News

Board to hold special meeting to amend parcel tax language

County Counsel advises that districts must use all or none of three optional exemptions

After being informed that Santa Clara County Counsel perceives as illegal the Palo Alto school district's inclusion of a sole exemption for seniors in a parcel-tax measure going to voters this May, the Board of Education has decided to hold a special meeting Tuesday to amend the ballot language.

The board approved last month resolution language for Measure A, which if passed would raise the tax to $758 per parcel and includes an exemption for voters who will be at least 65 years old before July 1, 2015.

The board was informed on Friday, Feb. 12, that County Counsel, which is responsible for preparing the impartial analysis that is included with ballot measures, believes that "the exemption was not lawful and that the impartial analysis would have to indicate that the exemption may not be legal and enforceable," a staff report reads.

The exemption is one of three optional additions to ballot measures. The other two are for taxpayers receiving supplemental security income for a disability, regardless of age; and taxpayers receiving Social Security disability insurance benefits, regardless of age, whose yearly income does not exceed 250 percent of the 2012 federal poverty guidelines issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

Though Palo Alto Unified has previously included the 65-and-older exemption on its own, as have other school districts, County Counsel interprets state law to mean that a parcel tax must either have none of the exemptions or all three.

"To our knowledge, we have never encountered this interpretation of the statute, which we find to be not only unprecedented but also inconsistent with rules of statutory construction and common sense," the school district's attorney told the board. "We have already confirmed from the legislative history that the County Counsel's interpretation appears to be unduly restrictive, and inconsistent with the intent of the Legislature."

County Counsel issued the same message to the Campbell Elementary School District on its upcoming parcel tax, according to a staff report.

However, facing a tight deadline of end of the day on Tuesday for County Counsel's impartial analysis, Superintendent Max McGee is recommending that the board amend its resolution to include all three exemptions rather than take the time to defend the sole exemption for seniors.

McGee wrote in his report that the fiscal impact of adding the other two exemptions is minimal.

The board will meet Tuesday, Feb. 17, at 12:30 p.m. at district headquarters, 25 Churchill Ave. View the agenda here.

Comments

15 people like this
Posted by TaxSlave
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 16, 2015 at 7:54 pm

Down with it all!


7 people like this
Posted by district parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 16, 2015 at 8:04 pm

Why are they recommending this exemption by age? People who are older are as a group wealthier than the rest of us. I would think the district would want them in the pool anyway as more likely to vote for the schools on principle and not against them based on knowing what's really going on, like a lot of families might do this time around.

They'll ask again. I'm inclined to vote no.


5 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of University South
on Feb 16, 2015 at 8:29 pm

...$758 per parcel...

Does this mean that a modest condo will pay the same tax as a big house? If so, I'm voting NO.


1 person likes this
Posted by strategic
a resident of Ventura
on Feb 16, 2015 at 8:48 pm

The senior exemption was included so the bill would be more likely to pass. Seniors typically vote "no" on bond measures unless they are exempt from paying for them. Hence, one needs to hold one's nose and add the exemption for the bill to have a decent chance of passing.


8 people like this
Posted by Schools Matter
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 16, 2015 at 8:58 pm

Even though many households do qualify for this exemption, a very small percentage actually pursue it. Not because it is hard to do, but because our broader community repeatedly decides they care about our students.


6 people like this
Posted by Wayne Martin
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Feb 16, 2015 at 9:25 pm

> Even though many households do qualify for this exemption,
> a very small percentage actually pursue it.

I have requested the names of those requesting this exemption a couple of times, and found that for those years there was about 2400-2500 properties granted exemptions. Not certain how many were on the list for the last two years, however.

I would guess that this is about 10% of the total parcels in the PAUSD (PA/LAH/STAN).

> Not because it is hard to do, but because our broader community
> repeatedly decides they care about our students.

A lot of people are simply not as aware of these sorts of exemptions as one might conjecture. People in LAH tend to make about twice the annual salary that Palo Altans do, so this extra tax payment may not be something worthy of notice to them. People living on the Stanford Campus generally pay lower property taxes than people in PA/LAH because many of these homes have not changed hands since the initial assessment of Prop.13 in 1976. So, given that education is their business, and that they are not generally carrying the same property tax load as the "broader community", it's hard to believe that they are going to oppose this tax renewal.

As to "the broader community", the exemption is there obviously to "bribe" seniors to vote YES, but there is nothing wrong with applying for the exemption, and voting NO!


10 people like this
Posted by Wayne Martin
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Feb 16, 2015 at 9:35 pm

> Does this mean that a modest condo will pay the same tax as a
> big house? If so, I'm voting NO.

Yes, that is exactly what a parcel tax is all about.

Voting NO is a wise decision.


14 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 16, 2015 at 10:31 pm

Over time this "donation" to the schools has gotten ridiculous, I am against it now.
Enough!
Vote no!


19 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 16, 2015 at 10:46 pm

Temporary parcel taxes should be that, temporary, not renewed.


9 people like this
Posted by district parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 16, 2015 at 11:06 pm

@schools matter,
If I vote No this time, it will be because I care about our schools. They will ask again, as they have when they've heard No before, only hopefully after getting the message.


19 people like this
Posted by neighbor
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Feb 17, 2015 at 10:27 am

I have voted no in the past and will vote no again for the following reasons:

1. It is a regressive tax --- Someone with a small condo pays the same amount as someone who owns acres of property and a 5000sqft.

2. I have seen little accountability in the school district's use of the monies already collected.

3. On a more personal level -- I earn less per year than many PAUSD high school teachers, so it's hard to justify taking from my income to increase theirs.


1 person likes this
Posted by Greenmeadow resident
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Feb 17, 2015 at 11:38 am

Would be far fairer to tax somewhat based on consumption by having to pay $xxx per child using the Palo Alto school district. Then make this means tested so that those who are not in a position to pay do not pay. We could then look to spread the cost of our schools more fairly across families using the schools rather than rely so much on PIE donations from a minority.

Having this as a parcel tax is just not fair when the same rate would be paid by a 20 unit property as a single family home.

Everyone who owns a home in Palo Alto benefits from the great school district because this is a large driver for the high property values, so we should all contribute to a degree - but not as much as those using the schools.


6 people like this
Posted by vote yes for self interest
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Feb 17, 2015 at 11:39 am

I'm voting yes, not only because I care about the schools but because I care about my property value, which to a large extent depends on the perception of excellent PAUSD schools.


13 people like this
Posted by Concerned
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 17, 2015 at 12:15 pm

Am voting no based on the fact that property taxes have only gone up in PA and that should cover expenses. School district staff and teachers must begin to contribute to their benefits. Medical is out of control and reality must be faced.


2 people like this
Posted by senor blogger
a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 17, 2015 at 12:27 pm

The seƱor exemption has been effect for years.
who is this County Council? A Matchbook Lawyer?????
Fire the council and be done with it.


4 people like this
Posted by Gunn Mum
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 17, 2015 at 1:31 pm

Sick of the ongoing destruction due to Prop 13. We have owned our home for only a few years so are paying a huge tax bill. I am so tired of the guilt ridden solicitations for PIE and parcel tax. The bitter taste is increased by the fact that most of those involved in these solicitations are paying a tax rate based on house purchases from 15 to 20 years ago.

PTA should strongly lobby to change prop 13 for the good of our future.


9 people like this
Posted by Old but wise
a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 17, 2015 at 1:41 pm

I am in "below the market rate" housing, and old. I am iiving on SS. Each year I have hummed and harred about whether to accept the tax deduction for seniors. This year was the first time, when I really needed the rebate. I do have 2 children who went through PAUSD...they had so much help, so I am happy to pay this tax when I can afford it. But I do have to mention that all parents in the district get asked to give a "donation" to the PTA every year, It was over $300 when my kids were in school and as a widow I struggled to pay it, but knew too many on the PTA not to...I volunteered lots. So I am sure parents are still getting asked for this fee per child, so they do contribute.
I too am surprised that this tax is being renewed year after year, it was touted as a one time tax to upgrade our terribly archaic schools. Now it seems that we are being asked to pick up the tab for all kinds of services.


12 people like this
Posted by GoneOnTooLong
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 17, 2015 at 1:59 pm

Prop 13 is not the problem.
Prop 13 was voted into law because people were being literally taxed out of their homes.
All Prop 13 does is to place a limit on the rate at which property taxes could be raised (2% per year) if the ownership does not change hands. It allows someone to purchase a home with the ability to estimate the future annual costs of ownership. Unfortunately cities simply started to use Bonds and special assessments to get around the intent of the law (yielding 4% to 7% increases in our tax bill per year). I don't know about you, but my salary does not increase at that rate.

Regarding the school bond specifically, it was promised to be temporary. After having watched the multimillion dollar athletic facility go up at Gunn and the seeding and watering of the sports fields a'plenty - I will vote against this bond. There is simply too much padding in the districts budget when you look at the gold plated spending decisions the schools are currently making.

Lastly, allowing voters to exempt themselves from the consequences of their vote (seniors being able to vote for the bond, and then opt out of paying for it) violates the principles of democracy. It is a sleazy ploy by the school board to make the Bond passable (their own survey showed that if everyone who votes for the bond would have to pay for it, that it would not pass). I will vote against this bond for that reason as well.





1 person likes this
Posted by Abitarian
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 17, 2015 at 2:55 pm

While I am proud to live in a town that places a high value on education, the argument that great schools increase everyone's property value is simply not accurate.

Sure, if you live in a three- or four-bedroom single family home in one of the "neighborhoods", parents will engage in bidding wars to purchase your home and get their kids in the Palo Alto schools.

But if you live in a one-bedroom condominium downtown, your potential buyers are singles and couples with no near-term interest in the schools.

If a school tax is truly justified, it should be based on property value or income. It's the most fair out of all the unfair methods.


Like this comment
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 17, 2015 at 3:43 pm

As discussed in other threads, California state law limits PAUSD (and any other public school district) to raising additional tax revenue only via parcel taxes. In other words, PAUSD cannot raise additional tax revenue via income or property taxes (or headcount per property taxes).

I understand if you don't agree with the method of taxation - but at least know that PAUSD has only one avenue for their request.


11 people like this
Posted by jerry99
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 17, 2015 at 4:11 pm

With the City Council raising utility rates 48% over 3 years while inflation is 2%/year there is just wasteful spending going on along with gold plated salaries and benefits.
Taxing city residents so the overpaid teachers can get their salaries and even more money is outrageous. Plus the additional "feel-good" programs for student "touchy feely" coddling. Kids go to school to learn and sudy- just do it.
AND NO MORE NEW TAXES- if the parents of school children want more money for schools just get together a group and donate the money themselves.


4 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 17, 2015 at 4:33 pm

Just a reminder of what I have said before about our home and that of two neighbors. On one side, an elderly neighbor in a large house, lived there since the 50s while raising her family. No idea what she paid for it or what her property taxes are, but she lives there now with caregivers attending her.

On the other side, a four bedroom with one middle school child who purchased the home a couple of years ago for big bucks. Their property tax must be huge.

We are in the middle, having lived here since mid 90s. We consider we pay a lot in property tax, but probably not as much as our new neighbor and a lot more than our elderly neighbor.

I don't approve of the parcel tax in any shape or form - giving more money to the bottomless pit of PAUSD is enabling them to waste money. However, I don't see a problem with an equal parcel tax as how could these 3 scenarios be valued in a manner that makes sense?


9 people like this
Posted by Nora Charles
a resident of Stanford
on Feb 17, 2015 at 4:38 pm

Someone above mentioned that older residents are wealthier. Not always. Many are on fixed incomes. Also, I think some of us who haven't lived here a terribly long time are worried about our rising property tax (ours has almost doubled since we've been here) and these rising parcel taxes just pile on. It's too much. Besides, endlessly throwing money at something doesn't always solve the problem.


2 people like this
Posted by Nora Charles
a resident of Stanford
on Feb 17, 2015 at 4:47 pm

Just to add, some have mentioned that seniors will vote for the parcel tax and then opt out. How do we know this? I assume anyone opting out will be voting no.


2 people like this
Posted by Paly Mom
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Feb 17, 2015 at 5:09 pm

@GoneOnTooLong I respectfully disagree and offer the following factual corrections.

1. A "bond" can only be used for facilities improvements; this "parcel tax" is used for operating expenses. (I'm not trying to be picky; it just helps the conversation when we all speak the same language).
2. The Gunn athletic facilities and the other new buildings around the district are being paid for by a $375M bond approved by the voters in 2008. Paly and Gunn each received ~$100M of that bond -- and the construction is still continuing.
3. Prop 13 limits increases to 1% of the property value.

As for my opinion, Prop 13 IS the problem. But that's not to say it should be repealed -- it needs to be reformed. As you stated, people were being taxed out of their homes, and we don't want to return to that situation.

However, the unintended consequences of Prop 13 have been disastrous. California has gone from #1 in public school funding to #49 since Prop 13 was enacted.

Corporations are the ones benefiting the most from Prop 13 because their tax increases are also limited to 1% increase in value -- and commercial buildings are much more valuable than residences.

The PAUSD spends approximately $4000 LESS PER STUDENT than similarly situated school districts across the country.

It's time to reform Prop 13 so that schools can be properly funded with a PROGRESSIVE tax (i.e., more on the wealthy) not a regressive tax (evenly across the board). (BTW: this would result in an increase in my taxes because I am both wealthy and live in a home whose value has increased 4x in 25 years. But I believe in public education.)

I don't have the solution to reforming Prop 13, but I know that there are groups out there working to accomplish this and provide a balance between funding our schools and not over taxing our residents.

Until they do, I will vote FOR the extension and increase of the parcel tax because our children and grandchildren need properly funded schools to get the education they need to succeed in this world.


1 person likes this
Posted by GoneOnTooLong
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 17, 2015 at 6:25 pm

>> Paly Mom "@GoneOnTooLong I respectfully disagree and offer the following factual corrections. 1. A "bond" can only be used for facilities improvements; this "parcel tax" is used for operating expenses."

You are correct. I mistakenly referred to this Parcel Tax as a Bond.

>> Paly Mom "2. The Gunn athletic facilities and the other new buildings around the district are being paid for by a $375M bond"

Whether Bond, Property tax based upon value assessment, or a Parcel Tax, all these items show up on my annual Property Tax Bill from the County. I pay the sum of these amounts. My total annual payment for all these items has increased each year between 2% and 7%.

>> Paly Mom "3. Prop 13 limits increases to 1% of the property value."

Not quite correct. Prop 13 limits the initial property Tax assessment to 1% of the property value at time of sale. The assessment can then increase by 2% per year. (You can see examples of this on Zillow.com for various PA properties to confirm). Prop 13's benefit (my point) is to prevent the growth of a homeowners property tax (based upon assessment) by more than 2% per year.

>> Paly Mom "California has gone from #1 in public school funding to #49 since Prop 13 was enacted."

Is this because of Prop 13 ?
or is it because the state cut other funding sources ?
Should taxing people's property be the sole source of funding for schools ? ... when the schools need (want) more, we must take more from the property owners to cover the bill ?

>> Paly Mom "The PAUSD spends approximately $4000 LESS PER STUDENT than similarly situated school districts across the country."

How do those similarly situated schools raise the funds? Is it via Property Taxes ?
I pay tens of thousands a year in County Property taxes. I'm puzzled that that is not enough, and that I am somehow not paying as much as I should.




10 people like this
Posted by notconvincedtovoteyes
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Feb 17, 2015 at 6:29 pm

@Paly Mom, I agree there are some problems with Prop 13, especially when it comes to commercial real estate. But if it changes for families, many people will be forced out of their homes. So I hope we tread carefully if/when we reform Prop 13.

And, given the huge increase in prices for homes here, and as the homes change owners, the city and school coffers must be doing very well with a steady increase in income.

The schools need to do a better job of showing us why they need more money.


Like this comment
Posted by xPA
a resident of another community
on Feb 17, 2015 at 8:55 pm

> this because of Prop 13 ?
or is it because the state cut other funding sources ?
Should taxing people's property be the sole source of funding for schools ? ... when the schools need (want) more, we must take more from the property owners to cover the bill ?<

Most school districts in CA are funded predominantly from state income tax, with the state providing the same amount for each student. PAUSD is one the elite 2% of school districts, i.e., a basic aid district, that opted out of the state funding system and uses it high property tax remainder to fund mist of of the school system. So in PA, unlike most schools, per pupil funding goes down when the number of students go up. As for paying for infrastructure, that's what bonds are for.

Because of Prop 13, most schools in CA are funded from Sacramento, not locally. Most states give local districts much more control over school funding.


3 people like this
Posted by common sense
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 17, 2015 at 11:33 pm

Pretty much everyone who purchased a home is benefiting from Prop 13. Here are the median sales price for single family homes in Palo Alto:

2010: $1,370,000
2011: $1,410,000
2012: $1,725,000
2013: $2,100,000
2014: $2,400,000

Without Prop 13, those who bought in 2010, would have seen their property taxes go up by 72%; even if you bought in 2012, without Prop 13, your property taxes would have gone up by 25%.

Money spent per pupil is not the primary driver to the quality of education your child receives. On the east coast, there are many school districts which spend far more per pupil than PASUD with much worst outcomes - for example Newark, NJ spends $24,000 per pupil, but the quality of education is far worst than many of the local school districts. Washington DC spends even more yet over 80% of eighth graders are not "proficient" in reading or math.

The way the PAUSD budget is presented to the public is a very opaque way of showing how the money is being spent. If the spending is like many other districts, many parents would be surprised.

The school district needs to present measures and accountable goals for how the parcel tax money is being spent. To just say $X dollars goes to salaries for teachers, $Y dollars for admin, $Z for staff is not informative.



4 people like this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 18, 2015 at 1:36 am

> "if you bought in 2012, without Prop 13, your property taxes would have gone up by 25%"

So our parcel tax goes up 24%. ($612 in 2012 to $758 when this measure passes)
Looks like we need a Prop 13 for parcel taxes.


5 people like this
Posted by sunshine
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 18, 2015 at 7:09 am

Parcel taxes are wrong.
I support our schools. There is nothing wrong with taxing those in the PAUSD for the schools. However, it should be a tax based on property value, not a flat tax in which the owner of a 5000 sq ft, 6 bedroom home on a 20,000 sq ft lot pays the same amount as the owner of a small 2 bedroom home on a 5000 sq ft lot.


6 people like this
Posted by GoneOnTooLong
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 18, 2015 at 7:39 am

>> "Common sense : Pretty much everyone who purchased a home is benefiting from Prop 13. Here are the median sales price for single family homes in Palo Alto: 2010: $1,370,000, 2011: $1,410,000, 2012: $1,725,000, 2013: $2,100,000, 2014: $2,400,000. Without Prop 13, those who bought in 2010, would have seen their property taxes go up by 72%; even if you bought in 2012 "

Similarly, even with Prop 13, the county has seen annual property tax bills for median price home sales increase by 72% between 2010 and 2014 (72% in 4 years). At 1% assessed value, that PART of the Property Tax bill went from $13,700.00 to $24,000.00 per year.

>> "even if you bought in 2012, without Prop 13, your property taxes would have gone up by 25%. "

No. I would have had to sell my home because I would not have been able to pay my property tax bill by 2014.


8 people like this
Posted by district parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 18, 2015 at 12:07 pm

@vote yes for self interest,

I care about my property value, too, which is why I am voting NO on this one.

The perception of our schools is done no favors when the gap between perception and reality increases without accountability. We're far better off with checks and balances actually KEEPING our schools great rather than covers ups, because cover ups never last forever (despite what those engaged in them think), and the greater the cover up, the more likely it will result in a lasting hit to our reputation. Institutions and companies that apologize and correct problems usually fare far better than those who cover up, including in terms of liability.

Our only recourse for accountability is through these elections. If we vote NO, the district will get a message that they will act on to the betterment of our schools. As history has shown us, they will ask us for the money again, so you can always vote yes then, with better confidence for how the money will be spent.

I would have a much better perception of our schools if we instead got this money through reviewing salaries, positions, and compensations in this district with an independent and piercing eye. Even the governor of california - who makes less than many of our administrators - has a citizen compensation review panel that has been known to even lower the compensation package at times. When we pay people too much with no accountability, they then act first to protect their compensation package, to the detriment of our kids. I've seen that happen, and I'm not going to reward that.

Unless I see something change, I'm going to vote NO precisely because I value our schools. They will ask again, as history has shown, hopefully after learning a lesson.


18 people like this
Posted by HR
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Mar 23, 2015 at 7:58 pm

Every time I view anything asking for money from the District, PTA, or PIE, they always say its to "enhance our children's education by providing materials and funding for teachers." Of course teachers are always the ones put out there as pawns in the districts excuse to need more money. How about a little more streamlining at the district level? Just how many supplemental agents and assistants does a district office need? Just once I would like to see a monetary drive where the supporters of the district state that "the funds will help with supplemental bonuses for administration such as a interest free home loan, car allowance, conference travel funds, and additional educational support staff". But of course, that does not sound as good as saying "our teachers and students need you".


11 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 26, 2015 at 12:27 am

WHEN THIS MAILING GOES OUT - PLEASE!

LET'S HEAR A BIG NOISE SO WE CAN ALL VOTE AGAINST IT.

SEND A MESSAGE TO OUR GOVERNMENT TO GET BACK IN LINE!


9 people like this
Posted by #RightNow
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 26, 2015 at 9:35 am

Agree with CrescentParkAnon.

While I read this there is a flashing "Yes on A" sign on the site.

Let me say why I will vote no on Measure A.

1. There are very few means available to parents to send a message about the overall management of the district that do not involve a risk of retaliation. Measure A is a secret ballot, so it is possible to send a message without that fear. Like the surprise fact that Ken Dauber came in first in the election, Measure A is likely to fail because parents will take this opportunity to send a secret ballot negative message about the overall running of the district.

2. There is no downside. This is a tax increase occurring a year ahead of its actual need. The reason they are running the campaign now is so that if it fails they have a margin to do it again next year before the money is actually needed. So let them run it again next year, having received the message that they need to do more to protect our children from dying of suicide. Hopefully having received that message, and chastened by it, they will do a better job and re-run the campaign next time. The cost will be the cost of the campaign which is negligible compared to the human toll the suicides are taking on the entire community.

3. It will work. If the district loses Measure A and has to re-run the tax next year or face dire fiscal consequences then everyone will understand how serious it is to get this right. The sense of urgency around suicide that is lacking (as Carolyn says, the time for action is right now, yet we are still being treated to proposals for Singaporean junkets, unnecessary district staff to ramp up yet more competition for "publishing in scientific journals -- as if anyone in high school needs to do that -- and endless achievement slidedecks. The day after a child dies no less. That was indecent and it won't change without consequences.

Believe me losing Measure A will be wake up call. And the best part is that it is a free wake up call, since they can just re-run the campaign next year, when it actually matters, and when they have shown that they are listening to Carolyn and making the changes that are long overdue.

4. It is the one thing that hasn't been tried. We have seen over the past 5 years multiple political campaigns, organizations, parent groups, PTAC efforts, policy proposals, doctor letters, organized efforts by Stanford faculty, a mass exodus of parents leaving the district, seven or eight federal investigations into bullying and harassment, and a massive negative media situation. Our board has proved remarkably impervious to political pressure. They don't care about parent views.

You know what they do care about? Money. Green stuff. Benjamins. They care about that. So let's take that, in this easy risk free envelope from the Secretary of State, and check the NO box. Then write in sharpee at the bottom the names of the children who have died.

#RightNow


5 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 26, 2015 at 3:10 pm

Is there any way to get some signs, bumper stickers or posters that say:

NO ON "A"


4 people like this
Posted by Michael Wolk
a resident of South of Midtown
on Apr 13, 2015 at 3:49 pm

I agree with condo owners concerns about the unfairness and the people who are puzzled about why this "temporary" tax keeps on going... forever? I also feel the "tax" amount should be based on income. Only low income seniors and people on social security disability (low income) should get an exemption. Everyone in Palo Alto does not make a fortune!


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

He said – she said – who is lying? Justice Brett Kavanaugh or PA resident Christine Ford
By Diana Diamond | 69 comments | 6,276 views

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 979 views

Couples: Sex and Connection (Chicken or Egg?)
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 799 views

Zucchini Takeover
By Laura Stec | 1 comment | 735 views

Populism: A response to the failure of the elites: Palo Alto edition
By Douglas Moran | 0 comments | 452 views