Town Square

Post a New Topic

Is this even legal?

Original post made by alee on Dec 8, 2009

I am wondering if the following "informational" (read brainwashing) session is allowed on public school grounds during instruction time. It is obvious that it is a veiled attempt to get parents to support a parcel tax. I would seriously like to know if this is legal. It seems like these folks are way overstepping their bounds.

School Budget Informational Meeting
For Parents
Wednesday, Dec. 9th 9:20AM
Room E-9
Concerned About the School Budget for Next Year?

You're not alone. Some programs were saved this year with stimulus money and help from fundraising campaigns but those were one time funding sources. Where do we stand next year with the school budget cuts? How much larger will the class sizes get and what can we do as parents?

GET INFORMED TOMORROW!
Please come to the Parent Informational Meeting regarding Pleasanton's school funding for next year:

Wednesday, Dec. 9th at 9:20AM in Room E-9

*contacts name removed by poster*
From a concerned *school name removed by poster* teacher:
" My classroom budget was in the negative on November 17th. Because of budget cuts I received a lot less money to use for classroom materials and ran out after two and a half months. Luckily the PFC and parents have supplied supplemental money to
cover classroom costs. I also notice a difference in the library. My students' access to the library is limited because our librarian's hours have been cut."

Comments (118)

Posted by not ethical, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2009 at 6:18 pm

Are you really so surprised? This is coming from a teacher who refused to give up a single thing and expects step and column raises to continue forever. Vote with your wallet like we did last time, no parcel tax, no more raises.


Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of Country Fair
on Dec 8, 2009 at 6:53 pm

Why omit the details?

The following is posted on the PUSD e-connection (Web Link):

School budget info
Concerned about the school budget for our children next year? Please come to a Parent Informational Meeting regarding Pleasanton's school funding for next year. Two meetings have been scheduled at Lydiksen--Monday, December 7, at 7 p.m. in the library, and Wednesday, December 9, at 9:20 a.m., Room E-9. Please contact Janine Mattison at gastonmom@yahoo.com if you have any questions.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2009 at 6:58 pm

What is unethical about this?


Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of Country Fair
on Dec 8, 2009 at 7:22 pm

Leaving the legal or ethical considerations aside, I hope every adult attending registers at the main office and obtains permission/clearance to walk onto an elementary school campus during school hours.


Posted by alee, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2009 at 8:50 pm

The reason I blocked out the contact info was because I did not realize that this was distributed all around pleasanton unified.

Dark Corners- that is another REALLY good point! Why are we letting random people come on to a campus during a school day.

reader-it is unethical because it is a burgeoning political campaign being disguised as "informational." Do you want political campaigns of any type to be allowed on school grounds during hours of instruction?


Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of Country Fair
on Dec 8, 2009 at 9:22 pm

And annother information meeting at Alisal during the school day...

Two more informational meetings to discuss school funding have been scheduled at Alisal school -- One on Wednesday Dec. 9th and 9:00 a.m. and the second on Thursday Dec. 10th at 7:00p.m. Please attend one of these sessions to learn about the issues.

This from (Web Link)


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2009 at 9:42 pm

To alee,

"burgeoning political campaign being disguised as "informational."

What about the descriptions isn't "informational"? I don't get the concern. Is there some kind of conspiracy here? What are you worried about? Shouldn't parents want to know more about school funding and budgetary problems? This sounds like a really good idea.

" that is another REALLY good point! Why are we letting random people come on to a campus during a school day.

I don't see where random people are being invited without signing in. That was a publication somewhere?


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2009 at 9:47 pm

To "not ethical",

You would do your cause more good if you used a consistent name and not just post under different names each time.

"give up a single thing and expects step and column raises to continue "

I hope they keep their step and column raises. It is what the other high quality districts are doing in the Bay Area. We need to remain competitive and we need to continue to attract the best teachers to teach in Pleasanton. A parcel tax can be an important part that. Let's work together to get a parcel tax on the ballot that serves the community's needs.


Posted by alee, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2009 at 9:52 pm

Well, since I do volunteer on a regular basis, I realize that there is very little screening of people who enter the school. And the information being presented is totally one-sided. Frankly, it really doesn't matter, though, because I don't think this kind of thing is OK for any reason or for any political leanings. You must be one of the drum-beaters for this campaign. That could be the only possible explanation for your attitude.


Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of Country Fair
on Dec 8, 2009 at 10:15 pm

To 'a reader' -

Don't you think public meetings held during the school day on elementary school campuses that are announced on Facebook and PUSD e-connection should state that attendees should register at the main office?


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2009 at 10:29 pm

To alee,

"And the information being presented is totally one-sided."

Are there two sides to the information being presented (three sides)? Is it political? Please enlighten me. I don't know what people are afraid of. What is there to fear? Why would you talk of "brainwashing"? We're talking about grown-ups, right? And isn't the presentation in the future? How do you know what the content is already.

"I don't think this kind of thing is OK for any reason or for any political leanings. "

What political leanings? These appear to be information sessions. Maybe parents are asking for these? I certainly don't think they are being forced to attend.

"You must be one of the drum-beaters for this campaign. That could be the only possible explanation for your attitude."

OK, I did get a laugh out of that one. Who are these "drum-beaters"? Is this some kind of exclusive club or something? Do you know where I might sign up? I could say the same kind of thing, like you must be working for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. That could be the only possible explanation for your attitude. Funny, but not very constructive.

Web Link

I don't believe that all tax increases are bad, or that there is some kind of dangerous conspiracy going on here.




Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2009 at 10:31 pm

To DCOT,

"should state that attendees should register at the main office?"

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Maybe it was an oversight?


Posted by alee, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2009 at 10:35 pm

I know the drumbeaters personally...and no offense, but you sound like one of them. and you mention howard Jarvis taxpayers (which I am not part of). If there are no "leanings," why not invite them to one of these "informational meetings?" WARNING: there will be backlash from this type of stupid shenanigans eventually.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2009 at 10:47 pm

To alee,

"mention howard Jarvis taxpayers (which I am not part of)."

That was my point. Just because I sound like some group of people doesn't mean I'm in that group. I didn't even know that such a group existed.

"If there are no "leanings," why not invite them to one of these "informational meetings?" "

I agree, why not invite anyone?

"of stupid shenanigans eventually. "

I don't know what you're talking about. Why not go to one of these meetings and not just speculate on a forum? You could find out what is really going on.


Posted by alee, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2009 at 10:55 pm

duh, reader!!! I AM actually going to the meeting, simply to see what is going on. I have always wanted to be a spy...lol. However, I am on to these types, and unless they prove otherwise, I will see the truth!!


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 8, 2009 at 11:01 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

When so-called informational meeting is being organized and conducted by parcel tax proponents (i.e. linked Facebook page with Patti Ingram's pro-parcel tax speech to school board) instead of school/district administration, suspicion and questioning of purpose of meeting and motives of organizers is entirely valid.


Posted by alee, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2009 at 11:09 pm

thank you, stacey. My thoughts, exactly. Totally creepy that this is going on during school hours during a normal school day. NO MATTER WHAT YOUR VIEWS ARE ON PARCEL TAX.


Posted by Tom, a resident of Valley Trails
on Dec 8, 2009 at 11:17 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 8, 2009 at 11:25 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Funny, Tom. Too bad I'm not a birther and have even argued against those beliefs. Do you have anything else you'd like to contribute?


Posted by alee, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2009 at 11:27 pm

uh, tom...not exactly what I was saying. Just thinking that any kind of political debauchery during a school day is DUMB!


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 8, 2009 at 11:30 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Tom is right. To those according to need, from those according to ability.


Posted by Tom, a resident of Valley Trails
on Dec 8, 2009 at 11:31 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 8, 2009 at 11:32 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Tom,

How do you know my "close held beliefs"? GET OUT OF MY HEAD!


Posted by Frank, a resident of Del Prado
on Dec 9, 2009 at 8:26 am

Once again I see that some of you are having a hard time staying on topic. Tom- start your own Obama socialism forum. The rest of you should just attend one of the meetings. You can bring any concerns up there in person. I'm sure they would welcome any CONSTRUCTIVE ideas on how to proceed with the budget problems facing them.
Or if you prefer, just gripe here and see if that helps.


Posted by eson kcid, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 9:02 am

You guys kill me. I have heard nothing but complaining from parents around my kids schools about how much has been cut. Then everyone says no parcel tax and no raises! you all make me sick. If we keep this up there will be no public schools and you will all pay much more for private schools. But no really let's not pay $200 a year in parcel tax. My sons coaches are not even paid this year. Out of all of you non- parcel tax supporters when was the last time you went to work for free. How would you feel if we all called your boss and told them not to give you a raise.

What is the big deal about having this informational meeting today? They are not disrupting our kids. It is for parents, not just anyone off the street. I see you want them to work for free or with out raises and then work late to hold a meeting at night just for you. Pathetic! I am sure glad that you all don't run the companies you work for as they would probably be defunct by now.


Posted by Tom, a resident of Stoneridge Park
on Dec 9, 2009 at 9:07 am

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Posted by Mary, a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Dec 9, 2009 at 9:14 am

I think people are rightfully defensive about the perception that PUSD is using taxpayer resources to create a campaign designed to extract more dollars from a carefully targeted group of vulnerable citizens. Many, many of us are struggling right now. It is not that we don't wish to support our community, but a residential parcel tax seeks to penalize single family homeowners exclusively while ignoring the hoards of multi-tenant rental units (upwards of 25% of the available housing in Pleasanton according to information released by the school board prior to the Prop G fiasco) that represent a disproportionate amount of "end-users" (students).

In Pleasanton, homeowners are already digging deep for bonds benefitting PUSD that will be on the books for decades. So when I hear about the district utilizing space and resources paid for by my tax dollars to campaign for a greater share of my money I take some offence. It is a little like pulling up to the Post Office to mail your property tax payment and returning to your car to find that the city installed a meter while you were inside, issued a ticket, and billed you for the meter installation. And when the "Meter Maid Union" complains that you forgot to tip, that frankly just adds further insult and animosity to the situation.


Posted by George, a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Dec 9, 2009 at 9:19 am

Is this legal? How do you even ask that? How can you look your kids teacher in the eye when you drop them off or go for parent conference? This is truly sad. Why can't they tell us where the budgets are without some moron saying it's a parcel tax forum and this can't be legal? would you really consider pushing this legal wise? I am confused. If you do not want to help then show that at the polling place. Why would you want to interfere with them trying to communicate with others? Where did you see that this was a parcel tax support forum? Paranoid much? By the way there were more parcel tax supporters than people against it at the polls. It just did not have a high enough percent.


Posted by Steph, a resident of Bonde Ranch
on Dec 9, 2009 at 9:31 am

Mary,

The campaign was not funded by taxpayers. The people that ran the parcel tax campaign had to fundraise to get the money to promote it. I know because I gave to the fund. They got no $$$ from the PUSD. It is people like you spreading rumors that they know nothing or very little about that rally the few (very loud) non supporters and feed their narrow view.


Posted by Tom, a resident of Valley Trails
on Dec 9, 2009 at 9:32 am

[Post removed due to being irrelevant to this thread]


Posted by Tom, a resident of Valley Trails
on Dec 9, 2009 at 9:38 am

[Post removed due to being irrelevant to this thread]


Posted by Frank, a resident of Del Prado
on Dec 9, 2009 at 9:44 am

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Posted by Frank, a resident of Del Prado
on Dec 9, 2009 at 9:48 am

Sorry- that was childish of me. I don't hate America.


Posted by Mary, a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Dec 9, 2009 at 9:52 am

Really??

No tax payer dollars were spent to buy the facility used to hold the rallies and the (ongoing) campaign to place the proposal on the ballot? Or the electricity to light it and condition the air? Or the janitorial and other professional services used to clean and maintain the space? Or to pay the county registrar for holding a special election, which of course, includes campaign information sent to all registered voters?

If it was really all paid for with Monopoly money then I am clearly uneducated and misinformed. Or maybe I'm not the one with the narrow view?


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 9, 2009 at 9:52 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Tom knows your inner most thoughts and beliefs.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 9, 2009 at 9:55 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Tom, I hear what you're saying. The world is very black and white and those who are on one side know everything about the thoughts of those on the other. There is absolutely no wiggle room, no gray area, no crossing over, so to speak. If someone is against taxes, they must like Hitler and hate Jews. Who cares what their reasons are for being against a tax, right?


Posted by Steph, a resident of Bonde Ranch
on Dec 9, 2009 at 10:06 am

Oh Mary,

I feel sorry for you. Do you even know if a rental fee was paid by the campaign for a parcel tax? Yes there was, so your PG&E bill was paid for and so was your janitor.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Posted by Frank, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 10:14 am

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Posted by Mary, a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Dec 9, 2009 at 11:22 am

Steph,

You can get angry if you like, but there are a lot of us in this town that will not be bullied or ridiculed into submission. The tax and spend team has to deliver 2/3 + 1. And while you can wax philosophically about your moral majority victory (pun intended), it doesn't change the fact that the parcel tax was defeated. And will be again, if put before the voters. And you can take that to your tax payer subsidized bank.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 11:37 am

To Mary,

"And will be again, if put before the voters. And you can take that to your tax payer subsidized bank."

How do you know that? Do you have a crystal ball or something? You haven't even seen what might be in some future parcel tax, and you are predicting its defeat. You use the words "the parcel tax". There isn't a parcel tax at all at the present time. A new one would be different from an old one. Are you just against all taxes?


Posted by Alee, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 12:13 pm

I will reiterate what I said before. It doesn't matter how strongly you feel about the schools being underfunded, etc. It's the fact this meeting is being held at school during school hours. And I know the organizers and can tell you that it is political.


Posted by TAMom, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Dec 9, 2009 at 12:30 pm

This discussion makes me sad. All this back-and-forth bickering from residents of Pleasanton, a supposed "community of character"

Just for a moment, could you put aside your differences about the "step and column" teacher raises; parcel taxes; hosting a meeting during school hours, or whatever is your personal pet peeve with PUSD. Think about our kids and what kind of education they'll need to compete in the 21st Century.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 9, 2009 at 12:32 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Sooooo, is there anyone who went and who would like to share? Did they ask for donations?

Alee wrote: "It's the fact this meeting is being held at school during school hours."

Who could attend such a meeting? Non-working parents. Will there be meetings held at other times for working parents and for non-parents who own property and pay taxes? Will the meetings be advertised outside of the school system?


Posted by Alee, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 12:56 pm

A sick child kept me home this morning. I would love to hear what was discussed.


Posted by a reader, a resident of another community
on Dec 9, 2009 at 1:55 pm

To Alee,

If these people are friends, why not just call them, or meet with them. I think they just care about their children and getting the best education they can for them.


Posted by To TA Mom, a resident of Downtown
on Dec 9, 2009 at 2:04 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


Posted by Gretchen, a resident of Downtown
on Dec 9, 2009 at 2:36 pm

Sounds like Alee is quite two faced. She works in the schools admittedly. See her comment below.

"Well, since I do volunteer on a regular basis, I realize that there is very little screening of people who enter the school."

You know she looks them in the face and says how they are doing a wonderful job and how she loves them; all the while thrashing them on the PW blog. Real stand up person. I bet she does the same with her so called "drum-beaters".Well Alee, (or what ever your real name is) my neighbor works for the PUSD and I will show her the blog and she can see if there is an Alee that volunteers. Now the people that you work with will know the real you.

Have fun next time you volunteer.


Posted by A parent, a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Dec 9, 2009 at 2:57 pm

I'm so disappointed in reading all this. The reason we moved to Pleasanton was for the quality education available at our public schools here in town. It looks like that is slowly eroding before my eyes and the fact that the only people who care about the state of our schools are people with school age children. It saddens me that the rest of the folks can't see past their own lives to give to the greater good. The bottom line is the kids now and in the future will benefit from whatever we can do today and that $200 is not a lot of money to ensure that. And we are not rolling in dough like a lot of residents of this town, but we still see the need to fix this problem for the long term. Tom and Frank you should be ashamed of yourselves for your posts. Leave the forums for people to post actual FACTS (for either side) instead of using it to throw mud at others because they don't share your opinion. What a bunch of childish people!!
And by the way, what's the big deal of having a meeting during school hours? Are the kids serving drinks to the attendees instead of going to class? No one is going to come in off the street to this meeting unless they have an interest in the subject. They'll be lucky to get people to attend that aren't already for the parcel tax, let alone scary strangers lurking in the shadows. Grow up people!


Posted by resident, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 3:42 pm

"And we are not rolling in dough like a lot of residents of this town, but we still see the need to fix this problem for the long term."

And if you believe that a parcel tax will solve the problem long term, you are truly misguided. This is a foot in the door effort that, if allowed to succeed, will continue to escalate over the years under threat of doomsday.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 3:49 pm

To resident,

"This is a foot in the door effort that, if allowed to succeed, will continue to escalate over the years under threat of doomsday. "

Funny. "foot in the door", "escalate". What are you afraid of? Our schools will be as good as Palo Alto or Peidmont if we allow this "foot in the door" effort to succeed. That would be good for a laugh if it weren't so sad. You sound like you're fighting communism or something. Maybe you should find a cause more worthy of you time.


Posted by Marilee, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 3:55 pm

This post bears repeating:

I think people are rightfully defensive about the perception that PUSD is using taxpayer resources to create a campaign designed to extract more dollars from a carefully targeted group of vulnerable citizens. Many, many of us are struggling right now. It is not that we don't wish to support our community, but a residential parcel tax seeks to penalize single family homeowners exclusively while ignoring the hoards of multi-tenant rental units (upwards of 25% of the available housing in Pleasanton according to information released by the school board prior to the Prop G fiasco) that represent a disproportionate amount of "end-users" (students).




In Pleasanton, homeowners are already digging deep for bonds benefitting PUSD that will be on the books for decades. So when I hear about the district utilizing space and resources paid for by my tax dollars to campaign for a greater share of my money I take some offence. It is a little like pulling up to the Post Office to mail your property tax payment and returning to your car to find that the city installed a meter while you were inside, issued a ticket, and billed you for the meter installation. And when the "Meter Maid Union" complains that you forgot to tip, that frankly just adds further insult and animosity to the situation.

Exactly my thoughts, spot-on. Why oh why does the ONLY solution you people have involve penalizing those of us who are already overburdened financially? I'm wondering how many of the big proponents bought their P-town homes between 2004 and 2006. Not a lot, I'm guessing. Would be easy enough to check via Zillow.com. Maybe I'll do that.


Posted by Alee, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 4:01 pm

oooh Gretchen I am so scared. How immature!! Just because I question if political groups should be allowed at school. People have every right to question what goes on in our public institutions without being persecuted.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 9, 2009 at 4:09 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

A parent,

It is indeed disappointing when folks can't see past their own lives or communities. If you want long-term solutions you have to work at the State level and stop putting people on guilt trips about how they don't apparently care about children. Passing a parcel tax will not be beneficial in the long run. It only prolongs California's penchant for kicking the ball down the field. California needs a system that is equitable to all of California's children, taxpayers, parents, and teachers. If you only focus on Pleasanton, you'll miss the opportunity that this economic situation has provided.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 9, 2009 at 4:24 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Or let me put it this way. California residents benefit when the State is productive. One way to invest in that future production is through an investment in education. It helps drive our economic engine just as much as a healthy tax code can. Educated California graduates go on to be highly productive members of California. If you sit there and focus only on "me and my children, we need our children to be able to compete globally, oh you others don't care about this community's children, yadda yadda, etc.", you really are not contributing to our California future. You are only making the hole we've dug bigger with your small scoped view. The money for a parcel tax will only go into that hole as the State cannibalizes itself more and more and takes more money from schools. Does a parcel tax soften the blow, so to speak? Perhaps. But unless you're helping to address the bigger issues at the State level, the blow will get bigger than whatever a parcel tax can cover. You see it in other districts with parcel taxes where they are already talking about (or have already done) things like increasing class sizes.

We can continue to kick the ball down the field (oh someone else will take care of the problem later) or we can seize the opportunities given to us by our democracy and own the problems. As much as I or anyone else here may criticize those working on forming another group for another try at a parcel tax, those people are getting involved. We all care about this issue because we do care about "the children" and what happens. We just have a difference of opinion on the methods to achieve those goals.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 5:44 pm

To Stacey,

" It only prolongs California's penchant for kicking the ball down the field. "

Not passing a parcel tax will continue to have detrimental short term effects on our community and our community alone. It will do nothing to bring some kind of long term change at the state level or anywhere else. All of the high quality school districts in the Bay Area already have their parcel taxes in place. Not passing one here only puts as at a disadvantage. It accomplishes nothing towards a goal of statewide education reform.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 5:48 pm

To "alee",

"People have every right to question what goes on in our public institutions without being persecuted. "

Who is persecuting you? What are you afraid of?


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 5:49 pm

To Stacey,

"Pleasanton, you'll miss the opportunity that this economic situation has provided."

I have no idea what you are talking about. What opportunity?


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 5:54 pm

To Marilee,

"I'm wondering how many of the big proponents bought their P-town homes between 2004 and 2006."

I bought a home in Pleasanton in 2004, used a conventional loan, a 25% down payment, and I do support the idea of a parcel tax for Pleasanton.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 6:00 pm

To Marilee,

"to extract more dollars from a carefully targeted group of vulnerable citizens. "

Too funny. Those poor vulnerable home owners being targeted by those sneaky apartment dwellers. And we all know that all these parents of school children reside in rented apartments not owned homes.

"campaign for a greater share of my money"

All of the sudden an information meeting is a campaign.

Where do you get this stuff?


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 6:05 pm

Gretchen said,

"Sounds like Alee is quite two faced. She works in the schools admittedly. See her comment below.

"Well, since I do volunteer on a regular basis, I realize that there is very little screening of people who enter the school."

You know she looks them in the face and says how they are doing a wonderful job and how she loves them; all the while thrashing them on the PW blog. Real stand up person. I bet she does the same with her so called "drum-beaters".Well Alee, (or what ever your real name is) my neighbor works for the PUSD and I will show her the blog and she can see if there is an Alee that volunteers. Now the people that you work with will know the real you.

Have fun next time you volunteer."

I think you are on to something there.


Posted by Marilee, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 6:07 pm

to reader -

Those aren't actually mywords; if you look again, you'll see I'd quoted another user. But that's neither here nor there.

As far as 'free' education goes, yes, I'm going to pick on renters, too. Why? Because there are plenty of well-to-do renters in the area. Check the numbers. Sure, some aren't doing well. But neither are some homeowners. It's simply unfair for homeowners to absorb the entirety of the financial burden.

Incidentally, it's wonderful that you were able to put down 25% in 2004. I hope you realize how blessed and fortunate you were. I had 10% myself, which was impressive given my age at the time. I bought when I did to get into the community and put down roots, as did many community members who inadvertently overextended themselves. I can't stand it when others get snotty with the whole 'well, they shouldn't have overextended themselves so I have no pity' schpiel. Self-righteousness at its worst. As if anyone knew when the market was going to crash.

At any rate, no I don't think Janine's little 'informational meeting' is appropriate. It should be billed as what it is: A rally for another parcel tax measure.


Posted by Alee, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 6:18 pm

Marilee-

"At any rate, no I don't think Janine's little 'informational meeting' is appropriate. It should be billed as what it is: A rally for another parcel tax measure."

This is the point I was trying to make all along. And I feel that it is bad precedent for any type of meeting that is held at a tax-payer funded school during school hours.

By the way, I am not afraid of anyone. But just because I don't agree with someone, why would they would try and find my name at my children's school and use it to gossip or whatever. That is just childish and accomplishes absolutely nothing.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 6:30 pm

To Marilee,

"well-to-do renters "

That's a new one for me. So the apartment renters are the wealthy ones and the home owners are the poor ones. OK. If you say so.

Remember, a parcel tax would be about our children. We all benefit. We have wonderful schools here in Pleasanton but external circumstances have caused cuts in programs. A parcel tax isn't a panacea, but it can sure help. This is about all of our children. All of the high quality school districts in the Bay Area have passed parcel taxes, and we can do the same. If you intend to put down roots in the community, you can appreciate that.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 9, 2009 at 7:55 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Posted by a reader, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, 1 hour ago

To Stacey,

"Pleasanton, you'll miss the opportunity that this economic situation has provided."

I have no idea what you are talking about. What opportunity?

========
Honestly? Really? You can't figure that out on your own? No wonder you only repeat repeat repeat with no real substance.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 8:11 pm

To Stacey,

Maybe you mean an opportunity to reform Prop 13. I don't think the present is the time for that. We have more pressing concerns.


Posted by Take it Easy, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2009 at 11:24 pm

I have been to one of the informational meetings and I would not describe it as a rally - which brings to mind cheering and a call to arms. It was just parents discussing how our schools are funded and what the furture for Pleasanton looks like which is pretty darn bleak. They did not ask anyone for money or do anything but to encourage people to get informed. Was a parcel tax mentioned? Yes. Was it the only solution talked about? No. They seemed to realize that there are very big problems at the state and federal level. I, for one, am going to look into things more before I commit anything to anyone, but there was nothing scheming or political going on from my point of view.

I also agree with whoever said we need to put petty issues aside and come together as a community. We moved here for the schools in 2004 and I would hate to see things go down hill. There should be more communication - anywhere, anytime - in a small town like this. There should not be fighting about whether some parents met at school. There are always meetings at the shool - why so concerned about this one? I think these are people who want to help and who just want what is best for the kids.


Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of Country Fair
on Dec 10, 2009 at 7:18 am

To 'Take it Easy' - Can you help by listing some of the other solutions presented/discussed? Is there a contact person that is organizing these information sessions so that I can learn more? I agree that more communication/information is important for this community. Thanks much.


Posted by anon, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2009 at 9:33 am

Honestly we need to be honest with the Palo Alto/Piedmont comparisons. The reasons those are top performing districts have *everything* to do with demographics, and nothing to do with funds provided with a parcel tax. Both areas have minimal amounts of rentals feeding into their schools, property values are sky high, indicating an affluent and educated populace. Has anyone compared the number of "Limited English Proficient" students or the numbers of students receiving free/reduced lunch at these districts to PUSD? The reality is these factors influence district performance FAR more than additional funding provided by a parcel tax (however nice it is to not have programs at risk due to budget cuts...) Those who claim otherwise are merely trying to be politically correct...


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2009 at 9:43 am

To anon,

It isn't just Piedmont or Palo Alto. It is San Ramon and ALL the other high quality districts. They have parcel taxes and we don't. They have that to their advantage. We need one here too. The question of a parcel tax for Pleasanton has nothing to do with "Limited English Proficient". It is irrelevant.


Posted by Mary, a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Dec 10, 2009 at 10:54 am

Let's see if we can come up with a better solution than creating another "Gottcha" tax spiral. The Piedmont parcel tax started innocently enough, but managed to ratchet over a relatively short period of time to well over $2,000 a year (and going for another bump soon!). That might work for some, but would likely put others who are closer to the bleeding edge of financial balance much closer or over the tipping point. And before you accuse me of being overly dramatic, let me just say I personally know of numerous people in this community, including myself, that would not qualify for exemption and fall into the latter category.

A reader/drumbeater – PLEASE stop continuously repeating your mantra (on every single thread, multiple, multiple, multiple times) and work for a more equitable and palatable solution.


Posted by Mary, a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Dec 10, 2009 at 11:37 am

And let me just address one other point, since you ridiculed my suggestion that rental / apartment dwellers are part of the equation.

The net wealth comparison between home buyers and renters has blurred considerably in the last few years. That debatable point aside, renters universally hold one unique advantage during this unsettling time --- FLEXABILITY.

Their lack of financial commitment to their residence allows one to move into an area (or school district) they like or on to another one if things change. If they lose a job, decide to take a break, have a catastrophic injury, or any other reason that changes their flow of revenue, they are easily afforded the ability to RAPIDLY change their commitments. Home buyers (notice I did not use the universally accepted term for those semi-permanently indebted to a financial institution through the instrument known as mortgage) do not enjoy this luxury.

Yet the rental group, which makes up a staggering proportion of our residents in Pleasanton and students within our system, is allowed to vote on taxes assessments that they have no fear of incurring personally.

These are unprecedented times, so let's dispense with the snide assumption that every family living in a free standing residence is rolling in dough.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2009 at 11:42 am

To Mary,

" and work for a more equitable and palatable solution."

I am not proposing a solution, other than some kind of parcel tax. All other high quality school districts in the Bay Area are using parcel taxes.

If you are a long term home owner, then you are already enjoying the benefit of paying lower and lower property taxes over the long term. This is because the maximum property tax increase allowed in Prop 13 is lower than the average rate of inflation.

Web Link

There are a large number of us in our community who want our schools to be the best they can be, and not to experience cuts in programs. Many of us believe a parcel tax is an important part of that.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2009 at 11:47 am

To Mary,

"Yet the rental group, which makes up a staggering proportion of our residents in Pleasanton and students within our system."

Please provide numbers and links, so we can verify this claim. Do you just believe it to be true? Is it a hunch?

I really don't understand the hostility toward people who rent apartments.


Posted by Take it Easy, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2009 at 12:01 pm

Other suggestions were large fundraisers and educational foundations. One person also mentioned helping out with efforts to work on state reform since that is where so much of the trouble begins. There is a school board meeting next Wednesday night, the 16th and some of the folks that gave these talks will be there. I also believe there is a Facebook site set up for that group, but I have not looked at it yet.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2009 at 12:03 pm

"Other suggestions were large fundraisers and educational foundations."

I agree. Those are also good ways to supplement our schools.


Posted by anon, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2009 at 12:08 pm

Anecdotal here , but as a room parent last year, 14 of the 20 students in my child's class had apartment addresses listed on the class roster.

These renters can vote to tax homeowners to support the schools their children also attend. I think Mary's point is there has to be a fairer solution. Renters don't make the investment in the community, yet they still reap the same benefits. Emotions aside, that is not an equtable situation...


Posted by Mary, a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Dec 10, 2009 at 12:25 pm

Thanks for making me do the work --

The City of Pleasanton General Plan:

Web Link

In table iii-5 (existing and approved housing units by type) it lists single family housing units at 15,903 (65%) and "Multi-family/Other" units at 8,592 (35%). Apartments alone were listed at 4,501 units. The information included all existing and approved housing in 2002. The US Census listed all Pleasanton Housing at 23,968 in the year 2000.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2009 at 12:28 pm

To Mary,

Sorry, I don't see anything in that link that says what portion of student's parents rent apartments. Please provide that information.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2009 at 12:35 pm

To Mary,

Let me be clear. Even if those unfounded claims were true, that is the way our laws and constitution work. We all get to vote on proposals to raise registration fees for cars, for example, not just registrants of cars.

All of the other high quality school districts in the Bay Area use parcel taxes. They are better able to provide services to the community because they have that advantage. We can do the same thing here in Pleasanton. It is for the children, and for all of us.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 10, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

All the other high quality school districts in the Bay Area <insert idea here>.


Posted by trekmtb, a resident of Heritage Oaks
on Dec 10, 2009 at 1:37 pm

a reader = Energizer Bunny


Posted by Amy, a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Dec 10, 2009 at 3:54 pm

I am reluctant to share on this forum due to the hostile atmosphere. I attended one of the meetings and I can clearly state that this WAS NOT a forum to gather support on a parcel tax. I can tell you that I followed the school protocol and signed in as a visitor. They scheduled meetings both during the school day and after school.

We spoke about the complex problems and realities of our districts budget. As parents of children attending the schools, there is a deep concern about how this deficit impacts our child's day-to-day experience at school as well as our concerns about future school performance.

If you think that there is a simple answer to this massive problem, you are dead wrong. It is vastly complex.

I fully support public education - our community schools - remember it is PUBLIC - it is not a private corporation that can easily shift as the economy demands. It is also public in that it holds a significant obligation to meeting the needs of our childrens education.


Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of Country Fair
on Dec 10, 2009 at 6:21 pm

Amy - What is more important to you...meeting the needs of our childrens education, or meeting the needs of a highly unionized, tenured, seniority based, automatic salary increases, hard to fire poor performing workforce? Did the information forum talk about that?


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2009 at 6:41 pm

To "Dark Corners",

If you really want to talk about tenure reform, that subject is for some other day, far in the future. I think most parents don't have a problem with the status quo. They don't think some drastic change is needed for our schools. We have a budget shortfall, not a structural problem with tenure or seniority. The budget shortfall was mainly due to the effect of a global financial crisis and had nothing to do with "unionized, tenured, seniority based, automatic salary increases". Pleasanton schools are good schools and many parents move to Pleasanton from other communities so they can attend the schools here.

A parcel tax, similar to what was recently passed in San Ramon can play an important part in restoring some of the funds lost to the global financial crisis.


Posted by Concerned Parent, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2009 at 7:10 pm

To Dark Corners,

I can't believe you called Pleasanton's teachers poor performing and that this issue is either you're for children or for the teachers. It is not that simple. Supporting a parcel tax is about both. If a teacher isn't holding his/her end of the bargain, they can still be shipped off to another school. No matter what they are paid or who they are teaching or whether or not they got a raise (which by the way they have not since the 2007/08 school year, much different from step and column, which are promotion based), they are still responsible for teaching your children and meeting state standards.

If you are so disgusted with your teachers, I suggest YOU bring it up in a parent-teacher conference. Don't have the guts? I thought so.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2009 at 9:03 pm

To Concerned Parent,

"I can't believe you called Pleasanton's teachers poor performing and that this issue is either you're for children or for the teachers."

Yes, exactly. That is such an artificial choice. We have to remember that the good schools here in Pleasanton is one of the reasons people live here. A parcel tax can play an important role in maintaining the high quality of our schools.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 10, 2009 at 9:39 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

A reader wrote: "some other day, far in the future"

In other words, kick the ball down the field for someone else to take care of.


Posted by Be Positive, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2009 at 9:56 pm

I appreciate the parents who organized this informational meeting for planning a daytime meeting and an evening meeting. They are working hard to be inclusive to all the community members who are interested in finding out the truth about the effects of last year's cuts on our schools. This was a perfect time for those out of work and unable to pay for child care after school hours.

As for illegal, deceptive motives? I seem to remember during Measure G many complained that they were not informed, they were rushed, the information was kept secret. Now that meetings and forums are taking place, it is illegal and brainwashing? You can make a choice to be informed and involved, the opportunity is available.

In order to start a process of a parcel tax or another alternative, it has to come from community members, not the school district or the school board. To call the attendees "creepy" or plant inappropriate motives is a poor attempt to draw attention away from the issue at hand and add false information/gossip and rumors in our community. What is your motive?




Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 10, 2009 at 9:57 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Amy,

Thank you for your report. The more you look into the issue, the more you find the complexity. A lot of that complexity is artificially created by a system that has acquired layers and layers of bureaucracy and obfuscation over the decades without any political will to keep the waistline trim. Most people do not want to stare at it in the face because it takes too long to come up to speed on. I'm glad that this crisis has encouraged others to start staring at the beast. There's been both public and private studies done to build a framework for education reform in California (i.e., "Getting down to facts" by IREPP, Governor's education advisory committee (don't recall the exact name atm)). The roadmaps are out there, we just need to generate some political will.


Posted by Parent in Country Fair, a resident of Country Fair
on Dec 11, 2009 at 1:39 am

I attended one of the meetings. I like Amy and Take it Easy found it to be informative and didn't feel it was a campaign for the parcel tax. The room we met in is a classroom that is not used by the students due to Class size reduction. It is probably only heated or airconditioned because the rest of the building is. My understanding is it isn't cleaned by the janitorial staff, those using it clean up after themselves. I have a question about the Parcel Tax. Would rental propery really be excluded or wouldn't the property owner pay the tax? If so, I imagine that cost would be passed on to renters. As I said, I don't know. I do know rental properties are subject to property tax.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 11, 2009 at 8:20 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Yes, rental properties would also be taxed. Under a parcel tax proposal like Measure G, a 10,000 sq. ft. apartment parcel would pay the same amount as a 2,000 sq. ft. single-family house, placing the greater burden of the tax on single-family residential owners.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 11, 2009 at 8:21 am

Stacey is a registered user.

...Placing the greater burden of the tax on single-family residential owners and possibly renters of single-family residential homes.


Posted by Einstein, a resident of Mohr Elementary School
on Dec 11, 2009 at 9:04 am

Einstein is a registered user.

Sure it is illegal and I would say without question it is unethical. School should be for education and not solicitation.


Posted by Be Positive, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 11, 2009 at 8:38 pm

Schools are for education- what a perfect setting for a community informational meeting then, especially since as a tax payer, I pay for that facility. What would you prefer, no meetings? I remember that as a complaint during Measure G. Now people are calling it illegal? The logic here ceases to amaze me.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 11, 2009 at 8:52 pm

I agree with "Be Positive". A school is an appropriate setting for information sessions on school budget. It is also the time for people to get involved with the process and learn as much as they can.


Posted by Peggy, a resident of Del Prado
on Dec 11, 2009 at 9:29 pm

Reader,

you seem to be ok with anything as long as it is in line with your viewpoint but when someone else comes up with something contrary to your viewpoint about your god..........parcel taxes you raise a stink............why????


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 11, 2009 at 10:36 pm

To Peggy,

I'm not sure what you mean by "you raise a stink". I also don't know what you mean by "about your god".

I am in favor of a parcel tax for the reasons I stated above.


Posted by Jerry, a resident of Oak Hill
on Dec 12, 2009 at 1:10 am

Who arranges these meeting and who's invited to attend???

If a budget informational meeting were held at a school in my neighborhood, would I be invited, or, are they just for a select few...


Posted by Get the facts, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 12, 2009 at 4:45 pm

Jerry, you are welcome to come, it is a public meeting. I suggest you call your school and see if one is scheduled.


Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of Country Fair
on Dec 12, 2009 at 5:06 pm

Concerned Parent -

Before you even begin to think I have no guts. I have had many parent-teacher conferences about poor performing teachers. I have had to wait two years for the school district to take care of a particular teacher. I have escalated a teacher's performance to the district office. I have had the principal of a school lie to me and to several other parents who had parent-teacher conferences. There are many parents who share their stories and experiences. I speak from that experience. I encourage all parents to speak to their teachers and to the administration about poor performance. Alternatively, there are many parents who for reasons of fear of retaliation or lack of time, don't take their issues forward. All of these parents know what I speak of. Thank-you very much.


Posted by Jerry, a resident of Oak Hill
on Dec 13, 2009 at 12:14 am

Get the facts,

I would prefer to be invited in the same manner as those that attended the prior meetings. That way I could bring others that might be interested...


Posted by Get the facts, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2009 at 2:13 pm

Jerry, I believe the invitations come through the individual school's e-mails, and I cannot tell if you are a concerned parent or a concerned non-parent. If you are a non-parent, you will probably not get the e-mail, and if you are a parent, you might not get it if you do not have your e-mail address signed up to the school. That is why I suggested you call the closest school, or better yet, call the District Office. Hopefully one or the other can give you the needed times and dates. (I just checked a few of the school's websites and couldn't find anything, but it is possible that those schools have yet to schedule one or it has already passed. Bottom line, it is a public meeting, you are welcome, but I don't know when the next one is.)


Posted by Jerry, a resident of Oak Hill
on Dec 14, 2009 at 1:16 am

Get the facts,

Thanks for the info. Lately, when I hear of an "informational meeting" at a school, from past experience, I automatically put a tight grip on my wallet...:)


Posted by Mary, a resident of Country Fair
on Dec 14, 2009 at 10:51 am

We need use fees for schools in addition to the taxes and bonds we pay for in Pleasanton right now. If each parent of a child going to school in Pleasanton had to write a check for say $500.00 each then it would be solved.


Posted by Get the facts, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2009 at 12:55 am

Mary, what about those people who cannot afford to pay? What happens to a "free and public education" then?


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 15, 2009 at 8:18 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Get the facts,

You couldn't possibly be suggesting that someone can't afford a measly $500. That's only $1.40 a day! That's less than a latte!

(P.S. The above post should not be interpreted as support for a use fee for schools. It is meant only to illustrate the weakness of an argument.)


Posted by Get the facts, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2009 at 5:58 pm

Stacey, many students are on free or reduced lunch. Many parents in this town are renters, living paycheck to paycheck. I know of one parent who couldn't pay the 75 dollar sports fee at one of the middle schools last year, and that's one heck of a lot less than 500 bucks. So it is fantastic that $500 is measly for you, but it is not measly for many in this town. For some it might be 25% of a paycheck.

So yes, I am suggesting this, despite whatever sarcasm or irony you are trying to use. And I don't buy my coffee, and most people I know don't either.


Posted by The Other Mary, a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Dec 15, 2009 at 9:14 pm

Get the facts – Thank you for (inadvertently) agreeing that a parcel tax would be a difficult burden for many.


Posted by Get the facts, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 17, 2009 at 4:55 pm

I didn't agree to anything!!! Over half this town voted FOR a parcel tax, so many didn't think it would be a burden. And the parcel tax was for 233 bucks annually, not 500 annually.

So no, I am NOT agreeing with you!

(Just for the record, though it may have been a burden, I voted for it, and I took a cut in pay last year.)


Posted by Mary, a resident of Country Fair
on Dec 17, 2009 at 5:06 pm

Get the facts,

Again, we already pay taxes for a free education in this state and in addition we even pay a bond so do not think that it is not already paid for which it is. This is about being able to live within our means. You are ok with taxing people without jobs and without children using the services but you have a problem with applying a use fee. Again, the same thing holds true people who want to pay extra for something supplied free through taxes should be able to do so.-


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 17, 2009 at 5:27 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

"Over half this town voted FOR a parcel tax, so many didn't think it would be a burden"

The comment is rather disingenuous. Let's restrict the vote to only those who own property then we'll see the true amount of support for a parcel tax.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 17, 2009 at 5:35 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

It is interesting that "Get the Facts" appears unable or unwilling to see that the argument used against a use tax is exactly the same used against a parcel tax. My attempt to utilize a pro-parcel tax argument as a response to "Get the Facts" was indeed sarcastic and ironic. It was meant to show that the pro-parcel tax argument was weak. The parcel tax proponents sought to utilize "It's only 64 cents a day" and "Less than the price of latte" as mantras to shame people and make them look cheap.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 17, 2009 at 5:38 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Speaking of parcel tax amounts, did anyone notice that the $99 parcel tax sought up in Contra Costa would have raised $7MM annually? Down here we'd need $298 per parcel just to raise $4.6MM annually. So communities rich in parcels can have lower tax rates while our community, which doesn't appear as rich in the number of parcels, would have to have a higher tax rate (regardless of ability to pay) just to achieve funding parity. Sounds like that frustrates the purpose of Serrano v. Priest.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 17, 2009 at 10:47 pm

To Mary,

"You are ok with taxing people without jobs and without children using the services but you have a problem with applying a use fee. "

Again, a use fee is illegal for education in California. Did you read those informational materials a posted from the successful Palo Alto parcel tax bid? It clearly shows that such a use tax is illegal and includes references. It is a non-starter.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 17, 2009 at 10:50 pm

To Stacey,

"Speaking of parcel tax amounts, did anyone notice that the $99 parcel tax sought up in Contra Costa would have raised $7MM annually?"

But they would be serving more students, so they would need to raise more money, right?


Posted by Me, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 18, 2009 at 8:55 am

Stacey I guess the district should not have budgetary information meetings since nearly everyone working for the district is pro parcel tax.

Every public entities have an interest in revenue sources. Virtually every form of government campains for revenue sources, Pleasanton does, Alameda County does, California does, the US Government does, etc.. There is nothing wrong with the administrators having and/or sharing thier opinions on public property. The TEA leaves people did thier campain in a public parks.

If they wer using the schools to run an elected official campaign the story would be differn't

I really think the argument is really very far out there!!!


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 18, 2009 at 12:20 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Me,

What are you talking about? Your post exemplifies your continued voluntary blindness. You have me figured as some young Republican propagandist and it appears that you use that label as a way of lumping me into some box. Please, oh please, tell me where I was in disagreement with the idea of holding an informational meeting at the schools. Where did I agree that it was unethical or illegal. All I said was alee's questioning was valid. She has a right to question that. No one knows if the facilities are being rented out, like the TEA party did of the public park, without questioning. And if you really want to be equitable, then you should be flexible in allowing others to rent out school facilities during school hours. How about allowing the TEA party to hold an informational meeting there?

Reader wrote: "But they would be serving more students, so they would need to raise more money, right? "

Not necessarily. The number of parcels does not always correlate with the number of students. Parcel taxes are paid by both commercial and residential parcels.


Posted by a reader, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 18, 2009 at 6:24 pm

I am a TEA person and am furious about how our money has been spent at both the federal and state level.

That said, the mentioning "brainwashing" seems a little paranoid, I agree.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

‘Much Ado’ or is it Adios for ObamaCare?
By Tom Cushing | 41 comments | 1,258 views

What about the annual housing cap?
By Tim Hunt | 5 comments | 886 views

DSRSD's Kohnen Scholarship on Hold
By Roz Rogoff | 0 comments | 564 views

Be a sport: Send us your youth sports news, scores and photos
By Gina Channell-Allen | 0 comments | 117 views