Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 9:56 AM

School parcel tax renewal may hit April 6 ballot
Superintendent proposes 6-year renewal with $96 increase

by Chris Kenrick
Palo Alto Online Staff

Posted by Grandma, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2009 at 1:30 pm

This proposal better include an opt out for Seniors; if it doesn't I will vote against it. Like many Seniors my fixed income does not have cost of living raises each year. This year there was no cost of living increase for recipients of Social Security.

Posted by PAUSD parent, a member of the Duveneck School community, on Nov 18, 2009 at 2:13 pm

This is not the right time to ask people to pay higher taxes.

There is going to be a rejection of this parcel tax...then what will happen to the schools?

Posted by Chris Kenrick, Palo Alto Weekly staff, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Yes, Skelly said his recommendation does include an exemption for seniors.

Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2009 at 3:22 pm

Why do people insist on saying that the parcel tax *renewal* will be asking us to pay "higher taxes"?

It's a *renewal* of the current parcel tax...not an increase, not higher taxes. And along with the *renewal* comes the same "opt-out" clause for seniors that exists today.

So puhleeeeze stop with all of the mis-representations!!!

Posted by George, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2009 at 3:29 pm

Seniors should be charged. They also should put reverse mortgages on their houses and remember that they have Prop 13 protecting their piggy bank of a house from getting taxed to moon. Sorry, but Seniors need to stick a cork in their mouths when it comes to taxation. This state is squeezing the heck out of the people that create the companies and income in this state.

Posted by pat, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2009 at 4:25 pm

1. Not all seniors opt out.

2. As “Grandma” says, some seniors can’t afford it.

3. If it weren’t for Prop 13, Grandma and others like her wouldn’t be able to afford to stay in their homes.

4. This IS an increase, not just a renewal. Read the article: Skelly “proposed a six-year renewal of the tax, including a $96 dollar increase.”

Posted by JLS parent, a member of the JLS Middle School community, on Nov 18, 2009 at 5:24 pm

Sorry Crescent Park Dad, you are wromg:

"Skelly proposed a six-year renewal of the tax, including a $96 dollar increase"

I am voting no. I am sick and tired of all the new taxes. Bonds for schools, parcel tax, bonds again for schools, bonds for libraries, increased parcel tax.

I am a school parent, and I say NO, Enough already! We can't keep paying more all the time.

Posted by Parent, a member of the Barron Park School community, on Nov 18, 2009 at 6:02 pm

It is understandably a tough time to raise the taxes due to the tough economic environment. However, this works out to an increase of $8 per month from what we are currently paying. People on fixed incomes may have trouble paying this, but the rest of the community should step up.

Palo Alto housing prices have held their value much more than neighboring areas precisely because of the Palo Alto School District. All Palo Alto home owners benefit from our school district, in the value of their home.

The state is preparing to cut school funding even further; plus inflation continues to increase many basic costs. I've been a resident of Palo Alto for 11 years and we have kids entering kindergarten this year. I would much rather pay $8/month more to keep the high quality of education we have in our town.

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2009 at 7:39 pm

Please remember that a lot of the seniors in this town have also had children go through the schools and many are the biggest proponents of our school district. Many of them are also the reason the schools are so great. Their years of service to this city and school district. I think you'll have a lot more seniors paying the tax than asking for the exemption.

Personally, I won't be supporting the renewal unless it includes a commitment to keep class sizes at a max of 20 in the elementary schools, and to put a maximum limit on school size. The district should not have been allowed to increase class size as they did this year with the original parcel tax being approved with the stipulation that it would fund class-size reduction.

Posted by parent, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2009 at 8:11 pm

Yes, Palo Alto homes hold their value precisely because test scores are high. However, the reason test scores are high have more to do with the fact that many parents of school age children in this town are highly educated, involved in their children's schools and committed to their child's success as a student. Having extra $$$ as a result of a parcel tax does less to guarantee high individual student test scores than having committed, educated, and involved parents and guardians.

Posted by Bill, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2009 at 10:21 pm

Unfortunately Prop 13 also protects corporations/companies when title changes hands. That is a much greater percentage of the total exemptions than for private citizens. And the number of private citizens having this advantage grows smaller every year while that for companies doesn't.

When company titles change hands, those properties are not being reassessed to a higher rate due to legal dodges. As we know, when private citizens buy a new home, they don't inherit the previous owner's tax rate. Dicussions in our Legislature to bring the two in line are blocked by lobbiests for industry. Tens of millions per year are involved; no wonder a change can't make it through our state government.

Posted by Grandma, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2009 at 11:00 pm

Crescent Park Dad says: "And along with the *renewal* comes the same "opt-out" clause for seniors that exists today."

Not so, this is not a renewal of the present parcel tax, it is a new greatly increased tax for a longer period of time. Also, no mention has been made under the proposed new parcel tax for an "opt out" for senior citizens.

Posted by Kate, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2009 at 11:04 pm

Senior exemption? You betcha. Who do you think paid for the schools built after WWII and during and after the Korean War prior to the Prop 13 start date - 1978 and after Vietnam. There were bond issues for school libraries, for Gunn and new buildings at Paly and on and on. ....and all paid for by residents on a fraction of the salaries that residents have now.

There won't be any cost of living COLA in Social Security this year and projected for two more years after that. Medicare premiums are skyrocketing, and due to 'old age', so are medical bills. And on top of that, Medicare benefits will evidently be slashed in any health care overhaul. Even dying has gotten very expensive!! What is the PAUSD doing about cost cutting? Same as the City, no doubt.

Posted by pat, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2009 at 10:32 am

Thank you, Kate, for standing up for the older folks. Excellent comments!

Another issue for the schools is the dense housing being built and planned around the city, e.g., 801 Alma.

I recently learned there's a law saying the city can NOT consider the impact on schools when building housing. The law was apparently passed under the influence of developers who say, "We're paying a school impact fee when we build these units, so that should take care of any school issues."

Anyone who builds a new home has to pay a school impact fee. The question is, does it cover the cost of adding kids to the district?

Posted by EcoMama, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2009 at 2:18 pm

@ Erin: Please know that the school district very quietly upped class size to 22 students per class last year. So it is no longer 20 -- that's already gone. It could get as high as 28 from what I hear, and that is the most likely thing to happen according to school board members.

Posted by TII, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2009 at 5:13 pm

Kate,

Your generation has been consuming a disproportionate amount of medical services and not paying your way for many years. The same goes for property taxes in CA, which is a large handover of wealth from the young to the old.

Now you want to opt out of paying your fair share of taxes. Shame on you. I will certainly vote against any new tax that offers yet another chance for your generation to freeload.

Posted by Grandma, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2009 at 5:34 pm

Tll says: "Your generation has been consuming a disproportionate amount of medical services and not paying your way for many years." Maybe, when you are old you will think differently about this.

Meanwhile my partner fought in France in WWII, I think that is doing something for the next generation. What have you done?

Posted by JLS parent, a member of the JLS Middle School community, on Nov 19, 2009 at 6:04 pm

To TII

Let's meet here again and talk about this topic in a few years, once the real estate market has been revived and your house has appreciated. We'll see then if you still hate prop. 13. I have my guess...

Posted by TII, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2009 at 6:35 pm

Grandma

"Maybe, when you are old you will think differently about this." You may be right: Perhaps I will want to stick it to the young when I get older, though I certainly hope not. It would be a moral failure.

If your partner fought in France, then he benefited from the GI bill and gets VA medical help to this day. How much is enough?

In any case, you miss the point. I will certainly not have the chance to stick it to the young because the entire system will collapse. I am paying for your retirement and medical benefits and trying to save up for my own because your generation was so short-sighted.

JLS,

Ditto. Perhaps I will want to stick property taxes to the young when I am old, but that's irrelevant. It would be a moral failure.

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2009 at 6:57 am

EcoMama- trust me, I know about the increased class size. I'm not happy about it and the superintendent and school board have heard my thoughts on it. What I was saying was that I don't think that was in compliance with the parcel tax but I guess we won't know until next year's audit.

Posted by Citizen, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2009 at 10:46 am

TII - excellent comments. Its amazing how the grandmas in this town are always happy to sell their houses for millions, but shocked when they are asked to pay anything to support the schools that make the houses worth millions. If grandma is too cash poor to pay the parcel tax, the city should put a lien on the parcel and it will get paid when the property is transferred.

Even worse is that grandma has the right to vote for the rest of us to pay this tax while she can then opt out of it once it passes.

Posted by Nora Charles, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 20, 2009 at 6:57 pm

Throwing money at the schools never seems to bring an improvement. Many already pay a small fortune in property tax, yet on top of that we are asked for more, and in these difficult times. Enough!

And those suggesting seniors not be exempt from the parcel tax: I hope you are treated with more thoughtfulness when you reach your golden years.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2009 at 9:27 am

Seniors should be able to opt out of paying the parcel tax, but it would be a good idea if they could opt out of voting for it too although that is not possible.

Yes seniors, particularly those who have lived and raised their children here, have paid their fair share in the past but that is not the point. Also the fact that their home value is tied to the value of the schools is also not the point.

What is the point is that many seniors are on fixed incomes or on incomes which are not keeping up with inflation and certainly not with the pace of the rises in taxes which are coming from everywhere at present. Seniors living in Palo Alto may live in homes that are worth a lot of money, particularly for the plot rather than the actual building, but that does not mean they are wealthy or able to afford to pay more tax for something that they are not seeing value for in their day to day lives. It means that their home may be worth more, but having a home that is worth a lot of money doesn't help them pay their bills.

Seniors shouldn't be put in a position whereby they are put in debt to pay their increased taxes. Taking out a loan on their home or a lien is not something that they should be forced into doing. Many seniors are finding it hard to stay in the home they have lived in for many years and by forcing them to pay increased taxes we may be forcing them out of their homes and possibly out of the area. This is not what they would choose to do, but it might force them to make a decision which they do not want.

We should be grateful to our seniors who are often still full of vitality and enjoy living in Palo Alto. They are adding to the diversity of our community and enrich it in many ways.

By forcing them to move out of their homes before they want to, guess what, their homes would be sold to younger families with more children to fill up our schools. That would be counter-productive to what we want anyway.

Personally, I am undecided on the renewal of the parcel tax, but I really do not think we should force the seniors to pay it.

Posted by TII, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2009 at 10:39 am

"What is the point is that many seniors are on fixed incomes or on incomes which are not keeping up with inflation and certainly not with the pace of the rises in taxes which are coming from everywhere at present." Yes, they're living beyond their means and asking young people to pay their bills.

"Seniors shouldn't be put in a position whereby they are put in debt to pay their increased taxes." Why not? Everyone else is. There is a simple alternative: the county could just put liens on the property and they would be paid when the seniors cash out their millions. It is simply unjust that seniors are riding to wealth on the backs of others.