|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
There are three bond measures on the Nov. 8 General Election ballot that will add to Pleasanton property taxes.
* $270 million for the Pleasanton school district, that, if approved by 55% of voters, will require a tax of $49 per $100,000 of assessed valuation for Pleasanton property owners. Check your last assessment figure from the county tax collector’s office to determine how much you’ll be paying over the 30-year life of the bond.
* $3.5 billion for BART, which would require a two-thirds majority of voters to pass, promises trains will look better, run more frequently and be on time. BART estimates that the average yearly tax rate over the life of the bond program will be between $8.98 per $100,000 of assessed valuation to $17.49 depending on prevailing interest rates when the bonds are sold.
Under BART’s current plans, property owners in three counties voting in the bond would pay higher taxes for a projected 48 years if Measure RR passes. The average annual increase for an average home for its share of the bond payments would be roughly $80 in Contra Costa, $83 in Alameda County and $110 in San Francisco.
* $580 million for an Alameda County Affordable Housing Bond, which would create and protect affordable housing options for people who need it most in Alameda County — the homeless, seniors, veterans, the disabled and many in the workforce, which county representatives identify as teachers, electricians, plumbers, EMT workers and others who simply cannot find affordable housing close to where they work in Alameda County.
The bond also aims to help people buy homes. The measure would raise up to $580 million for affordable housing across Alameda County. All funds from the proposed bond must stay local and be dedicated to affordable housing needs in Alameda County only. The funds would be allocated to a combination of rental housing and homeowner programs. The cost to property owners is projected to be $12-$14 per $100,000 of assessed value.
Here we go again on school taxes, PUSD doesn’t know how to budget and waste so much money and we have to bail them out again, vote NO
NO NO NO on every measure that will cost taxpayers more money. Not one of our elected or appointed representatives has any accountability for their flagrant wasting of our money. I have voted no on every bond measure in memory and will continue to do so. Until I see some responsibility in cutting costs first there will never be a yes vote from me for any additional funding, no matter what lies they tell about where the money will go.
I love how the “anti-tax but I want gold plated infrastructure” Tea Party types come out of the woodwork, making claims about waste but never seem to back it up with any, you know, FACTS.
Admit it Tea Partiers, you’re just cheap and greedy. This has nothing to do with spending priorities or supposed (and unprovable) waste. It has to do with you writing a bigger check to the tax man. Period.
Go back to your right wing echo chamber, Faux Newz is calling you…
I like how the first two raise property taxes for vaguely specified proposals and then as a result of increasing housing costs, a 3rd proposal is needed to help people with housing costs!
I agree with NO on all three. Without a lot more detail of how the money on schools will be spent I can’t vote for that. I would also need to know a lot more about the BART plans, their goals and how they will be held accountable to their goals as well.
I’ll probably vote for the school bond. I do believe that a lot of the infrastructure at PUSD schools is in need of repair and replacement. As a Pleasanton homeowner, I also think that the money is a good investment in our property values. The quality of our schools is what keeps people flocking to our city to bid up our property values.
As for the BART bond, will probably vote no. Seems like the full cost of operating BART should be borne by those who actually ride on BART.
Paco,
Look at unfunded benefits, diverting funds from school to pay those unfunded liabilities, reducing services to (educational instruction days) for in service days, frivolous lawsuits, there are many examples of waste in the system and the schools continue to use terrorist fear tactics to hold the taxpayers hostage for continuing to pay for those wastes. Not a single measure includes a sustainability explanation about how the schools plan to reduce operating expenses to continue to reduce waste. There needs to be a commitment and published plan to cost reduction with regular reporting on each milestone where funds will then be released on a similar schedule
Housing bond sounds like unions have infiltrated and raped what probably started out as a well intended measure.
Why are certain trades called out specifically vs a min salary / full comp review (after benefits).
We have teachers working 9 months per yet can qualify for this without filling the remaining months?
Plumbers and electricians? Have you had work done lately? $90-130/hr excl materials with a min show rate. All ok by me, but nothe justifiable by trade for a taxpayer funded benefit. Maybe the union should re-evaluate membership levels/criteria or kick in Union dues to supplement this benefit if their membership values this.
Maintaining and funding BART is massively important to the Bay Areas quality of life but Alameda county pays far more than the other counties that have BART stations. There should be more energy put towards the other counties raising their taxes and stop asking Alameda county to pay more than their fair share.
Taxes for schools are almost always a positive for everyone but PUSD, like BART and that deadbeat relative, they would rather just ask for more money instead of addressing their deficiencies.
Am I banned from commenting forever???….considered yourselves too easily triggered by the world, you should wrap yourselves in bubble wrap before venturing outdoors. Do not forget your ear plugs because hearing someones true opinion would be far too critical of thought for your mind to consider that an emotional over reaction is justified.