|
|
Santa Clara County, California - November 7, 2006 Gubernatorial Election $90 Million of Campbell Union High School District General Obligation Bonds |
||
|
|
Welcome to the Silicon Valley Property Taxpayers’ Association - Why You Should Vote No on Measure G portion of our Web Site. Rather than being about “education,” Measure G is really about arrogance, irresponsibility, half-truths, more salary and benefits for grossly overpaid administrators [like nearly $178,000 or more annually for the Campbell Union High School District’s (“the district’s”) Superintendent (Rhonda Farber)], the district’s shameless use of “the education card,” and because of an “ends justify means” mentality, retaining highly-priced [at the public’s expense] professional political consultants to assist the district in manipulating the electoral process. In a word, Measure G is really about GREED! Too often the public blindly accepts educators’ “sky is falling” pleas for more money simply because they bear the “label” education [after all, education’s a “sacred cow” isn’t it?]. But when one expends the effort to educate him/herself about the real issues behind most new taxing measures [such as Measure G], oftentimes he/she discovers another side to the story proponents are hoping you won’t learn about. This opposition is intended to share the other side of the Measure G story. We hope you find our discussion useful, and thanks for taking the time to look.
The district wants you to believe Measure G represents nothing more than “permission” to borrow $90 Million. NOT SO! In-truth-and-in-fact Measure G really seeks taxpayer approval to levy new ad valorem taxes for up to the next 40 years that will repay the interest and servicing costs on $90 Million worth of new indebtedness [e.g., I.O.U.s]! Now why would an agency of the State intentionally mislead the public into believing a ballot proposition were something other than what it really is? And when you learn those reasons, why would you ever trust such an agency that relied upon half-truths and deception because it had a hidden agenda to make you think Measure G is not a new tax when it really was? If you want to learn the truth why Measure G IS really a tax in a bond’s clothing, you’re invited to click here.
Nor does Measure G cost the $90 Million proponents suggest. According to the district the cost [once interest and servicing costs are factored in] totals a whopping $260 Million in new ad valorem taxes! And if you agree the district’s “conservative assumptions” surrounding how it came up with this figure are wrong [see below], the true cost is even more! Now why would an agency of the State intentionally mislead the public into believing a new tax would cost taxpayers “x” when in-truth-and-in-fact the cost were 2.5 times “x” or even more?
The district asserts Measure G is “wise” notwithstanding the fact that with servicing/interest costs, Measure G and former Measure C [yes, 6 years ago the district floated another $95 Million bond measure (see below)] end up costing property owners over $500 MILLION! In contrast, a comparable amount of special taxes would cost taxpayers at least $220 MILLION LESS [if you want to learn how we’ve calculated this much waste, you’re invited to click here]! Now why would an agency of the State go out of its way to force taxpayers to unnecessarily pay a wasted $220 MILLION in new taxes? Because Measure G’s bonds require just 55% voter approval whereas new special taxes would require two-thirds approval! Therefore just like the County’s former sales tax Measure A [on last June’s ballot], the district is guilty of electoral manipulation at taxpayers’ expense. Now what do you think about an agency of the State whose mantra is let “the ends justify the means” even if they translate into unnecessarily over taxing local taxpayers?
The district estimates Measure G “only” costs the average taxpayer [i.e., property owner (see below)] $36/year or “less than $3 a month.” But this estimate is based upon a number of so called “conservative assumptions” which if you took the time to uncover, you would discover are likely wrong [if you want to learn why they’re wrong, you’re invited to click here]. Even assuming arguendo the district could actually realize its “assumptions,” combined with former Measure C the real cost to the average property owner totals $7,200 or more over the 40 year life of these bonds [if you want to learn how we’ve come up with our $7,200 figure, you’re invited to click here]! And if you live in Saratoga or Los Gatos where assessed valuations are higher than in Campbell, your cost will be even more because Measure G’s taxes aren’t uniform [i.e., they are based upon individual assessed valuations]! And remember, this $7,200 or more is: in ADDITION to the $43.5 Million property owners are already paying the district from their property taxes; and, the thousands more in other “special” exactions property owners only are being assessed [if you are a property owner and want to learn more about these “other” kinds of exactions only landowners pay, you’re invited to click here]! Now why would an agency of the State tell the public a new bond were only going to cost “less than $3 a month” when the real cost is really closer to $7,200, or even more? And why would you ever trust an agency of the State that intentionally misled the public into believing the cost of Measure G were some very low monthly figure when in-truth-and-in-fact it is far more substantial? And whatever the answers, given Measure G is admittedly just the “second phase” of what is guaranteed to become a never-ending series of additionally phased bond measures [see below], is Measure G really worth $7,200 or more to you?
The district implies $90 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 G is really nothing more than phase two of what is destined to become a never-ending series of additionally phased bond measures, you’re invited to click here]! We’ve asked the district to give us its estimate of the cost to complete all of its so called projects outlined in our voters’ pamphlet and it can’t [or won’t]! Now why would you ever trust an agency of the state that considers Measure G to be merely “phase two” of a never-ending shopping spree at property owners’ only expense?
The district asserts “Measure G is a wise plan” notwithstanding the fact ONLY local landowners will be compelled to pay [therefore it really represents nothing more than another new, “creatively labeled” tax against property]! But we think Measure G is “wise” only if you’re a resident non-landowner [e.g., a tenant] who benefits from some arguable education improvements, yet doesn’t have to pay for them; a local vendor who stands to profit from a new $90 Million district shopping spree; or, an overpaid administrator with her/his “good hands” outstretched for more! Now why would you ever trust an agency of the State that in the name of “wiseness” proffered a tax measure that didn’t tax everyone, when it could easily have proffered one that did [assuming arguendo, more taxes were truly warranted]?
Most people think property owners, regardless of who they are or where they reside, get to vote in special tax or bond elections like Measure G because it’s their properties that are being proposed to be taxed. But here the district refuses to allow 35% or more of those actually being taxed [residents owning multiple local properties; residents owning local properties in the name of a deceased’s estate or trust; resident corporations, partnerships or other non-natural persons (mainly created for tax purposes) owning local properties; or, nonresident property owners] to vote! Now why would an agency of the State proffer a new tax measure which if approved, didn’t tax over 50% of those being asked to vote 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 understands all too well the concept of electoral manipulation. Stated differently, it knows “voters [will] gladly impose taxes which the[y]...themselves do not have to pay!” In other words, “the ends justify the means!” Although you personally may not care whether or not your property owning neighbor is or is not permitted to vote, if you condone this injustice with your “yes” vote, the day will come when a tax proposition which does tax you is proffered, and you don’t get to vote! How then will you feel? But more to the point; why would you support an agency of the State that so matter-of-factly adopted such an unfair, discriminatory and repugnant voting scheme simply because “the ends justified the means?”
When the district proffered former Measure C six years ago, we believed it and approved $95 Million of bonds for what now turns out to be the very SAME kinds of repairs/repairs/renovations [“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 even more [what Measure G’s proponents have labeled “leverag(ing) state funds and other sources to minimize the cost to taxpayers”]: an additional $7.333 Million [just in 2005] in matching Proposition 47 and 55 State bond funding and apparently another $22.667 Million in other years [because according to district Trustee Pam Parker, the district realized $125 Million from former Measure C]. And then between funding and actual expenditure [while taxpayers were paying the interest/servicing costs on former Measure C’s bonds], the district realized even hundreds of thousands more in interest income! All told, well over $125 Million received as a direct result of former Measure C, and taxpayers being shackled with at least $260 Million of indebtedness until 2033 [not just the $95 Million of Measure C (see above), and because of staging, for 40 years instead of just 25]! And if we take the district’s words at face value, an additional $90 Million more is still necessary. Why? Because according to the district’s Superintendent, no one ever represented $125 Million “was...intended to fix...or upgrade everything;” 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?” Does it sound like “wisely and efficiently...spen[ding]...bond funds” as Measure G’s proponents assert? Fool us once shame on the district. Fool us twice, SHAME ON US!
The district proudly proclaims former Measure C “projects were completed on time and on budget.” According to Superintendent Farber, her “team has efficiently managed [Measure C]...bond funds in order to make each dollar go as far as possible for the most critical work needed on our facilities.” Why should you care about the district’s management of former Measure C’s bond proceeds? Because it’s a road map for how Measure G is likely to be administered, and it helps demonstrate the district cannot be trusted with another $90 Million of our taxes! Consider that apparently one week prior to Christmas 2003 the district unilaterally canceled a former Measure C construction contract because it thought it could “save some money.” Well not only did it not save any money [damages caused by the failure to make a structure watertight, cost overruns and a two year delay in completing the Del Mar addition cost taxpayers an additional unnecessary $1 Million], but the contractor [Rushford Construction] sued the district for breach of contract [part of the Air Systems Acquisition, Inc. litigation]! After spending hundreds of thousands [or possibly a million or more dollars in public funds with the Lozano Smith law firm to defend the contractor’s lawsuit [we just can’t seem to get a straight answer], the district ended up settling by agreeing to pay over $2.6 Million [click here to read the minutes of the district’s June 22, 2006 Board of Trustees’ Meeting - item 3(C) - which documents that in closed session, the district approved the settlement involving the Air Systems “suit” (another means of referring to “lawsuit”)]! The attorneys representing the contractor [the Cannistraci firm] assert the district was the most difficult school district their law firm had EVER encountered and that their attorneys “buried” the contractor with ridiculous paperwork in the hopes their client would “just go away.” This form of churning resulted in billings to Rushford Construction totaling a MILLION DOLLARS in attorney’s fees [if Rushford Construction spent $1 MILLION or more on their attorney’s fees, how much do you think the district paid Lozano Smith?]. If you’d like to read the San Jose Mercury News’ account of this fiasco, click here. Apparently nearly $2 Million has already been paid by the district, and it is attempting to get its insurance carrier to pay the rest [which if successful, will only result in insurance premiums being increased or coverage being canceled outright [or both] which ultimately leaves less money for grossly overpriced administrators which then creates even more pressure for future bond measures]. But that’s not the district’s take on this boondoggle! Unbelievably district Trustee Pam Parker describes it this way: “when you’re taking about $1.9 Million out of $125 Million with state matching funds...that’s actually probably pretty good.” When exactly was it “pretty good” to unnecessarily waste $5 Million [including attorney’s fees and cost overruns] of taxpayer funds [this is almost 50% of the remaining funds Assistant Superintendent Gaffney has represented are necessary to get the final remaining 10 percent of classroom renovations that are required]? We’ve unsuccessfully attempted to obtain further documentation from the district concerning this outrageous waste of public funds and in particular, the true cost to taxpayers [the Mercury News has apparently been equally unsuccessful]. We suspect this documentation somehow involves a series of unexplained and “buried” entries in the district’s latest financials [could it be the $3,134,934.46 expenditure in fiscal year 2005-06 for “professional/consulting services and operating expenditures” augmented by an additional $3,246,646 expenditure in this very same category for the current fiscal year (see page 26 of the budget - object code 5800) which are disingenuously restated, in part, under the district’s “self-insurance fund” (see page 92 of the budget)?]. But the district refuses to “come clean!” In
order to
divert attention from this item of waste, Superintendent
Farber proudly As we said before, fool us once, shame on the district. Fool us twice, SHAME ON US!
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]! In addition to what the State spends, the district realizes nearly $2 Million more each year just from lottery proceeds [funds we stupidly thought were supposed to eliminate the need for ballot measures such as Measures G and former C]; $3⅓ Million more from the federal government; and according to the district, hundreds of thousands more “in Developer and Facilities Fees to benefit our community and our student body!” Then on top of all of the foregoing, the district browbeats parents into giving even more. According to an August 27, 2006 article in the San Jose Mercury News, “schools lean on parents to close their [so called] budget gaps” by making pleas for private contributions for schools those parents already fund with their tax dollars! “Palo Alto illustrates the trend. This year PTAs are asking for as much as $350 per child, and the education foundation, known as PiE, is suggesting $500 a student. [Furthermore] teachers and supporters of sports, music, science, technology, libraries and journalism also are seeking money now.” So we have a simple question. If you’re a school administrator, when exactly is enough, enough?
And it’s not as if local homeowners don’t already pay their fair share to the district. According to the Assessor [see page 2], the district is one of only 60 basic aid funded school districts in the State! “A basic aid school district is a district in which the property tax revenue generated locally exceeds the State’s formula for school funding. Consequently, basic aid school districts have more funds at their disposal because of direct access to local property tax revenue[s].” At $43.5 Million annually, local property owners contribute more than any of the district’s other income sources [including the State]! And remember, this $43.5 Million is in addition to the $95 Million of former Measure C [actually with servicing and interest costs, it’s closer to $260 Million!] only local property owners are repaying [see above]!
Now that the district has presented voters with what it in essence characterizes as merely phase two of what is destined to become an endless number of additionally phased bond measures, we believe there are some fundamental questions that need to be asked. For instance, how did the public’s arguably responsible public stewards get themselves into this mess in the first place; what have they done, if anything, to prepare for what they describe as the NEXT PHASE of facility “upgrades” since former Measure C was approved; what do they propose, if anything, to assure the public that never again will they neglect our community’s most valuable assets [our schools]; and, when does the public finally put a stop to this never-ending nonsense? If you’d like to learn about nearly 50 years of district facility mismanagement, you’re invited to click here! Now why would you ever reward an agency of the State for irresponsibly mismanaging the hundreds of Millions we’ve given? Or more importantly, why do you vote for fiscally responsible district Trustees who will put our community’s most valuable assets ahead of grossly overpriced [see below] professional administrators?
It’s not just that 83% of the district’s $60 Million or more in yearly revenues already goes to employees’ salaries/benefits. According to the district’s financial data, 30 of its highest paid administrators average over $111,000 annually in salaries PLUS benefits; Superintendent Rhonda Farber herself is paid nearly $178,000 annually PLUS benefits [by the way, more than Governor Schwarzenegger and nearly as much as Vice-President Cheney]; and, the political consultants behind Measure G have been paid the equivalent of $90,000 annually [see below]! Now to put these numbers into perspective, we ask you compare them to the $63,500 annually, on average, the district represents its certified instructors are paid. It’s for these reasons then we make the observation that when maintenance/infrastructure repairs are intentionally shortchanged in favor of “more” for employees and professional administrators, it’s disingenuous for them to argue “Measure G 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” when nothing is left over for its most urgent and critical facility repair project needs?
The district asserts Measure G “is supported by senior citizens.” But taxes like those of Measure G are regressive [e.g., they adversely impact SENIORS and those on fixed incomes the most because they are the ones 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 G’s bonds, not only would it have saved taxpayers some $170 Million, but the district could have exempted [Government Code, §50079(b)] our community’s seniors just the way it has done with 2004’s Measure M parcel tax! Now why would you ever trust an agency of the State that on the one hand so freely played the “senior citizens card,” but in reality, lacked compassion for our community’s senior citizens and others on fixed incomes?
The district asserts Measure G is “wise” notwithstanding the fact it taxes homeowners NON-UNIFORMLY [e.g., those with higher individually assessed valuations end up paying more]! In contrast, if properties were specially taxed [like the district’s former Measure M parcel tax], because of Government Code, §50079(b) 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 “wiseness” unnecessarily taxed property owners, and only property owners [see above], and then differently to boot?
The district asserts Measure G is “wise” notwithstanding the fact it taxes future homeowners more than current ones [assuming a home costs more tomorrow than today, its future owner(s) will end up paying more taxes under Measure G because as you will discover, tomorrow’s bond repayments are pegged to tomorrow’s assessed valuations]. To understand why should you care, you’re invited to click here. Now why trust an agency of the state that in the name of “fairness” unnecessarily taxes future property owners [today’s tenants] more than current ones?
The district asserts Measure G is “wise” notwithstanding the fact it uses public funds to promote the fact that nearly 50% of voters [non-landowners] won’t have to pay a nickel [this is part of the district’s political consultants’ strategy of targeting particular classes of voter, and then crafting personalized messages that convince 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 it cost him/her nothing? Why would you ever trust an agency of the state that proffered a new tax [that according to proponents represented a community wide benefit] that only some had to pay, yet spent public moneys to pander to others by offering something of value [a de facto tax exemption] in consideration of their voting “yes” [an indirect violation of Elections Code, §18521]? The district asserts Measure G is “wise” to the 35% or more of local property owners who cannot vote because its new taxes can simply be “passed onto” tenants in the form of higher rents [thus if you stop to think about it, according to the district Measure G really increases everyone’s cost of living]. Although the district’s assertion is a misstatement of fact [because rents are based upon market supply and demand conditions rather than a property owner’s component acquisition/carrying costs augmented by some reasonable rate of return on his/her/its capital investments], assuming arguendo it were true, why would you ever trust an agency of the State that pandered to our community's tenants on the one hand [see above], and then told local landowners they should simply raise those tenants’ rents? And if you’re a landlord with vacancies, or the owner of an unimproved parcel, to whom exactly does the district suggest you “pass through” Measure G’s new taxes? And if you stop to think about it a bit more, Measure G 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 G is “wise” 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 G’s new taxes can be passed onto tenants in the form of higher rents [see above], tenants [nearly 50% of voters] get to deduct nothing! Furthermore even if you’re a property owner, Measure G’s new taxes are only tax 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 [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 available to all taxpayers instead]; or, they earn too much taxable income [if you’re unmarried or married filing separately and earn over $72,975, for instance, your personal deductions become 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 payment of Measure G’s new taxes! And even if you’re one of the few remaining homeowners who are actually able to deduct Measure G’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 [actually, your tax rate]! Now why would you ever trust an agency of the State that misstates to so many the alleged income tax benefits of the new taxes it proffers? Besides the cost to property owners, Measure G 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 are really a camouflage for higher employee salaries/benefits? The district asserts Measure G is “wise” [e.g., it’s good for the economy] because each dollar of property tax generates many more dollars in local economic impact [it’s only good for the economy if you’re a contractor who stands to benefit from new construction projects funded with Measure G’s new taxes]! But according to the San Jose Mercury Newspaper, high housing costs fueled by the $550 MILLION or more in new Measures G and former C taxes [see above] are squeezing worker salaries; threaten the Bay Area’s ability to attract talented workers; and, increase Bay Area living costs [which you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to realize all of which are bad for the economy]! 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, and then disingenuously argues the exact opposite?
The district asserts Measure G incorporates “mandatory annual audits and review by an independent citizens’ oversight committee” suggesting the public will be “protected” as a result of these alleged “strict accountability provisions.” Don’t be fooled! Look at what happened insofar as former Measure C is concerned. There the district represented to the public bond “expenditures [would be] reviewed by a community bond accountability committee,” and yet mysteriously, it won’t share with parents nor the Mercury News, exactly who, if anyone, is on this committee. Notwithstanding Superintendent Farber continues to represent to parents the district’s “construction program and its financing are reviewed by the Bond Oversight Committee on a quarterly basis[, and that] the committee has consistently reported to the Board of Trustees that the district is providing what was promised to the voters.” We’ve made repeated requests for copies of the accountability committee’s audit reports, and interestingly, none have been produced! Again, fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us! Additionally, when it comes to “citizens oversight,” it’s the district itself which cherry-picks those who sit on the committee! Furthermore, the only power committee members have is to “oversee.” Notably and by law, committee members 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 on last June’s ballot is concerned]. Thus as Jon Coupal [President of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Ass’n.] observed in a 2005 commentary, “since [the law] provides no penalties for bond mismanagement, it ends up being taxpayers, [and] not school officials, who are [the ones]...punished!” So much for trusting the district’s “protection” promises!
For the second time [the first time was in conjunction with the former Measure C campaign], the district has retained [at public expense] high priced political consultants [the Goodwin Consulting Group] under the guise of orchestrating a Measure G “informational campaign.” Why should you care? Because political consultants are self-admitted masters of manipulating the electoral process in the name of “winning!” According to Larry Tramutola, “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 (which mirror those of most other successful political consultants), you’re invited to click here]! Oh, did we mention the fact 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 public communication forums equally available to all sides on an equitable basis, whenever it elects to use those forums? 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?”
How many creatively “labeled” landowner ONLY taxes are necessary; when does enough become enough; when do tenants 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 irresponsibilities? 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 G story, we think you’ll conclude it’s only “wise” if you’re a: district employee seeking more in salary and benefits without regard for your concurrent obligation to care for our community’s most valuable assets [our schools]; or, a local vendor who stands to benefit from $90 Million worth of new district spending! Please join the rest of us who the district will actually allow to vote [see above] in VOTING NO! Should you have questions or comments, please address them to Silicon Valley Property Taxpayers’ Association at: g@svpta.net |
proclaims “that
in 2005 the...district refinanced [its] 
