Candidates
Opposing the SMCCCD Bond Measure A
at the Election to be held November 2,
1999
Margret Buckley
Schmidt, Candidate, Community College District Governing Board
John J. "Jack" Hickey,
Candidate, Community College District Governing Board
Argument in Favor of Measure A
Each year, over 25,000 students attend the three San Mateo County Community Colleges Mateo, Skyline Collage and Canada College. The Colleges offer classes and training that are preparing students for four-year universities and the jobs of the 21' Century. Each year, thousands are educated in computer programming, science, health care, business, technology, journalism, aeronautics, and engineering.
Yet, the classrooms and facilities at the Colleges are over 30 years old. Funds to improve these facilities have been virtually nonexistent. Classrooms and buildings need to be upgraded and modernized to meet the needs of current and future San Mateo County students and improve the quality of education. Measure A funds will:
The cost of Measure A has been kept to a minimum -less than $7 per $100,000 of assessed (not market) value of a home. It will cost the average homeowner lass than $1.50 per month! That's one cup of coffee. Seniors who are longtime property owners will pay even less. No funds can be used for administrative salaries.
An unprecedented group of business leaders, elected officials, labor leaders, educators, law enforcement and community members have endorsed Measure A They understand that
Please join our community-wide effort to upgrade and modernize our three Colleges Vote Yes on Measure A.
Anna Eshoo, U.S. Congresswoman
Jackie Speier, California State Senator
Don Horsley, San Mateo County Sherrif
Floyd Gonella, County Superintendent of Schools
Ruth Nagler, Senior Advocate
It's true! An "unprecedented" number of people have their hands on the public purse today. --Witness the politicians lining up to raise your taxes! They should be ashamed--not proud.
Where did the money go?
Taxes already on the books could pay for everything on the proponents' wish list, with only a minimum of patience. No increase in the tax rate is necessary.
Coffee?? They compare the cost of this bond to 170,000,000 cups of coffee. So what?! There are only about 250 thousand families in San Mateo County to pay for all that spending--$250 million in principle and interest. That's about $1000 on average per family in new taxes, no matter how you count it.
Forget something? The #1 use of Measure A funds--nearly half the total--would be interest payments.
This is NOT a referendum on the value of our community colleges. They will continue to be well funded by the taxes we already pay whether this measure passes or fails. Last year, SMCCCD got 11.5 % of all property taxes collected.
This IS a vote on bonded indebtedness--passing costs to another generation of taxpayers, many of whom are too young to vote or haven't been born yet.
SAY NO TO DEBT! Vote NO on Measure A!
- Margret Buckley Schmidt
- Candidate, Community College District Governing Board
- Vi Gotelli
- Former Mayor, Pacifica
- Christopher R. Inama
- Economics Professor
- Wayne Harter
- Tax Preparer
- John J. "Jack" Hickey
- Candidate, Community College District Governing Board
- Christopher Schmidt, Author
Pizza? Proponents soft-pedal the cost of making payments on this bond, comparing the tax to the cost of a pizza. However, if you own or rent a home assessed at $300,000 today, you can expect to pay an extra $600--$1,200 over the life of this bond.
Looking back: If trustees had set aside $2.7 million for each of the last 25 years--anticipating repairs--they would have had $148 million in the bank today (if invested at 6%). Every condominium association in California is required by law to plan this way. Responsible planners don't let property deteriorate and then ask residents to take out "second mortgages" after the fact.
Vote against irresponsible planning! Our community colleges are not presently encumbered with debt, and there is no reason to start down that road today.
Going into debt for 25 years to make repairs today is like starting a lifetime smoking habit to lose 10 pounds. --And once politicians get into the bond debt habit they never quit.
Costs: Bond advocates want to blow $148 million now, and then spend over $10 million annually thereafter on investor payments for the next 25 years (totaling over $250 million). Most purchases would deteriorate before they're paid for!
Because bondholders are paid interest of roughly 5-1/2% every year, taxpayers would spend almost twice as much money for the same purchases as under a pay-as-you-go discipline. Every American who has ever declined a credit card knows this. Why don't the incumbents get it?
Looking forward: If--instead of going into debt--we simply budgeted $5.92 million of current revenue for maintenance and upgrades each year, we'd spend the same $148 million in total--and some of the equipment would be new every year. That's fair to every generation.
SAY NO TO DEBT!
Margret Buckley Schmidt, Candidate, Community College District Governing Board
John J. "Jack" Hickey, Candidate, Community College District Governing Board
Christopher Schmidt, Author
Lacy Nelson, Chairman Pro Tem., Libertarian Party of San Mateo County
David L. Collins, San Mateo
Highlands Resident
Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure A
Measure A is an investment in a goal we all share - quality education.
Or three Community Colleges serve the entire County. They provide classes and training to thousands who go on to four year universities, jobs in hi-tech or other professions, or others who wish to continue their education.
Yet classrooms and facilities re old and wearing out. The colleges were bunt with public nearly 40 years ago. funds To protect that investment for the future, we need to reinvest now.
What will Measure A yield?
An investment of less than $1.50 per month for the average San Mateo County homeowner will ensure that facilities at the Colleges are repaired, modernized or replaced where appropriate.
That's less than the price of one cup of coffee - seniors who are long-time property owners pay even less! The opponent's claims of high cotts and poor planning are deliberately misleading and false.
There are no other viable alternatives. Every other avenue has been explored. Costs are minimized. Only the most pressing needs are addressed.
Measure A is a small investment now that will ensure we don't pay for more costly repairs in the future.
Please join an overwhelming coalition of business, labor, elected officials, educators and others in voting Yes on Measure A.
Mario Panoringan, Daly City/Colma - Chamber of Commerce
Laurence K. Buckmaster, Redwood City/San Mateo County - Chamber of Commerce
Marianne Zanonne Rush, SAMCAR
Mike Nevin, San Mateo County Supervisor
Roger Grossman, SAMCEDA
<$7/$100,000 of assessed valuation (tax
rate estimated by proponents, in Ballot Argument, to service bond)
$10.75/$100,000 of assessed valuation (tax rate estimated by Godbe
Research & Analysis to service bond)
Note: Godbe Research
& Analysis reported this in an October 1998 Survey of Voters, under contract with
SMCCCD
Actual report was $8/$100,000 for a
$110,000,000 Bond. $148,000,000 Bond would require $10.75/$100,000.
Note: The 11.5% entry is in error. The correct figure, based on data from the San Mateo County Controllers Office , is 8.7%. Any questions regarding this error should be referred to Jack Hickey (that's me, the buck stops here). To put this in perspective, a typical ($500,000) homebuyer in 1994 would have paid_only_ $435/year, for the past five years, to the College District. According to proponents of Measure A, the $148,000,000 Bond would add less than $35/yr. to that amount.