[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
Now, all these affected CA jurisdictions (hundreds of them) are scrambling to figure out how they’re going to properly SERVICE all these outlying residents on into the future. It’s a comedy of errors which isn’t going to end well, folks.
Hence my impending “retirement” to a much lesser-populated county or out of state.[/quote]
Is this really true? Are all MR jurisdictions scrambling? The PUSD is the only MR district that I’ve ever heard of that has actually raised MR assessments post initial sale. I suspect there are other problems in other parts of the state. But I’ve never heard of that happening right next door in Carmel Valley or anywhere else in the city of SD (outside of the PUSD). There are plenty of older MR districts in CV that have been paid off in due course. The infrastructures have been built and the homeowners paid for it as originally agreed. Maybe similar problems in Chula Vista as in the PUSD (I don’t know)?
Is it possible that the problem is not the MR regulations allowing tax assessments/bond issuance to pay for infrastructure. The problem seems to be when these schemes are abused by municipalities and school districts. I think there’s some evidence that MR can be used successfully.[/quote]
SK, I was referring to outlying areas. Carmel Valley is not really outlying, and, in any case, a portion of its MR bonds should now be ~10 years from maturity/retirement.
As you know, smaller CA inland cities have been heavily affected adversely by the “boom-bust” culture that urban sprawl causes, so much so that they felt it necessary to file for BK protection. These cities were all primarily overdeveloped in the last decade+.
Using SUHSD, GUSD and SUSHD for examples, the MR bonds collected in those districts appear to be used ONLY for infrastructure within the CFD’s. As you can see from the photos below, the PUSD’s multimillion dollar HQ is far more lavish than the HQ’s in these other local school school districts. In the SUHSD, older schools go wanting for pavement repairs, lockers, water fountains and the list goes on (in spite of Prop “O”). In my own kid’s school, the lockers have been rendered unusable so have been permanently caged, while the District’s *newer* schools have carpeted auditoriums and indoor pools, for starters.
As it should be. Those residents are paying through the nose for these perks for their kids.
[quote=bearishgurl on August 7, 2012 – 1:45 pm]I’m troubled by the PUSD’s all-brick facade multi-level HQ with its (very expensive) dbl-paned “Low E” windows.
Why did they think they needed to build this “monument” and not tax its property owners to pay for it? I thought there was a “captive audience” of current and aspiring homeowners in the PUSD. Why wouldn’t they approve a new construction bond to build this monstrosity and upgrade its older schools … even if the bonds from 2000 were not yet paid off?
The SDUSD HQ with its 40-60 year-old trailers and add-ons was originally constructed in the ’30’s!
The GUSD HQ was actually built in the ’20’s, yet their taxpayers are currently funding Prop U (which they’re doing great things with, btw)!
Here’s a question for the PUSD Board: “If you purport to currently have a ~$168M “surplus” in MR bond revenue, then, pray tell, why aren’t you using most of it to pay down the ill-fated Prop C monies you borrowed at subprime interest rates??”
THIS ^^ is the time bomb that is going to cause the county assessor to eventually raise EVERY property owner taxes who owns within the PUSD.
“This is a perfect example of how something that’s done today can adversely affect the next generation and the generation after that.”
—Dan McAllister, San Diego County treasurer and tax collector.
I did just listen to the sound bytes that ER provided and also visited the Adobe Bluffs Elem website. The truth is, if Willow Grove is truly FULL of students who reside WITHIN its attendance area (and has accepted no transfer students) then those SantaLuz residents who are complaining really don’t have a case. Adobe Bluffs, although much further away, DOES have a 917 API score and VERY LIKELY was ALSO built with MR bond money (circa 1992). The only difference is that AB Elem may not have as “homogenous” of a student population as does Willow Grove (read: AB may have some low-income students). This won’t affect the quality of education of any student but I agree that it is much more inconvenient for SantaLuz parents and therefore transportation to/from AB Elem should be provided by the District.
In any case, Superintendent Collins stated that at least one temporary building would be erected on Willow Grove’s campus by Spring 2014. It is only kindergarteners who are currently affected, no? When more room is made on the WG campus, then those resident-students can come back to their neighborhood school. It’s not the end of the world.
Contrary to the testimony of SantaLuz parents at the PUSD Board mtg, MR payments aren’t made to any one school or group of cluster schools. They are paid into a school district but I agree that they should not have been used to fund infrastructure in older schools or build a new HQ, as is apparently what happened in the PUSD.
There is NO GUARANTEE ANYWHERE in CA that your kid will be admitted to his/her neighborhood school. This decision is entirely up to your school district. If no room is available in your kid’s neighborhood school, the District should provide him/her transportation.
