Vote No on "C"

Tell me why we should give the District more money to waste.

The District refuses to upgrade the schools to energy efficient
lighting at no cost to the them, the savings over a few years would
net them approx. $400-500 Thousand Dollars a year, that's a few Teachers, books, etc.

The California Energy Commission along with PG&E are willing to loan them the money at bottom line no cost.

Vote YES on C.

Education and Kids are excellent investments in our future and in keeping our property values high. SRVUSD schools are both distinguished and they have among the highest scores in the state. They are obviously doing some things right. The things that DIRECTLY affect our kids.

We voted - 2 for NO ON C.

Steven, that is really sad. I hope that $144 you get to keep makes you feel a lot better about shorting the public school system in our area. You'd think that those of us lucky enough to be able to afford living in this area would have a little more common sense for what is a good investment, if not just doing the right thing.

Dan, Is not retrofitting our lighting in the schools the right thing?
giving away an approx. 3-500,000.00 a year to PG&E when it would cost the school district nothing.
Is spending 7 Million Dollars for a parking lot at Monte Vista the right thing.

Roy, I'm not arguing with you about that. I just don't understand why you seem to think they are mutually exclusive. Yes, I'm a huge believer in energy efficiency and doing the right thing in that regard. The school my children go to, Greenbrook, has a solar energy system and is extremely energy efficient. But you seem to be overlooking the fundamental issue here. By voting No on measure C, you will not achieve your objective, but what you will do is ensure a significant deterioration of the SRVUSD and a negative impact on our property values. Why can't you fight for the energy efficiency issue, which I would fight for as well, independent of this? You want to make a point with your No vote on measure C, but that point will not be made, all that would happen is that you help contribute sending the SRVUSD into a tail spin that could take years to recover from. I hate wasteful spending, no question, but we only have two choices here, vote yes or no. We don't have a third choice to vote yes only if they improve energy efficiency in the school systems. If that was an option, I'd vote for that too. If that is what we want, then we need to vote yes, to preserve the school system as best we can, and then fight for energy efficiency improvements as well.

The school district is preparing a district-wide energy efficiency plan that will save upwards of $1.2 million over the next five years. But this has nothing to do with Measure C. Measure C is about continuing a parcel tax that maintains exceptional schools in our community. It is not responsible to mesh the issues. Anyone of us could finish the sentence, I would vote for Measure C if....
Do you ask yourself the same question about our national defense. Do you ask, I would support military occupation if.... Most of us ask this but it still doesn't affect our support for the troops. Right?

$144 is about the price of a nice night out these days; yet when the story is about giving or investing in improving the quality of education for the younger generation who will be our next generation of leaders, we get all these creative reasons not to support it. This whole comment sting is shifting to lighting at schools which is a head fake for just being too cheap and/or selfish.

You are all missing the point, if I thought the money would be spend wisely, I would vote yes, my point is, the district dosen't know how to be effience with our money, if they can't see a $0.00 cost on moving forward with the lighting project and they spend 7Million for a parking lot at Monte Vista instead of putting that money towards more needed issues, you ask people to contribute more to idiots.

I posted this in another forum here, but I never got a response. Maybe this forum will be responsive:

================
"I understand that the old-timers can get an exemption and won't have to pay the Measure C taxes. Doesn't this kind of broadly infer that the District is buying their votes in a secondhand kind of way?

Suppose I say "Vote my way and I'll give you money." How is that different from saying "Vote my way and I won't take your money?" The distinction escapes me."

Paying for a vote is illegal (except in Chicago). Why is not taking a person's money for the same vote perfectly ok? The voter still ends up with more money.

I know a large segment of our society wants to ignore the 14th Amendment (you know - equal protection) but I wish you wouldn't.

I don't claim to have all the answers but I don't believe it is a bribe. I think the people who put the measure together realized that because there is a mix of young families with children and seniors living on fixed incomes that it was necessary to lessen the impact on those retirees with social security or pensions.

I am trying not to respond emotionally, but I do get tired of opponents always trying to characterize things as evil. The evil school cabal is bribing seniors. It's a load of baloney. It's putting the impact on the groups most likely to benefit from the parcel tax. People with kids in schools and people living in the area who want to keep their property values high. There's no evil agenda that I can see. Both groups are still working and bringing in a paycheck, where seniors are not. The irony is if they weren't exempting the seniors, you would be screaming to high heaven about how seniors are being taxed out of their homes.

You're not voting for measure c, that much is obvious. So discuss the issues and please leave off the character assassination.

Vote no on C. Come on now - don't we donate enough money at the beginning of each school year? Believe me, some of us donate A LOT of money. Besides, this money will not go into improving the quality of education, but will most likely be used to improve the quality of life of some greedy politician somewhere down the line (isn't that what our tax dollars are really for?)

Really strange how the same people are copying and posting their responses in forums that actually have nothing to do with their comments. A story about a parade for the kids and families of Greenbrook that should be a positive event, regardless of the outcome of the vote is not the right place for you confused "No on C" supporters to be posting. Sometimes I wonder if "jethro" and "Worker Bee" and "Roy" are all Mike Arata posting under pseudonyms. For crying out loud, give it a rest. If you support No on C, then write it on your car windows or put a sign on your lawns. If you're too embarrassed to be open about who you are when you state your position then perhaps you should look inward to understand why that is. Those of us that support Measure C are proud of our position, which is why you see signs in front of homes and our cars with our support written on the windows. The only thing I see in our community from the No on C contingent is illegally posted stickers on public property. I'd suggest that speaks volumes about who is standing on either side of this measure.

A forum is a place for an interchange of ideas and opinions. It would seem that the only ideas and opinions you're interested in are ones that you agree with. You wish to eject and reject all others from offering their views in this place.

You can get away with that in the classroom, but not here.

Go check some of the other forums that have lots of interchanges and see how closely they conform to the original topic. Are they all also confused?

Vote no on C(ostly)

Worker Bee or Jethro or Roy, I'll just call you Mike. The difference is that there is a forum for this debate already here at Danville Weekly. There is actually two of them, both stories about viewpoints on Measure C. Why take the debate and move it to a forum for a feel good story on the parade for the kids & families of the Greenbrook school? I'm actually always happy to hear opposing viewpoints, it is one of the ways in which I am able to grow and mature as a human being. What I don't have much patience for is anonymous blatherings that have no basis and simply try to push a partisan agenda that has lost its footing (finally). I much prefer to debate people that have the courage to show their faces (or at least their names) and base their arguments in logic and reason, not partisan rhetoric. The country voted overwhelmingly to reject that position last November. Give it a rest.

The library lights on Front Street should be turned off at night and on weekends! What a waste of taxpayer's money, they're left on 24/7.

Well, folks should we allow on off-topic posting regarding lights into this forum or should we suppress free speech the way "some people" want us to do?

I don't think it's taking away from free speech to suggest that a person stay on topic. yes most forums stray from the topic but since there aer other forum threads talking about taxes then why not talk about them there. this thread is marginally about measure c but mostly about something that happned at Grenbrook. Really its not even news, more like human interest, so why not let the parents and kids who find this cute just enjoy it? You'v got an axe to grind, we get it. So start your own thread and vent away. That's what this forum is for, anonymous posting ofany damfool thing you want to say.

Actually, if you go back and count the number of posts that are "on topic" i.e., directly relevant and specific to the Greenbrook event, you will find that number to be ZERO.

So much for the comment that this thread is "mostly about something that happned at Grenbrook."

Mugged by reality...

I would guess you'd argue that the Nazis or the KKK should be allowed to carry on a rally in front of the Greenbrook elementary school too, just as the No on C folks have attempted to hijack this thread. There are two other threads here on the Danville Weekly website debating Measure C, what possible reason could you have for insisting that this continue on here? Is it because your point of view has already been invalidated on those other forums, so you thought perhaps you could get away with the same baseless arguments here without someone calling you on it? Not going to happen. Perhaps try more working worker bee and less wasting everyone else's time. Your call of course, as I'm sure you'll point out.

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.

By the way, what the hell is Dan Parnas talking about?