U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-16-2017, 05:17 PM
 
7,273 posts, read 4,362,287 times
Reputation: 8851

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
I've always thought it was wrong that people who don't own real property could vote to approve fees that only property owners would have to pay. That just seems so wrong. Time for a revolt!
You know, I never thought of it that way.

Of course, even the non-property owners probably end up paying something when their landlords raise their rents to cover the added tax increase from the voter approved bonds.

I have so many mixed feelings about school bonds.

We all complain all the time about how terrible our schools are in California, so on the one hand, I'd be willing to pay a little more for things like extra teachers or school counselors. BUT the way Prop 13 was written, bond money can't be used for stuff like that; it can only go for building new schools and facility improvements to existing schools. And some of the bond proposals are filled with so much mumbo jumbo that it's almost impossible to even tell what, exactly, is going to be "improved" in the buildings (not to mention that it seems like two years later they're back asking voters for more improvements....)

So, if I could change something about Prop 13, it would be to allow voters in the district to vote on more specific items (in other words, not just "improvements" but "should we install new air conditioning?" Vote yes or no.)

I'd also allow districts to include things that might really make a difference for students -- like "give us $X amount to hire three new teachers for the elementary school" -- rather than just bonds for buildings.

Maybe also give voters veto power to cancel the bond if they don't like how the money is being used after the bond is approved.

Now, I have no problem whatsoever with library bonds. The libraries near me are PACKED with people; we could use more in my area. Like CA4Now, I'm at my library almost every week. I save a ton of money on books, CDs, movies and even free entertainment (our local library schedules great speakers, performers, classes and adult activities!). I even go in and use the library's 3-D printer from time to time.

Last edited by RosieSD; 10-16-2017 at 05:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-16-2017, 06:16 PM
 
17,394 posts, read 10,473,288 times
Reputation: 8290
Quote:
Originally Posted by RosieSD View Post
You know, I never thought of it that way.

Of course, even the non-property owners probably end up paying something when their landlords raise their rents to cover the added tax increase from the voter approved bonds.

I have so many mixed feelings about school bonds.

We all complain all the time about how terrible our schools are in California, so on the one hand, I'd be willing to pay a little more for things like extra teachers or school counselors. BUT the way Prop 13 was written, bond money can't be used for stuff like that; it can only go for building new schools and facility improvements to existing schools. And some of the bond proposals are filled with so much mumbo jumbo that it's almost impossible to even tell what, exactly, is going to be "improved" in the buildings (not to mention that it seems like two years later they're back asking voters for more improvements....)

So, if I could change something about Prop 13, it would be to allow voters in the district to vote on more specific items (in other words, not just "improvements" but "should we install new air conditioning?" Vote yes or no.)

I'd also allow districts to include things that might really make a difference for students -- like "give us $X amount to hire three new teachers for the elementary school" -- rather than just bonds for buildings.

Maybe also give voters veto power to cancel the bond if they don't like how the money is being used after the bond is approved.

Now, I have no problem whatsoever with library bonds. The libraries near me are PACKED with people; we could use more in my area. Like CA4Now, I'm at my library almost every week. I save a ton of money on books, CDs, movies and even free entertainment (our local library schedules great speakers, performers, classes and adult activities!). I even go in and use the library's 3-D printer from time to time.
I don't think the problem is more money, it is how the money is spent and who is spending it. For decades all we have heard is we need more money for the children and the school, yet it never gets fixed. One thing I have noticed is the huge increase in administration/support staff but not in teachers.

I just checked my High School and in 1964 we had a maximum of 48 people on the staff including principles, office staff, cafeteria staff, custodians, bus drivers, library, nurse and such. Everything but teachers in this count. In the 2007 annual they did not even show such. When I checked the current web site they had twice the number of staff people not counting cafeteria, custodians, bus drivers and similar. The "staff" positions listed was twice as large as when I was there, but the student body is not. Paying a lot of people for something except to teach.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2017, 10:56 AM
 
26,578 posts, read 52,004,019 times
Reputation: 20356
Quote:
Originally Posted by RosieSD View Post
You know, I never thought of it that way.

Of course, even the non-property owners probably end up paying something when their landlords raise their rents to cover the added tax increase from the voter approved bonds.

I have so many mixed feelings about school bonds.

We all complain all the time about how terrible our schools are in California, so on the one hand, I'd be willing to pay a little more for things like extra teachers or school counselors. BUT the way Prop 13 was written, bond money can't be used for stuff like that; it can only go for building new schools and facility improvements to existing schools. And some of the bond proposals are filled with so much mumbo jumbo that it's almost impossible to even tell what, exactly, is going to be "improved" in the buildings (not to mention that it seems like two years later they're back asking voters for more improvements....)

So, if I could change something about Prop 13, it would be to allow voters in the district to vote on more specific items (in other words, not just "improvements" but "should we install new air conditioning?" Vote yes or no.)

I'd also allow districts to include things that might really make a difference for students -- like "give us $X amount to hire three new teachers for the elementary school" -- rather than just bonds for buildings.

Maybe also give voters veto power to cancel the bond if they don't like how the money is being used after the bond is approved.

Now, I have no problem whatsoever with library bonds. The libraries near me are PACKED with people; we could use more in my area. Like CA4Now, I'm at my library almost every week. I save a ton of money on books, CDs, movies and even free entertainment (our local library schedules great speakers, performers, classes and adult activities!). I even go in and use the library's 3-D printer from time to time.
Yes... Prop 13 was amended by California Proposition 39 (2000) which lowered the required super-majority necessary for voters to impose local school bond acts from two-thirds (2/3) of the votes cast to fifty-five percent (55%).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2017, 11:03 AM
 
655 posts, read 465,814 times
Reputation: 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by RosieSD View Post
You know, I never thought of it that way.

Of course, even the non-property owners probably end up paying something when their landlords raise their rents to cover the added tax increase from the voter approved bonds.

I have so many mixed feelings about school bonds.

We all complain all the time about how terrible our schools are in California, so on the one hand, I'd be willing to pay a little more for things like extra teachers or school counselors. BUT the way Prop 13 was written, bond money can't be used for stuff like that; it can only go for building new schools and facility improvements to existing schools. And some of the bond proposals are filled with so much mumbo jumbo that it's almost impossible to even tell what, exactly, is going to be "improved" in the buildings (not to mention that it seems like two years later they're back asking voters for more improvements....)

So, if I could change something about Prop 13, it would be to allow voters in the district to vote on more specific items (in other words, not just "improvements" but "should we install new air conditioning?" Vote yes or no.)

I'd also allow districts to include things that might really make a difference for students -- like "give us $X amount to hire three new teachers for the elementary school" -- rather than just bonds for buildings.

Maybe also give voters veto power to cancel the bond if they don't like how the money is being used after the bond is approved.

Now, I have no problem whatsoever with library bonds. The libraries near me are PACKED with people; we could use more in my area. Like CA4Now, I'm at my library almost every week. I save a ton of money on books, CDs, movies and even free entertainment (our local library schedules great speakers, performers, classes and adult activities!). I even go in and use the library's 3-D printer from time to time.
I agree completely with this. Direct Democracy can be messy but I would love to vote on really well defined local measures (more specific than x% sales tax for broad funding). Our libraries in Sacramento are pretty good and a couple have been at the forefront of the "library of things" movement. I was looking at my property tax bill the other day and thought, dang I wish I could quadruple this library tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2017, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Oroville, California
3,181 posts, read 4,669,610 times
Reputation: 5484
Almost 1/3 of my tax bill is for local assessments - Oroville sewer, Feather River recreation dept, Oroville Mosquito Abatement, four different assessments for Butte College, three for Oroville High School District and one for Thermalito Union School District. I know all those things need funding but eleven different assessments in addition to 1% is a bit much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2017, 11:53 AM
 
26,578 posts, read 52,004,019 times
Reputation: 20356
Even more for me in Oakland CA... seems not many special assessments voters don't like.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top