"I sure would like to read the (schools) survey. Seventy-two percent agreeing the district needs more money is not the same as saying 72 percent would pay more bond money to give it to the district. I would like all of us to have more money, but I am not going to give you some more of mine unless I know exactly why it is necessary and what you will do with it."
A matter of capacity
Posted Oct. 24 at 8:33 a.m. by Carol Mullen, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood:
"Depending upon capacity, the new school will bring the district more money, because the City Council is increasing the school population. It won't be equal to the cost of opening Garland unless the assessment is raised on new construction. I think your reaction to the bond issue will be widely shared. Many people who would otherwise support it don't want the demolition and construction the council has planned all over the city, and they will vote against it to discourage council from pursuing the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) quota. I think they'll tell you what they plan to do with your money, but not why it is necessary. The school district believes that each new student means more money, but that's only true when the new students can fit into existing facilities."
The right direction
Posted Oct. 24 at 9:12 a.m. by Parent, a resident of another Palo Alto neighborhood:
"At long last, a move in the right direction. It is interesting to see that AAAG was ahead of the Board of Education on this one."
Posted Oct. 24 at 9:34 a.m. by Carol Mullen, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood:
"Parent: You mean ABAG? Ah, but who will bell the cat? ABAG can't increase the assessment on new construction, the council is unlikely to do so, and streets, electric power increase, storm drains, police, fire, etc., are ahead of schools on the council's list of infrastructure needs.
If parents don't get off their duff and talk to the council and the county about more money for schools, the residents who aren't parents won't fund growth the school district should have been saving for, caused by growth many residents (myself included) see as environmentally destructive, ill-sited and haphazard.
The argument about jobs/housing imbalance is simply green-washing. That's why there's no data supporting it. Demolition, dumping and new construction are among our most environmentally unfriendly industries. Then the expansion in school population will have to be funded by cutting programs and increasing class sizes. You'd better start lobbying for increased school fees from new housing — now."
AAAG and ABAG
Posted Oct. 24 at 9:47 a.m. by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood:
"No, I don't mean ABAG. I mean AAAG. The AAAG was the Attendance Area Advisory Group set up by the Board of Education over a year ago to discuss the boundaries. The AAAG advised the board that a 13th elementary school was necessary. The board (in its wisdom) voted that down and has now changed its mind — perhaps Dr. Skelly changed it for it.
I am not sure exactly what your posts are getting at. As a Basic Aid district, we do not get more money for more students. I think you should read up on the facts before you post again as you may have some good arguments if you knew exactly what you were saying. :-)"
This story contains 602 words.
Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.
If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.