(From Press Release – No on Measure G) – “Support Teachers, Not Parcel Taxes,” says Mary McDonald, spokesperson for the NPTPAC (No Parcel Taxes Political Action Committee), a registered committee with the Office of the Secretary of State.
“No question about it, our excellent teachers deserve higher salaries,” says McDonald. “And the good news is that funds for this purpose are already available! The generous parcel tax (Measure H) of $620/year, with annual increases, we voted for in 2016 does not expire until 2024 and the school bond (Measure M) we voted for in 2018 lasts for 30 years.”
“But, unfortunately,” says McDonald, “because of over-spending and poor-planning the school board is looking once again to Davis homeowners. Their emotional appeal is that without Measure G tax dollars, 
Davis schools cannot support their teachers. This is simply not true.”
“Our district already receives four times more voter-levied tax dollars/student than any other district in our region. In the last five years, the amount of additional voter-levied School Board tax a homeowner pays has increased by over 100%. If Measure G were to pass, the average Davis homeowner would pay more than $1,400/year in added taxes directly to the DJUSD”.
In addition to being unnecessary, Measure G is also UNFAIR because:
- Measure G parcel taxes are regressive. They place a disproportionate burden on the homeowners, especially owners of smaller, modest homes.
- Measure G raises taxes on thousands of acres of farmland.
- Measure G exempts school district employees, including administrators who make over $200,000/year, from paying the taxes imposed on others.
- Measure G exempts even part time district employees who will do not have to pay these parcel taxes.
- Measure G taxes cannot be deducted on your income tax return.
- Measure G never expires; It increases taxes yearly for generation upon generation of Davis homeowners.
“My suggestion is that the school board waits at least until Measure H expires and we see the effect of the statewide school bond tax measures” said McDonald.
“Vote to Support Teachers, Not Parcel Taxes. VOTE NO ON MEASURE G.”
To learn more facts about Measure G, the NPTPAC has set up a web page for Davis residents. Visit www.noparceltaxes.org.
Another of today’s threads got an early (and likely wise) posting of the ‘caveat’, from Moderator, of the 7 comment limit, per poster (etc.)… I’m guessing that will be at least as important, on this thread… and yeah I’ve used one of mine, unless the caveat allows for a post made prior to issuance, as a “gimme”…
“Support Teachers, Not Parcel Taxes,”
How does the author propose to do the former without doing the latter?
Technically, “authors”…
That said, I looked at the website, and there are so many half-truths, distortions, some should be inclined to vote FOR the measure based on that alone, not even on the merits of the proposal.
I say that as someone who is disinclined to vote for it, due to the exemptions, that are not based on economics, but ‘profiling’ and a not-so-‘hidden agenda’ to garner votes from those who can vote for something they do not have to pay for… that “offends” me nearly as much as the half-truths/distortions by the NO-ON-G folk… there are half-truths and distortions on both sides… one is there is a 1-1 correlation between teachers’ compensation an quality of education. That is a joke, and oft presented by folk who spout that it does not apply to other public sector employees. Or private sector teachers.
Where is Diogenes these days? Something about seeking an honest person… “spin”/half-truths/polemics are prevalent in this era, but only called out by an opponent, who is generally equally at fault.
Hi Bill,
“but ‘profiling’ and a not-so-‘hidden agenda’ to garner votes from those who can vote for something they do not have to pay for”
I will believe this is significant if and only if someone shows me the actual number of people who qualify for this exemption and actually claim their exemption. My partner and I have qualified for a number of years, and continue to pay our parcel tax for the simple reason we believe in supporting our schools with our taxes. I know we are not alone.
Tia, the following information is from a past query I made to the DJUSD Finance Department. It may be different now.
Good question Tia…
Matt takes a stab on the answer, but unclear how “opt-in” relates to “opt-out” (which is the only way to get an exemption… the exemptions are not automatic)… therefore, not clear what info he is basing his numbers on, except it is from DJUSD… note however that the “pot-in” # is over 10% of parcel owners… but parcel #’s not = voters/residents…
This coming fiscal year will be the first where we will be eligible to do the “opt-out” thingy… if we do that (opt-out), it will be on procedural/policy issues related (ironically) to the exemptions… we may well take our exemption, and use same/similar amount to make a ‘charitable donation’ to DJUSD (if eligible), as between state/local taxes, we’ve hit the ceiling on SALT deductions… but the feds haven’t limited charitable deductions (yet). Still financially supporting local schools, but being pragmatic as to tax break issues.
Many folk have their own calculus to do.
“Measure G parcel taxes are regressive. They place a disproportionate burden on the homeowners, especially owners of smaller, modest homes.”
Actually, since apartment renters pay less Measure G is not regressive.
Besides, even if you want to claim that the burden falls more on homeowners than landlords, you need to understand that two of the people making this argument on the linked page, Granda and Randall, are responsible for the lawsuit settlement that created this structure.
This is what you call playing beat the devil. First they sue you to create the structure, then they condemn you for using the structure they made you create. Damned if you do damned if you don’t.
Half truth… depends how one defines “regressive”, a squishy term… not all apartment renters are economically disadvantaged compared to renters of SF homes, or some SF HO’s…
Actually, seem to recall the lawsuit originated far from Davis, a Court made a decision, and the two you reference wanted it to apply to DJUSD, via their own litigation threat. Another half-truth, I believe.
That approaches an untruth…
But their arguments should be discarded, in my opinion, and the measure individually judged for what it is… that is how I’m approaching it… I read, but basically ignore, a lot of the supposedly “true arguments” from both sides of the issue… my judgement will be informed by me, and the $$$ has nothing to do with it.
Okay, I remembered it wrong. It was I believe over six years ago. It was the threat of a lawsuit by Granda in the wake of the Borikas case.
Key words are “in the wake”… the ship had already sailed… just some folk motivated to attach tow ropes, slap on skis, and ‘go with the flow’…
I know not if they objected to the resulting ‘mechanics’ of parcel taxes, the purpose of the DJUSD ones, taxes in general (one name stands out… kind of like Gann… Ernie Pffaner never met a tax or government program other than basics that he was not opposed to… vocally… Paul Gann was much more radical than Ernie…), or some other reason.
But the arguments of the ‘No’ folk have lots of half truths and distortions… the ‘Yes’ folk are only slightly less guilty of that, in their arguments.
I boil it down to this… should we recruit and retain good teachers (yes); should we do that with a good total comp system (yes); is the cost reasonable (yes); should mediocre/marginal teachers have their ‘boats float’ the same as to compensation (no); should there be non-economic-based (in fact, ‘profiling’) exemptions for folk entitled to vote for the measure (no).
So many elements of the angst I have in deciding, is due to: teacher unions, and adamant rejection of anything approaching ‘pay for performance’; DJUSD not having a compensation system where they can ‘promote’ teachers, except by tenure; laws confining this sort of tax to a ‘parcel’ tax, requiring a 2/3 + 1 vote, instead of any relation to burden (having school aged kids, or planning to), ability to pay (I’d support an ad valorem measure, but due to current law, that’s not a happening thing), etc.
It is what it is.
Many factors… one of which is implications if the measure does not pass… I believe it would not be ‘good’, but also believe it would not be ‘catastrophic’… often teachers are members of two-income households… my spouse could afford to follow her skills, training, and love for teaching. Household income mitigated low compensation for the teacher. I fully realize that was our experience, the results of others may well vary.
At the dawning of March 3, I’ll have to decide.
Honestly, I’m not sure how the Vanguard can talk about the city’s “fiscal crisis” on one day, and then pivot to “teacher raises”, the next. For a school system that’s carrying an extra 850 non-resident students, whose families (for the most party) pay nothing toward DJUSD.
It’s ultimately about priorities.
Now, I realize that the Vanguard is continuously setting-up an argument for ARC to save the day (and pay all the bills generated by others), but this seems unlikely to occur. Certainly not something I’d hang my hat on, at least.
ARC is not going to have any impact on school finances and probably won’t have any impact on city ones for another 10 to 20 years.
If I’m not mistaken, developments (including ARC) pay a one-time fee, toward schools.
But, it’s not the point, here. There’s only so much that taxpayers are willing or able to pay. Out of sheer fiscal responsibility, I’d suggest looking at the picture from the standpoint of a probable ARC rejection – despite what you or others might be hoping for.
And from that perspective, what’s more important? The city’s fiscal condition (and possibility of future taxes to pay for those costs), or a raise for teachers in an over-sized school system?
It takes a certain amount of (let’s just say “confidence”) to believe that there’s anything other than an inherent “choice” to be made.
Now, if some believe that teacher raises are more important than fixing roads and bike paths (and generally addressing the city’s unfunded pensions), then that’s a position that I would respectfully disagree with. But, if that’s the way it works out, then so be it.
But make no mistake about it, that’s likely what it’s going to come down to – regardless of the advocacy on here, or how it’s otherwise “spun”.
You are mistaken – they may pay for schools, but that is exclusively for facilities and usually to mitigate a potential need for a new school down the road. That money cannot be used for instructional – and one time money is useless for instructional anyway.
In terms of only so much… that’s what the elections are about. I think if this community wants good schools and a quality community they are going to have to pay for it.
And, even in your “best-case scenario”, you’ve stated (above) that ARC won’t help for 10-20 years.
So, even with an ARC approval, the choice likely remains:
Teacher raises in an over-sized school district, vs. the needs of the city (via future taxes).
There is not an “unlimited supply” of money that can be extracted via parcel taxes.
Some people may see it as a binary choice. I’d be willing to bet, based on past history, that a majority of Davis voters will support both taxes. The question will be the margin of the majority.
Well, a modest road parcel tax has already/recently failed.
If the school district parcel tax passes, I suspect that this will pretty much put the “nail in the coffin” regarding future attempts by the city (for the foreseeable future).
It would be interesting to compare the total parcel taxes that are already going to the school district, vs. those dedicated to the city.
I’m guessing that the “for the kids” type arguments are wearing thin – even in Davis. But, I guess we’ll see. (The “exemptions” will encourage the non-payers to “stick it to” the payers, at least.)
Some day, perhaps a tax will be devised where everyone can simply “stick it to” an individual!
Currently $620 to $49 (parks I believe is the only city parcel tax). Could be $818 if G passes.
When I refer to DJUSD parcel taxes, I’m referring to the “complete list” – including those dedicated to DJUSD facilities. For example (from article):
As a side note, perhaps someday – maybe parents will pay a more proportionate share of the cost. But, that’s a different can of worms, and is probably “downright un-American” (or maybe even “blasphemy”), in the eyes of some.
So, we’ll just stick with the needs of the city, vs. a raise for teachers in an over-sized district.
You are mislabeling them then
[edited] … compared to the current Measure Q, that campaign was not as strong or well-run, IMO.
Hiram:
[edited]
The “problem” is not that the road tax “campaign” was poorly-run.
The problem is that there are vested interests ensuring that the “teacher raise” campaign is well-run.
That doesn’t mean, however, that it’s the best choice for the city as a whole. It’s simply a reflection of vested interests, running the campaign.
The “road campaign” will be the “centerpiece” of ARC, though. (It already is, on this blog.) However, it’s not likely to be approved. (Ironically, the rejection is likely going to be due to the impact ON roads, from cars using the 4,340 parking spaces.)
I do think a key problem with roads was not only was it side by side with parks, but there wasn’t what I would call an active campaign – fundraising, precinct walking, phone banking, etc.
David: Again, that’s because fixing the roads doesn’t (directly) put money in anyone’s pocket, as a teacher raise would.
(Actually, it could do so, via the extra work that would be created by maintaining those roads. But so far, we haven’t seen road workers come out and advocate for it, as teachers are doing.)
By the way, has there been any calculations regarding the resulting increase in retirement costs, for the district?
[Moderator: You have now posted 7 times on this thread, so this is your final post.
Thank you for your participation.]
Hiram Jackson said . . . [edited] … compared to the current Measure Q, that campaign was not as strong or well-run, IMO.
I agree with Hiram’s point. There is definitely solid effort being put forward for this DJUSD Parcel Tax, which definitely was not the case, except for Robb Davis’ substantial personal efforts, for the City’s Roads Parcel Tax.
With that said, I think it is important to pass along (without any editorial comment on my part) something that was said to me by a DJUSD parent. What they said was, that there is a very clear correlation between what DJUSD is saying about this Parcel Tax and what a homeless person says when panhandling at a downtown Davis street corner. The homeless person says, “Give me money so that I can buy food.” The school district says, “Give me money so that we can pay teachers.” The DJUSD parent then went on to say, with the homeless person, you really don’t know whether they are truly going to buy food, or use the money in a different way, and given the transparency of DJUSD with respect to its finances, and especially its non-teacher expenses, you really don’t know whether they are truly going to devote the money to teachers.
I can honestly say that a chill went right down my back when I heard that. I really respect the DJUSD parent who said it to me, and I did not expect that level of distrust and cynicism to come out of his/her mouth.
A difference between the school district and a homeless person is that school districts are required to make their budget books, along with “actuals,” public. They are also required to undergo regular audits. There are also parcel tax oversight committees that evaluate what is spent with parcel tax money each year and those reports are made public. Last Thursday the latest Measure H school parcel tax oversight committee report was submitted to the district. Here it is.
Thank you Hiram. That helps a lot. I will pass your comment on. Donna Neville, the Chair of the Measure H Oversight Committee, and I served together on the CFity’s Finance and Budget Commission together.
Is there an Oversight Committee for each Parcel Tax?
Hiram, here’s an update and a question. I did pass on your comment to my DJUSD parent friend, and I got an interesting response that you may have some insight on:
Since you are as close as you are to the details/provisions of Measure G, can you shed light on any maintenance of effort language it has?
Matt – My understanding is that the administration gets the same pay raise that teachers get. Not exactly sure what your friend is complaining about regarding the administration, DJUSD is below average in terms of administrative portion of money and lacks sufficient pay to administrators to make up the difference in teacher compensation.
I am less familiar with city government practices than public school districts.
My understanding is that Measure G provides some funding to improve compensation site level administrators (school principals, vice/assistant principals), though the bulk of the money would go to teachers & staff. As with teachers, what principals get paid isn’t on par with what other nearby school districts offer. The top level district office administrators (superintendent, deputy/associate superintendents) are not included at all in this measure.
You can evaluate how much each district spends on administrative costs at this link. As a percentage, Davis mostly comes in at or under those of nearby districts. One caveat is that larger districts tend to spend less on administration than smaller districts by virtue of economy of scale.
Another way to look at this, however, is to note that California as a whole has had a history of operating at lower admin. to pupil ratio levels than most other states. This link is from a 2007 report from the Public Policy Institute of California, noting 2002 data; on page 47 it shows the California admin. to pupil ratio being lower than the national average. Honestly I haven’t had the time to research more recent specific data, but I haven’t found anything to indicate that things have changed appreciably.
Clearly, Ron, you are ignoring that there is no 1:1 correlation to the City and DJUSD. Not same geographic area, not same “mission”…
… but thank you for repeating your “not sure why” points for the umpteenth time… helps keep folk focused.
Some misleading things, here.
Measure M is a facilities bond and thus cannot be spent on teacher/staff salaries; only to build/upgrade school facilities.
Measure H can only be spent on programs that are designated in the parcel tax language — like school library services, music program, elementary science, high school athletics, etc. Teacher positions funded by Measure H are paid at the same scale as those not funded by Measure H.
Measure G benefits all staff/teachers and raises their compensation to levels that are equivalent to surrounding districts, which receive more money from the state than does Davis.
Measure G would assess the same amount per parcel, whether that parcel is thousands of acres, a quarter acre or less, or somewhere in between. State law limits how school parcel taxes can be assessed.
Yes Hiram… many mis-directions, distortions, and half-truths… on both “sides”… the “no” folk are somewhat more egregious.
“As a side note, perhaps someday – maybe parents will pay a more proportionate share of the cost. But, that’s a different can of worms, and is probably “downright un-American” (or maybe even “blasphemy”), in the eyes of some.”
For all its failures, public education has been one of the great successes in American social history. In general, the more education a person has the greater the earnings power and the more taxes paid. After research, education has the best return on investment of any publicly funded endeavor. When looking at unemployment rates a direct correlation between education and employment can always be observed. The more education a person has the smaller the chance of that person being unemployed.
The idea that society shouldn’t collectively pay for the development of its human capital would be the most self defeating, penny wise and pound foolish, kind of austerity imaginable. I wouldn’t describe it as blasphemous, even in a college town where the main industry is education, its simply so absurd that it could best be described as FUBAR.
So far today this same person has advocated against adding jobs in our community and a defunding of public education to be made up for by parents.
“Last Thursday the latest Measure H school parcel tax oversight committee report was submitted to the district. Here it is.”
There was also an auditors report that found a 0.02% error rate on attendance reporting. That number is well below the 0.5% error rate threshold the state considers problematic.
“What they said was, that there is a very clear correlation between what DJUSD is saying about this Parcel Tax and what a homeless person says when panhandling at a downtown Davis street corner. The homeless person says, ‘Give me money so that I can buy food.”’ The school district says, ‘Give me money so that we can pay teachers.’”
There is another correlation between that homeless person and DJUSD. Both aren’t getting adequate support from the state.
“Since you are as close as you are to the details/provisions of Measure G, can you shed light on any maintenance of effort language it has?”
With 85% of the operating budget going to salaries where would they shift the money to?
Bill Marshall, you said this, posting a few times this way:
At this point, you still have not shown even provable one “mis-direction, distortion, and half-truth” stated by the Yes on G campaign, in any of these threads/comments.
If you have specific things you think are not true about the Yes on G campaign’s statements and literature, or what it is all about, please state them.
Ok… can we assume/stipulate that indirectly, David is supporting the “yes on G” campaign? If yes, I can easily respond based on today’s article… but I shouldn’t ask this, as I’ll be “over limit” on this thread… would you be willing to copy your post here, transfer it to today’s thread, then, I’d gladly answer… can also point to “arguments for” in the ballot arguments themselves…
I seek true stories, to base a vote on… I have no other agenda on this…
Do you?
Were you “baiting” me to exceed the limit?
Let’s pick this up on today’s thread, to avoid me being sanctioned for more than 7 posts on a thread…
Bill,
David is a pundit (no offense), but also does good journalistic work at the same time. One must differentiate between his opinion pieces and his objective journalism. You wanting to comment on his opinion as he is in the YES camp, is pointless, and is a distraction from what I asked.
The rest of your post is oddly defensive, and weirdly trying to undermine my intentions by questioning if I am a bad actor. Plus you just wasted a post not giving an answer, so why should I care about your worries about a post limit (which seems counter to having discussion in all honesty) and you crossing it if you are willing to waste a post trying to undermine my credibility and then acting as if you countering David’s opinion is what I asked of you.
So, please answer the question I asked. Thanks,
Greg