Argument against Proposition K:
Those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it.
In 1993, District voters passed a $77,000,000 bond based on promises that this would address the important needs of our schools. In 1997, the Board approved a $77,000,000 school construction plan.
After 1997, the District obtained State bond funds of approximately $14,500,000, and generated over $10,000,000 in interest income by accelerating the issuance of the 1993 bonds, which caused property tax rates to soar. Even with all this extra funding, the District is way over budget!
Ultimately, taxpayers got much less than promised in 1993 at a substantially higher cost.
The District is covering up cost overruns and mismanagement with an expensive $90,000,000 bond that's intentionally vague. The Board is asking taxpayers for another blank check without satisfactory explanation for past cost overruns, waste, and mismanagement.
The $90,000,000 amount is based on political expediency rather than what's necessary. The planning process was rushed to get the bond on the March ballot, and little discussion was televised.
As before, problems will inevitably result by proceeding without adequate planning.
This bond would reward failure and mismanagement by further raising property taxes to finance a hastily developed plan full of obvious flaws.
The total future cost to taxpayers to repay the original $77,000,000 plus the additional $90,000,000, including interest, is projected at $314,200,000! This would be paid for by raising your property taxes! Furthermore, the Districtís projections of assessed value are based on very optimistic assumptions. If such assumptions are not realized, your property taxes will be even higher than stated.
A bond for a reasonable amount might make sense if it were based on a clear plan. This bond does not make sense.
"Taxpayer dollars are sure easier to come by now that we only need a 55% vote."