-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Argument Against Measure JJ
-
-
-
-
Elections June 2016
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Argument Against Mt. Pleasant Elementary School District $27,500,000 Bond Issue: Measure JJ
When school boards put bond measures like Measure JJ before the voters, what are they saying? They are admitting that everything they are spending your tax dollars on now is more important than the projects for which this tax increase is being sought. Budgets set priorities.
Mt. Pleasant Elementary School District is saying that every educational dollar spent today is going to something they consider a higher priority than to “improve student safety” and “repair leaking roofs” and repair “structural damage”.
Do you agree?
Education Data Partnership (www.Ed-Data.K12.ca.us) shows the District’s enrollment declining from 2,753 students during the 2009-10 school years, to 2,371 during 2016-17. And the number of teachers has increased from 116 full-time-equivalent teachers, up to 121 during that period.
Since the numbers of students are way down, expenses should be way down, too. That should allow more funds from the current budget to be applied to basic maintenance of the schools. In fact, you and I take care of our homes, our condos, and even our apartments out of our yearly budgets.
Why can’t Mt. Pleasant Elementary School District do the same?
School bonds are much like mortgages, in that they have to be paid back, in full--plus interest. Lots and lots of interest. Interest payments that don’t go to teachers, libraries, computers, maintenance, etc.
Is this the best use of your tax dollars?
If your answer is “no,” please vote NO on Measure JJ.
You can be for schools, for students, for teachers, and against Measure JJ.
In the printed Voter Handbook that you may receive in the mail, you will note that there is NO rebuttal to the argument in favor of Measure JJ.
That's because the school district proponents failed to submit at argument in favor of the bond measure.
That alone should be reason enough to vote No on Measure JJ.