LTTE - Opposition to Measure C
Original post made by Community courtesy on Apr 10, 2009
It is fascinating that opposition to Measure C can be labeled as Michael James Arata's opposition. The reality of opposition, now being erased by e-exchange distributions, is the result of lack of publicly presented planning for the uses of all sources of income by SRVUSD. Iron Horse neighborhoods, ad hoc Measure C committee, developed a summary plan and budget using the SRVUSD website information and distributed the summary to e-exchange participants from Alamo School to Dougherty Valley.
Ed's point of $12 per month was reduced to an increase over current parcel tax of <$5 per month in COST segment of the summary due to the $54 per year increase over the $90 currently paid per residence. Clearly, SRVUSD provided exceptional information for study in its official forms. Media, including you, should have been the author of public summary distributed by Iron Horse neighborhoods.
Hal, as a community courtesy
REF: Cheaper than no Prop. 13
Other than Mike Arata, who apparently opposes anything the San Ramon Valley school district might propose, I can't imagine any reasonable taxpayer in the district who would not support paying a measly 12 bucks a month to continue programs that enrich the lives of our students. Twelve dollars! What a bargain considering that if Prop. 13 were not in force, we would be paying so much more.
Ed Angle, Danville
on Apr 28, 2009 at 6:11 pm
I keep having my comments erased. I'm sorry my opinions are too real for people to take. Your censorship won't stop me. I went to los cerros and monte vista. I'm 27 and I think 75% of the teachers were total losers. I remember my math teacher used to flirt with the 8th grade girls and hide behind the projector screen like a 4 year old. We don't need more money. We need less teachers. When my parents went to school, there were fifty to ninety kids per class, and they learned more. Why? Because everyone shut up and listened. We need discipline in the class. One way to break down discipline is to amp the kids up on sugar. We should not have candy and sodas sold in schools. The teachers unions fought getting rid of jumk food in schools because they want to tax it to give the money "to the schools," ie: to them. They don't give a damn about the kids. Their demands for smaller class sizes is because that means we have to hire more teachers. By the way, we already have plenty of money being sucked from our property taxes to go to our schools. The problem is, we don't spend it on our kids. We send it to Oakland and Richmond, on bilingual education for illegal immigrants and group home kids who murder our children (Rylan Fuchs.) No doubt, 90% of the extra money that they wish to take from us through prop C will within a few years be allotted to other schools.