May 21, 2008

Measure A foes get it wrong

Guest Opinion

By Mandy Lowell

I enthusiastically support Measure A to renovate and expand our schools and accommodate increasing enrollment without raising current tax rates.

The need for renovation is clear to nearly everyone familiar with our facilities. Similarly, the merits of long-term financing for long-term facilities are clear to nearly everyone familiar with the finances and budget or a mortgage. More than 1,000 community members endorse Measure A. Most of us see the following: aging facilities in need of basic renovations; packed schools in need of more room for more students; benefits to holding the same tax rate while paying for long-term needs with long-term financing; and improvements that cannot be funded within tight budgets. Yet some opponents regard this investment in schools as being unnecessary. Their skewed views do not mesh with the facts or with our community values. Our public school buildings are public assets that depend on public bonds for essential improvements.

Schools need more room: Opponents claim enrollment is merely "inching up." Not true. The facts are that the Palo Alto Unified School District's enrollment has grown by more than 25 percent since the last bond in 1995. More than 2,400 new students have joined our schools, well over the equivalent of a high school or four elementary schools. In the next five years, 1,000 more students will enroll. Opponents want to delay buildings, arguing "If these students do materialize, it doesn't take that long to build classrooms." The high schools, however, already need more science laboratory classrooms. We need to prepare now for the existing toddlers who will soon start kindergarten.

Schools need renovations: Opponents observe our schools are in generally good condition. The fact is that buildings not renovated in the last bond still need the equivalent earthquake safety protection, updated plumbing, heating and electrical work and other renovations. Our school buildings are 50 to 90 years old. Making buildings more energy efficient will allow funds otherwise spent on utilities to be spent in the classroom.

Education goes beyond classrooms: Opponents decry spending for libraries and athletic facilities as "wasteful" and "unnecessary," claiming that those facilities "sit idle 90 percent of the year." To the contrary, libraries, sports facilities and theaters are basic and well-used features of our schools. Terman's library, for example, attracts 300 students daily. PE classes use sports facilities during the school day, and athletes practice or compete later. Community camps use facilities in the summer. Where opponents complain of no "achievement" benefits, students learn diligence, resilience and teamwork as well as get exercise. The much-needed new pool at Gunn, which opponents mischaracterize as a "big ticket" "luxury," would use less than 2 percent of the bond.

Long-term financing makes good sense: Opponents complain that renovations should be made on a pay-as-you-go basis, postulating that in the future, PAUSD will be flush with "$30 billion" (sic) in operating funds. In fact, neither PAUSD nor any district has tens of millions a year in stable funding readily available to remodel facilities; PAUSD spends 85 cents of every operating dollar on teacher and other staff salaries. Pay-as-you-go means "no go" on important improvements. Should we cut teachers to fund buildings? Should we cut classes to pay for buildings? No. Bonds are, plain and simple, the way to handle these capital needs. That's why Californians adopted Proposition 39 to enable Measure A-type bonds, why three times in six years voters approved state matching funds for local school bonds, and why more than 100 such bonds have passed in other districts in eight years. The new classrooms built by Measure A will last well over 30 to 40 years; it is fundamentally fair that they should be paid for over that period.

Measure A is not extravagant: Listed projects will result in basic facility improvements comparable to similar schools. State law permits this type of bond for up to $60 per $100,000 in assessed value, but Measure A seeks only to continue the lesser existing rate of $44.50.

Over decades of approving school bonds, PAUSD residents taxed themselves for educational facilities as community assets funded by public funds for public good. Measure A continues that legacy. And, when homes sell, this long-term investment pays off in higher property values. Even though Measure A will not increase the current tax rate, even though the necessary renovations are just the type that other well-managed districts fund through similar bonds, opponents ask voters to eschew the needed improvements and to ignore the needs of students now and in the future.

Supporters ask you instead to extend the current bond rate to provide better and expanded facilities. Please vote Yes.



Mandy Lowell was on the Palo Alto Unified School District board for eight years, leaving in 2007. She is currently co-chair of Strong Schools for a Strong Community, which is promoting Measure A.