 monthly” when the real cost is closer to $14,000, or even more? And given Measure C is admittedly just the “second phase” of what is guaranteed to become a never-ending series of additionally phased bond measures [see below], is it really worth $14,000-$28,000 to you [especially considering the unspecified list of projects Measure C promises (see below)]? And why would you ever trust an agency of the State that intentionally misleads the public into believing the cost of Measure C is some very low monthly figure when in-truth-and-in-fact, it’s substantial?
The district implies $490.8 Million more will do the job insofar as addressing its represented facility needs. But in reality, it won’t [if you want to learn why Measure C is really nothing more than phase two of what is destined to become a never-ending number of additionally phased bond measures, you're invited to click here]! Now why would you ever trust an agency of the state that considers Measure C to be merely “phase two” of a never-ending shopping spree at property owners’ expense?
The district asserts “Measure C is a smart plan” notwithstanding the fact ONLY local landowners are compelled to pay [therefore it really represents nothing other than another new “creatively labeled” tax against property]! But we think Measure C is “smart” only if you’re a resident non-landowner, or a nonresident student [see below] who benefits from educational improvements, yet doesn’t have to pay for them! Now why would you ever trust an agency of the State that in the name of “smartness” proffers a tax measure that doesn’t tax everyone, when it could easily tax everyone [if truly warranted]?
Most people think property owners, regardless of who they are or where they happen to reside, get to vote in special tax or bond elections because it’s their properties proposed to be taxed. But here the district refuses to allow 40% of those actually being taxed [residents owning multiple properties; residents owning properties in the name of a deceased’s estate, trust, corporation, partnership or other non-natural person; or, nonresident landowners] to vote! Now why would an agency of the State proffer a tax measure which if approved, didn’t tax over 50% of those being asked to give their approval [e.g., non-landowners]? Because in the words of California Bldg. Industry Assn. v. Governing Bd. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3rd 212, 237-38, the district fully understands “voters [will] gladly impose taxes which the[y]...themselves do not have to pay!” Stated differently, “the ends justifying the means.” Although you personally may not care whether or not your landowning neighbor is allowed to vote, if you condone this injustice with your “yes” vote, the day may very well come when a tax proposition which does tax you is proffered, and you don’t get to vote [and how will you feel?]! But more pointedly, why would you ever trust an agency of the State that so matter-of-factly adopts such an unfair and discriminatory voting scheme simply because “the ends justify the means?”
In fairness, the taxing inequities we describe might possibly be capable of explanation if student enrollment were limited to just to our kids. But unbelievably, over 70% of the district’s students are NOT even local residents [again these are the district’s figures, not ours]! And community college system wide, nearly 20% of all students are NOT even citizens [see ¶(I)(C)(i)(h) - “who are our students”]! In fact according to district Trustee Laura Casas Frier, the number may even be higher at the district’s Foothill and De Anza campuses because the district has a penchant for “looking the other way.” Now why would you ever trust an agency of the State that asks local property owners, and only local property owners [see above], to subsidize the costs of higher education for so many nonresidents and non-citizens?
Article XIIIA, §1(b)(3)(B) of the California Constitution declares community college “proposition[s] approved by...voters...[that as here] result...in...bonded indebtedness [must] include...a list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded.” Take a careful look at your voters’ pamphlet. Where do you see a “list of...specific school facilities projects?” Even the district’s vice-chancellor for finance and college services [Mike Brandy] admits there is no list. According to him, “each time bonds are issued the Board of Trustees will have to authorize a specific list of projects” to be funded [why authorize a list if the list already exists?]. Now why would you ever trust an agency of the State that omits a specific list of projects to be funded by a bond measure [e.g., do you really think omission was an “oversight”], when the law mandates it be specified?
Measure C’s proponents instruct that if you want to view the specific “list,” you should examine the district’s “Facilities Master Plan.” We agree because if you examine that “Plan,” you’ll discover there’s no list! Thus in the words of Ventura Group Ventures, Inc. v. Ventura Port Dist. (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1089, 1107, “if everything is speci[fic], then nothing is speci[fic]!” If you really want to discover the specific list, we recommend you study the district’s February 21, 2006 “Bond Measure Cost Summary” [it’s on file in the Chancellor's Office]. There you’ll find a comprehensive “list” of specific proposed expenditures funded by Measure C [only some of which, by the way, are related to “facilities”]. If the particulars of that “Summary” had been included in your voters’ pamphlet [as we believe they should have been], we don’t think you’d be so quick to cast your approval for Measure C! With the foregoing as a backdrop then, let’s examine some of Measure C’s other particulars.
The district asserts “Measure C is a smart plan to…improve local college facilities” notwithstanding the fact only 59% is actually earmarked for “facility” kinds of repairs/renovations/improvements. But as you’ll discover, it represents nothing more than a plan to free up more of the district’s budget for other types of expenditures [86% of which represents employee salaries and benefits]! Notwithstanding proponents’ hype [“Measure C...will improve local college facilities...(and represent)s a smart plan to complete the renovation of classrooms, libraries and labs”], close inspection of the district’s February 21, 2006 “Summary” reveals only 59% is actually earmarked for “facility” repairs/renovations/improvements. The remainder [a whopping $202 Million (much of which is lumped under the “upgraded technology and equipment” category)] is earmarked for other kinds of projects [like $1.6 Million to pay off the district’s current telephone system loan]. If you’d like to learn what other kinds of non-facility projects Measure C is destined to fund, you’re invited to click here)]! As you learn of these other kinds of “projects,” ask yourself how they can be reconciled with the district’s representation Measure C funds will “only be used for the [facility] repair and renovation projects listed?” Now why would you ever trust an agency of the State that intentionally mislabels proposed uses of new taxes to give the impression they represent its most “urgent and critical facility repairs,” when as you’ll discover, they don’t?
Of the portion of Measure C actually earmarked [under the district’s February 21, 2006 “Summary”] for infrastructure [facility] kinds of repairs/renovations/improvements, the district proposes a whopping 27½% [$80 Million] be spent on projects not directly related to education per se [such as a $1.15 Million facelift for Flint Center’s parking garage]. If you’d like to learn some of the other questionable projects proposed to be funded by Measure C, you’re invited to click here! Now why would you ever trust an agency of the State that so freely plays the “education card” to give the impression questionable non-education related improvements represent its most “urgent and critical facility repairs,” when as you’ll discover, they don’t?
When the district proffered Measure E 6 years ago, we believed it by approving $248 Million of bonds for what now turns out to be the very SAME kinds of repairs/repairs/renovations represented [“replace(ment of) aging roofs, deteriorated plumbing and electrical systems; refurbish(ment of) classrooms, science laboratories and restrooms; and, construct(ion of) science and high-tech computer labs, classrooms and school facilities”]! Moreover after we gave, the district parlayed our generosity into more [what Measure C’s proponents call “leverag(ing) state funds and other sources to minimize the cost to taxpayers”]: an additional $36.7 Million in matching Proposition 47 and 55 State bond funding; and then between funding and actual expenditure [while taxpayers were paying the interest/servicing costs on Measure E’s bonds], another $10.7 Million of interest income from the public’s now $284.7 Million of bonded indebtedness! All told then, nearly $300 Million received as a direct result of Measure E; taxpayers shackled with at least $665 Million of indebtedness until 2033 [not just the $248 Million of Measure E (see above), and because of staging, for 40 years instead of 25]; and if we take the district’s words at face value, an additional $490.8 Million is still necessary! Why? Because according to the district’s ballot rebuttal argument, no one ever represented $295.5 Million would “address all college facility renovations; (rather) it (just) funded the first phase of upgrades!” Does this sound like responsibly “leverag[ing] state funds and other sources to minimize the cost to taxpayers” as Measure C’s proponents assert? Fool us once, shame on the district. Fool us twice, SHAME ON US!
The district proudly proclaims Measure E “projects were completed on time and on budget.” Why should you care about Measure E? Because it’s a road map for Measure C and demonstrates the district cannot be trusted with another $491 Million! Take a close look at the district’s February 21, 2006 “Bond Measure Cost Summary.” There you’ll discover $7.47 Million of Measure C is earmarked to finish former Measure E projects never completed! Additionally, the district admits it did not retrofit Foothill College for “seismic safety” notwithstanding it represented this was one of the purposes for Measure E [see above]! Furthermore, the projects completed using Measure E funds actually cost $47.5 Million more than Measure C’s $248 Million because the district spent $36.7 Million more in State matching funds, and $10.7 Million more in interest earned on our $248 Million [see above]. So you tell us; do the foregoing facts sound like “on time and on budget” to you? As we said before, fool us once, shame on the district. Fool us twice, SHAME ON US!
There’s another aspect to the district’s February 21, 2006 “Bond Measure Cost Summary” we believe worthy of mention. Instead of funding “routine & state…ongoing…scheduled maintenance…and facility improvements” from the next 15 years of budgets, Measure C proposes diverting $32 Million for that purpose [the same thing it did with Measure E funds (see above)]! Although bonds can be used for alterations or additions to school buildings, under law [Education Code, §15100(c)] they may not be used “for current maintenance, operation or repairs.” Now why would you ever trust an agency of the State that has misused the proceeds of Measure E, and now proposes the same kind of misuse insofar as Measure C is concerned?
In 1988 Proposition 98 guaranteed at least 40% of the State budget would be spent on public education. Today the State spends over 45% [yet according to educators this still isn’t enough], and the portion earmarked for community colleges in particular represents a whopping 25½% of the State budget! Furthermore according to the district’s Chancellor, starting this year the district in particular [in contrast to the 71 other statewide community college districts] gets Millions more to “equalize” what the State has been over contributing to other community college districts! And furthermore still, the district realizes nearly $4 Million more each year just from lottery proceeds [funds we stupidly thought were supposed to eliminate the need for ballot measures such as Measures E and C], and $3⅓ Million more from the federal government! When is enough, enough?
And it’s not as if local homeowners don’t already pay their fair share to the district. At $70 Million annually, local property owners contribute more than does any of the district’s other income sources [including the State]! And remember, this $70 Million is in addition to the $248 Million of Measure E [actually according to the district, with servicing and interest costs it’s $665 Million!] only local property owners are repaying [see above]! In contrast, what do you think the district’s 37,000 California students pay the district in tuition? Can you believe a paltry $17/unit, or $12.5 Million annually [again, these are the district’s numbers, not ours]?
Now that the district has presented voters with what it characterizes as merely phase two of what promises to become an endless number of additionally phased bond measures, we believe there are some fundamental questions that need to be asked. How did the public’s arguably responsible public stewards get themselves into this mess; what have they done, if anything, to prepare for what it describes as the NEXT PHASE of facility “upgrades” since Measure E was approved; what do they propose, if anything, to assure the public that never again will they neglect two of our community’s most valuable assets; and, when does the public finally put a stop to this nonsense? If you’d like to learn about nearly 50 years of facility mismanagement, you’re invited to click here! Now why would you ever reward an agency of the State for mismanaging the hundreds of Millions we’ve given?
It’s not just that 86% of the district’s $186 Million in yearly revenues already goes to employees’ salaries/benefits. According to statewide data, 73 of the district’s highest paid administrators average $110,500 annually in salary PLUS benefits; Chancellor Martha J. Kanter herself is paid $180,000 annually PLUS benefits [by the way more than Governor Schwarzenegger and nearly as much as Vice-President Cheney]; and, a single political consultant [Larry Tramutola] is paid the equivalent of $90,000 annually [see below]! In fact, we asked the district to tell us the number of employees earning in excess of $96,000 annually [including benefits] and were shocked to learn it totals a whopping 310! Now to put these numbers into perspective, we ask you compare them to the $75,000 annually, on average, tenured instructors are paid. It’s for these reasons then that we observe that when maintenance/infrastructure repairs are intentionally shortchanged in favor of “more” for employees and professional administrators, it’s disingenuous to argue “Measure C provides no money for administrators!” But that’s the district’s story, and it’s sticking to it! Now why would you ever trust an agency of the State that admittedly spends this much on administrative overhead, and then “cries wolf” because nothing’s left over for its most urgent and critical facility repair projects?
The district asserts Measure C “is supported by senior citizens.” But taxes like those of Measure C are regressive [e.g., they adversely impact SENIORS and those others on fixed incomes the most who can afford them the least]! We don’t know too many seniors or others on fixed incomes who support higher taxes [do you?]. Furthermore had the district proffered new “special taxes” rather than Measure C’s bonds, not only would it have saved taxpayers some $1.1 Billion, but it could have exempted [Government Code, §50079(b)] our community’s seniors? Now why would you ever trust an agency of the State that on the one hand so freely plays the “senior citizens card,” but in reality, lacks compassion for our community’s senior citizens?
The district asserts Measure C is “smart” notwithstanding the fact it taxes homeowners NON-UNIFORMLY [e.g., those with higher assessed valuations end up paying more]! In contrast, if properties were specially taxed, because of Government Code, §50079.1 their owners would all pay the same amount of tax! Now why would you ever trust an agency of the State that in the name of “smartness” unnecessarily taxed property owners and only property owners [see above], and then differently to boot?
The district asserts Measure C is “smart” notwithstanding the fact it taxes future homeowners more than current ones [assuming a home costs more tomorrow than today, its future owner(s) end up paying more taxes under Measure C because as you’ll discover bond repayment is pegged to tomorrow’s assessed valuations]. Why trust an agency of the state that in the name of “fairness” unnecessarily taxes future property owners [today’s tenants] more?
The district asserts Measure C is “smart” notwithstanding the fact it uses public funds to promote the fact that over 50% of voters [non-landowners] won’t have to pay a nickel of Measure C [this is part of political consultant Larry Tramutola’s strategy of targeting particular voters, and then crafting a personalized message that convinces them to vote “yes”]! Now ask yourself: why would anyone vote “no” for a new tax that offered the prospect of some arguable public benefit yet didn’t cost him/her anything? And why you ever trust an agency of the state that proffers a new tax [that according to proponents represents a community wide benefit] that only some must pay, yet spends public moneys to pander to others by offering something of value [a de facto tax exemption] in consideration of “yes” votes [a violation of Elections Code, §18521]? The district asserts Measure C is “smart” to landowners who cannot vote because its new taxes can simply be passed onto renters in the form of higher rents. Thus if you stop to think about it, according to the district Measure C really increases everyone’s living costs! Although this assertion is a misstatement of fact [because rents are based upon supply and demand rather than a property owner’s component acquisition/carrying costs augmented by some reasonable rate of return on his/her/its investment], assuming arguendo it were true, why would you ever trust an agency of the State that panders to our community's tenants on the one hand [see above], and then tells local landowners they should simply raise their tenants’ rents? And if you stop to think about it, Measure C really makes the dream of home ownership even less attainable because if you’re a renter who longs to one day become a homeowner, your all inclusive home ownership costs for the next forty years are destined to be higher!
Proponents assert Measure C is “smart” because “the entire cost of this measure is deductible on state and federal taxes.” But it’s only deductible if you’re a property owner [see above]! Therefore even if Measure C’s new taxes are passed onto tenants in the form of higher rents [see above], they get to deduct nothing! Furthermore even if you’re a property owner, Measure C’s new taxes are only deductible if you earn enough taxable income to take advantage of itemized deductions [e.g., you must first have enough other personal deductions over the standard deduction (which is available to all taxpayers, whether or not property owners)]. Since most homeowners we know either don’t have enough personal deductions over the standard deduction that allows them to deduct Measure C’s new taxes [we suggest you take a look at your last year’s income tax return to determine whether you itemized personal deductions on Schedule A, or simply took the standard deduction instead]; or, they earn too much taxable income [if you’re unmarried or married filing separately and earn over $72,975, your personal deductions are limited (see line 28)]; or they’re subject to Alternative Minimum Tax which ends up taking away what would otherwise be an itemized deduction; they realize no added tax benefit as a result of their repayment of Measure C! Even if you’re one of the few remaining homeowners actually able to deduct Measure C’s new taxes, it still costs you more because contrary to proponents’ representations [see above], “the entire cost of this measure is [not] deductible on [your] state and federal taxes.” Instead, your tax savings will only be a very small percentage of the actual new taxes you end up paying! Now why would you ever trust an agency of the State that misstates to so many the alleged income tax consequences of the new taxes it proffers? Besides the cost to property owners, Measure C costs the district itself Millions [if you want to learn about some of these Millions, you’re invited to click here]! Now why would you ever trust an agency of the State that claims to have no money for ongoing maintenance and facility repairs, yet readily spends multiple Millions for wasteful elections that really are camouflage for higher employee salaries/benefits? The district asserts Measure C is “smart” [e.g., it’s good for the economy] because “each dollar of property tax generates $3.67 in local economic impact!” But according to the San Jose Mercury Newspaper, high housing costs fueled by the $1.8 BILLION in new Measures C and E taxes [see above] are squeezing worker salaries; threaten the Bay Area’s ability to attract talented workers; and, increase Bay Area living costs [all of which are all bad for the economy]! Furthermore, one does not need to be a rocket scientist to realize that if 70% of the district’s students don’t live in “our community” [see above], they won’t likely be making “our community” their new home after graduation! Therefore although their “economic impact” may be “good for the economy,” it is really some other community’s economy which benefits at local property owners’ expense! Now why would you ever trust an agency of the State that has so little regard for the impact of its taxes on our local community?
The district asserts Measure C includes “mandatory annual audits and review by an independent citizens’ oversight committee” suggesting the public will be “protected.” Don’t be fooled! Look what happened insofar as Measure E is concerned. And last year the Fair Political Practices Commission fined the district [paid for with public funds] for laundering $75,000 [of additional public funds] to its Student Union so it could clandestinely finance the political campaign for Measure E! Now why would you ever trust an agency of the State that impermissibly [Elections Code, §7054(a)] uses public funds to campaign in favor of a ballot measure where it is the one which benefits? Furthermore when it comes to “citizens oversight,” it’s the district itself that cherry picks who sits on the committee! Furthermore still, the only power committee members will have is the power to “oversee.” They will have no power whatsoever to actually stop impermissible or wasteful spending [see the County Counsel’s similar warning insofar as her Impartial Analysis to Measure A is concerned]. “Since [the law] provides no penalties for bond mismanagement, it ends up being taxpayers, not school officials, who are [the ones]...punished!” So much for trusting the district’s “protection” promise!
For the second time [the first was in conjunction with Measure E], the district has retained [at public expense] Larry Tramutola under the guise of orchestrating a Measure C “informational campaign.” Why should you care? Because he’s a self-admitted master of manipulating the electoral process in the name of “winning!” According to him, “there is not one campaign that [he’s] involved in that [he] do[es] not worry that by using [his] sophisticated tools to target, analyze and segment voters, [he is] in fact hurting the democratic process” [if you’d like to learn more about Mr. Tramutola’s electoral strategies, you’re invited to click here]! Oh, and did we mention that when we asked the district to use public funds to publicize other more embarrassing “information” it has neglected to share with the public, it refused notwithstanding the fact Elections Code, §7058 obligates it to make its forums available to all sides on an equitable basis, whenever it elects to use a forum under the control of its governing board? Now why would you ever trust an agency of the State that impermissibly uses your tax dollars to manipulate the electoral process [remember Elections Code, §7054(a) makes it unlawful to spend public resources on political campaign activities] in the name of “information” and “the ends justifying the means?” The district asserts opponents “do not live in its district” implying we neither know our facts nor care about our community colleges. But we ask you compare proponents’ arguments to ours. Who shares the truth? Who is being deceptive? Who stands to benefit if Measure C passes? Who continues to use public funds to publicize its message, yet denies that same right to all sides? And isn’t it interesting the district is comfortable with www.tramutola.com [the district’s high powered political consultant (“wanting to win is nice but KNOWING HOW TO WIN IS BETTER”)] notwithstanding it is a PAID [$45,000 (with public funds)] “outsider,” yet it has a problem with us?
How many creatively “labeled” landowner ONLY taxes are necessary; when does enough become enough; when do tenants/nonresident students start paying their fair share of the district’s costs; and, how are taxpayers supposed to react when an agency of the State disingenuously plays the “education card” to hide its irresponsibility? It’s time to put a stop to this nonsense by once and for all instructing the district to:
When you examine the entire Measure C story, we think you’ll conclude it’s only “smart” if you’re a: district employee who seeks more in salary and benefits without regard for your concurrent obligation to care for two of our community’s most valuable assets; or, a nonresident student who asks local property owners to subsidize his/her education! Please join the rest of us who the district actually allows to vote [see above] in VOTING NO! Should you have questions or comments, please address them to Silicon Valley Property Taxpayers’ Association at: |
