Town Square

Post a New Topic

Board of Education to discuss possible bond measure

Original post made on Dec 6, 2011

The potential bond measure would pay for construction, modernization and possibly solar power at several schools, most notably at Stone Valley Middle School and San Ramon Valley High. The district's Board of Education will consider the bond at its Dec. 6 meeting.

This story contains 264 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments (12)

Like this comment
Posted by Voter
a resident of Danville
on Dec 6, 2011 at 7:08 am

We are already currently paying for two different parcel taxes for our school district. The school district recently said they had a "surplus" of money, and decided to pay teachers for a day they did not even come to school or work. Now, the same school district, wants more of our money through his bond, to build expensive construction projects? No way! The recession has hit us parents in Danville just like everywhere else, and we are tired of this school district treating us like we are a never ending source of new taxes and bonds. Enough is enough. Live within your means like we do. If you have a "surplus" of OUR money, return it to us, and stop playing shell games with new bonds and taxes for construction we can not afford. I am sure most voters agree with me, especially in this economy. If this board tries to force this new tax bond on us, I suggest we start a petition to recall all the school board members who vote for this.

Like this comment
Posted by Duffy
a resident of Danville
on Dec 6, 2011 at 9:57 am

The SRVUSD, with its usual sense of good timing, is plunging ahead with another tax measure. To tie any of it to additional Solar Power is folly. Let's wait at least a year to gain some experience with the Solar Power installations we already have before pouring more money into this technology.

Like this comment
Posted by Douglas
a resident of Blackhawk
on Dec 6, 2011 at 10:25 am

Along the same lines with Duffy, if we had construction projects that need money WTH were you doing putting money in solar rather than using it for construction? That is what QSCB's are for! We have absolute imbeciles running our school district.

Like this comment
Posted by Louie
a resident of Danville
on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:22 pm

I am a parent of three SRVUSD graduates AND I am a retired SRVUSD teacher.

"On the ground" classroom supplies are underfunded(except for a plethora of electronics).

Big ticket resume building items that pad resumes are the priority of the current regime.

Common sense(and, by the way, common decency on the part of some of the little darlings parents sent to me) is out of style.

Say "No" to bond measures and bad mannered children.

Like this comment
Posted by taxed out
a resident of San Ramon Valley High School
on Dec 7, 2011 at 5:11 am

The track record is terrible with getting construction projects built properly. Look at the seismic problems with the SRVHS gym being reconstructed ahead of time because of construction defects. I'd rather spend funds on maintaining and inspecting the buildings we have now to make sure they were actually constructed properly. Also, are the solar panels being manufactured in the US, if so they are probably overpriced, or if they are competitively priced, they are from China, not how I'd want money spent in either case.

Like this comment
Posted by Wise Owl
a resident of Alamo
on Dec 7, 2011 at 8:05 am

As a private person, you can attempt to live within your means and be fairly successful in the effort. But what happens when more people move into your home and expect to be fed? Living within your means just went out the window.

This is the situation the school district is in. They can easily "live within their means" if nothing changes, but this is a growth area (due in no small part to the excellence of our schools). That means that more and more people (students) are moving in. It costs money to deal with the influx of people. We can't turn them away.

"Living within their means" is impossible for a growing school district.

Like this comment
Posted by Voter
a resident of Danville
on Dec 7, 2011 at 8:37 am

"Wise Owl": The problem with your analogy is with more students moving into the district, the district does actually gets more money from the government in funding, while I do not get anymore money from the government if more people move into my home. "Living within their means" applies to our school district, and they are failing miserably at it. I also think there are people who work for the school district whose jobs solely relate to construction projects, and thus to keep their own jobs going they are leading the lobbying for more taxes for more construction. These are the first people who should be laid off if there is a budget problem. However, there is no budget problem, as our district recently said they have a "surplus" and that is why they gave the teachers money for not even showing up at work.

Like this comment
Posted by Brad
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 7, 2011 at 8:51 am

What I don't understand is why they are suggesting additions and new fields and track for Dougherty Valley H.S. when the other 3 high schools in the District have a much greater need for modernization and expansion. Make Cal, SRV and MV the first priorities. DVHS is sparkling new and should be excluded when there are finite funds for the high schools at this time.

Like this comment
Posted by Wise Owl
a resident of Alamo
on Dec 7, 2011 at 11:05 am

It's important to realize that the state has cut education dollars dramatically. The "government" provides less and less funding for schools each year. A growing student enrollment means that the school district goes deeper in the hole for each new student regardless of mythical "government" funding.

I wish that it were not true, but it is.

Like this comment
Posted by InAlamo
a resident of Alamo
on Dec 7, 2011 at 11:29 am

WiseOwl -- also the new residents moving in are paying about 150% of taxes that you and I are paying (clearly you are referring to "new" people moving into new developments in San Ramon).

I agree with live within the means and no more taxes. Ask me for more taxes when employees are de-unionized in the school district.

Like this comment
Posted by InAlamo
a resident of Alamo
on Dec 7, 2011 at 11:32 am

Oh -- and just to clarify -- they do not pay higher taxes because of higher house prices but because of school taxes. For example, Windemere has a tax rate as high as 1.7% (whereas all the rest of the SRVUSD area is 1.25%)

Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Alamo
on Dec 9, 2011 at 12:48 pm

All the above comments against another bond issue are valid. The school board is owned by the teacher's union and this would be another case of using all of the tax dollars to support their agenda.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


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

Boston, leaves and lobster
By Tim Hunt | 5 comments | 583 views