Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 8, 2012 at 8:49 AM in reply to: OT: Harvard Cheaper than Cal State – So Guess what CA Lawmakers are Doing? #739554
all
Participant[quote=temeculaguy]I may have figured out where that data came from, if you look at a 33 million dollar budget and 3 million in ticket sales, someone with an agenda could say they lost 30 million. I’m not saying captcha has an agenda, but someone played a game with numbers to trick you. [/quote]
I did not remember the numbers correctly. There was an article in UT about a year ago about their football program, together with one line about ~$30MM budget and half coming from general fund/fees.I found this while trying to locate the article:
[quote]The infusion is necessary despite a $160 annual student fee increase implemented in 2004 by SDSU President Stephen Weber, overriding a student referendum. That has added $4.8 million to $7 million to the athletic department coffers annually.
[/quote]
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/aztecs/20070510-9999-1s10azmoney.htmlMarch 8, 2012 at 8:31 AM in reply to: OT: Harvard Cheaper than Cal State – So Guess what CA Lawmakers are Doing? #739552Participant[quote=temeculaguy][quote=captcha]
SDSU athletics program generated $30MM less than what the cost was in 2010.[/quote]
Where did this data come from? The SDSU athletic budget is 33 million.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/26/sdsu-athletics-hopes-success-offsets-state-cuts/
And no they didn’t lose 30 million.
Here’s a rough estimate, ticket sales, tv contracts, corporate sponsors and donations cover more than half of the budget. Student fees cover about 1/4 and the university pays the other 1/4. So were talking 7 million would be a loss. The students get free or low cost admission for that fee, some may never go to anything, but then again, I never got my money’s worth from the library so were even.
Keep in mind I’m rounding all these numbers.
The new football tv contract is 5x more than the old one by moving to the big east, that will bring in another 4-5 million and some guy donated 5 million all by himself (because he likes the sports, not the library). Basketball and football are the only sports that bring in ticket revenue, it’s all the other sports that technically lose money. But seriously, are women’s lacrosse scholarships really ending the world? Because that’s where the losses are, women’s sports and sports that rarely get on t.v. It’s the reason some kids go to a division 1 school, it’s the reason alumni give money, we could argue for hours, but my real point is that the athletic department didn’t lose 30 million, not even close.
One side note, when the american women win gold in soccer or men win in hockey or any other sport where watching our kids do really well, the losses and the scholarships become suddenly worth it for me. Nobody is taking away a poor kids scholarship or an academic scholarship, why would you want to take away from the athletes, especially the ones that don’t sell tickets. I like watching golf, sdsu has a great college team. On Sundays, the last day of every tournament, Tiger wears red (stanford), Fowler wears orange (oklahoma), the euros wear whatever. Why? because wearing your college colors on the last day of the tournament matters, the announcers mention it every time and that is a source of pride (and donations) from dorks like me. Some people complain, but I don’t mind paying so that one day, the winner at augusta is rockin the red and black on Sunday.[/quote]
You are right, the annual loss is $15MM, not $30MM. I understand your need to be entertained, but may I suggest you find a form of entertainment that is not paid for by $15MM in student fees (money is fungible, etc) at SDSU alone?
ParticipantMost agents will try to convince you the house is worth more than what you think it is worth not because of the delta, but because of the base commission. In general, if your offer is not the highest you will not get the house and the agent will make no commission.
You can probably get someone to work with you on an hourly basis, in which case they don’t care if the house sells high or low. You get in a position that people who deal with lawyers are in – the contractor’s incentive is not for you to win (or lose), but to keep playing.
March 7, 2012 at 8:51 AM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739459ParticipantThat might be the lowest sale in the subdivision in the last 10 years if you can get it at that price.
The subdivision is somewhat remote, but you can still walk to the local elementary school, daycare center, convenience store, Jersey Mike’s, an Irish Pub and Red Box (there is an overpass over Camino Del Norte connecting this subdivision with High Country West where all the ‘action’ is).
[quote=Wah-Wah]flu & et al
how does this one $425k (+$100HOA) in RP compare to MM ?
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/11189-Avenida-De-Los-Lobos-92127/home/4669447%5B/quote%5DMarch 6, 2012 at 12:59 PM in reply to: OT: Harvard Cheaper than Cal State – So Guess what CA Lawmakers are Doing? #739401Participant[quote=pri_dk]
Houses are different, but land is not. And the predominant cost in real-estate is the land (location, location, location…)
[/quote]One of the chart shows the number of UC students quadrupling since 1960’s. I assume the campuses had to expand and places like UTC are more expensive then they were. The building codes and environmental standards have been updated and what was possible in 1970 is no longer acceptable. Were every building and every room accessible to disabled students 40 years ago?
[quote=pri_dk]
There is no fundamental component of education cost that has outpaced inflation except one – can you guess it!
[/quote]Honestly, I can’t. Do you have the data? I assume SDSU had to pay some of the cost associated with the work done on I8 and UCSD supercomputer costs some money. Could be mostly salaries, but there are disciplines that did not even exist 40 years ago. People from Princeton used to come to UCSD for training (could still be happening, I don’t know).
Was $30MM annual loss on the athletics program normal 40 years ago? I would rather cut that than what little Shakespeare might be in curriculum.
[quote=pri_dk]
The data shows cost per student, so number of students increasing doesn’t matter. The ‘kids are stupider today’ meme is probably false and doesn’t explain the change in cost structure even if true.
[/quote]The kids are not ‘stupider’, but more of them are being pushed into the system and consequently the average college kid is ‘stupider’ today than it was 40 years go.
I have no contact with college students and I don’t know how bright or hardworking they are (one that I do know gave up after nearly 10 years and he is not particularly bright, but he might be an exception). I recognize that many scientific discoveries and scientific papers are performed in US and that tells me the faculty is world class.
[quote=pri_dk]
The ‘recent declines’ is simply pointing out that there is a short-term anomaly (the economic crisis) that doesn’t really impact the long-term trend. It’s the long-term trend that matters.[/quote]I don’t know. I doubt a solution as simple as ‘20% cut in faculty&staff salaries, take it or leave it’ will help reduce the out-of-pocket cost of college education. I know a CS guy who moved from a bank to UCSD back in 2006 with 20% paycut and his department was reduced from 5 to 3 guys since then.
I don’t think it is possible to produce a world-competitive college graduate at inflation-adusted 1970’s cost.March 6, 2012 at 12:00 PM in reply to: OT: Harvard Cheaper than Cal State – So Guess what CA Lawmakers are Doing? #739393Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=captcha]The chart shows ~35% decline for UC system and ~25% for CSU since 10 years ago.[/quote]
Why did you hand-pick a 10 year period for a chart that covers 40 years?
And ignore the text below the chart?[/quote]
It’s like with the houses – the product is different today. I don’t know what the student fees were 30 or 40 years ago. The overall 30-year trend (1970-2000) is clearly up and that seems logical to me. The cost of many things went up more than the official rate of inflation. The number of students went up and the average student is less prepared and requires more remedial work. Some SDSU students write at elementary school level, at best. Most classrooms are better equipped than they were 30 years ago.
Anyway, 30y trend has been reversed not for a year or two, but 10, and that has to have consequences.
The text below chart is a political statement. The ‘despite recent declines’ part is unnecessary and it shows bias.
March 6, 2012 at 11:25 AM in reply to: OT: Harvard Cheaper than Cal State – So Guess what CA Lawmakers are Doing? #739383Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=captcha]Which one is it? The greed of teachers or the cunningness of of politicians that is causing the increase in class size?[/quote]
That’s a false choice. A logical fallacy and bullshit question.
Do you have an answer?[/quote]
I don’t know. Brian obviously does know, ask him.
March 6, 2012 at 11:24 AM in reply to: OT: Harvard Cheaper than Cal State – So Guess what CA Lawmakers are Doing? #739381Participant[quote=pri_dk]
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/calfacts/calfacts_010511.aspx#zzee_link_39_1294170707…
Why are we paying the same taxes, but the students have to pay more for the same education? Where is the money going?[/quote]
The chart shows ~35% decline for UC system and ~25% for CSU since 10 years ago.
SDSU athletics program generated $30MM less than what the cost was in 2010.
March 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM in reply to: OT: Harvard Cheaper than Cal State – So Guess what CA Lawmakers are Doing? #739376Participant[quote=briansd1]
It’s sickening that larger and larger share of state and local budgets to go public employees while services to needy citizens are getting cut.I have a theory that politicians are cutting services first in order to “blackmail” citizens into voting for higher taxes.[/quote]
Which one is it? The greed of teachers or the cunningness of of politicians that is causing the increase in class size?
March 6, 2012 at 11:07 AM in reply to: OT: Harvard Cheaper than Cal State – So Guess what CA Lawmakers are Doing? #739372Participant[quote=flu]
And let’s face it, a lot of the state funded universities shouldn’t be teaching half of the subjects they are teaching.. They aren’t necessarily generating people who are employable in the modern economy… I don’t understand, for example, if state funding supports college “degrees” in things such as shakespearian history or the likes…. how that is necessarily a good use of state dollars to training our younger generation of tomorrow….Maybe some of the increased costs will make people think twice about what they want to go to college for.[/quote]
College is supposed to be more than a trade or vocational school.
ParticipantBarbecue every day?
March 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM in reply to: OT-Contest to guess the occupant of beautiful new building in RSF #739171Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=captcha]
Brian is a bleeding heart liberal when it comes to deportation of illegal immigrants. He never had issue with confiscation of deferred compensation owed to retired public employees.
[/quote]As a proud liberal I speak for people don’t have a voice — the undocumented, the poor, the indigent.
Public employees are part of the establishment. They have plenty of health care, days off and pensions already.[/quote]
Right. My point was that it was not you who changed, it’s the conversation topic that is different.
Participant[quote=sdnerd]
Perhaps I’m missing something, but the way I interpret everything thus far:Right now they charge me $5,600/year.
They can, have, and presumably will continue to increase this amount annually by 2% until the last possible second. Behind the scenes they can pile on more debt, etc.
So my final annual payments will be approximately $9,500/year after factoring in annual 2% increases.
Temecula’s question is a good one.. whether or not that payout amount truly removes that entire bill (there’s not some fixed school fee/etc that would still remain).
Perhaps I’ll call again today and try to clarify.[/quote]
I guess PUSD board could decide that they don’t need the money?
Once you pay it off you should be free of any future obligations. Here is what I received from the CFD administrator two years ago:
When the School District receives the prepayment, the School District will then send a copy of check and accompanying paperwork Dolinka Group so that the
parcel can be removed from the Special Tax levy for the following Fiscal Year.
The School District will then send the prepayment to Joni D’Amico at Zions Bank to be deposited for the purpose of calling bonds, or to be used by the School District at a later date to construct facilities.
And from the annual report:
With respect to an Annual Special Tax obligation that has been prepaid, the Assistant Superintendent shall reasonably indicate in the records of CFD No. 6 that there has been a prepayment of the Annual Special Tax and shall reasonably cause a suitable notice to be recorded in compliance with the Act within thirty (30) days of receipt of such prepayment of Annual Special Taxes, to indicate reasonably the prepayment of Annual Special Taxes and the release of the Annual Special Tax lien on such Assessor’s Parcel, and the obligation of such Assessor’s Parcel to pay such Annual Special Tax shall cease.
Participant[quote=temeculaguy]Is there a way to find out what the bond is actually paying in interest as opposed to trying to calculate it yourself. I’ve read numerous articles where mello-roos districts have refinanced and lowered the cost to residents. Could some of what looks like mello-roos be a community service district fee, which can’t be paid off as it is for ongoing maintenance or services that other residents of a city do not get. For over 50k, you’d want to make sure that you are getting out of the entire bill, not just part. You’d also want to make sure there aren’t plans to refi on the part of the municipality as the buyers of certain muni bonds don’t pay tax, thus they have a lower yield. I’m kinda shocked they are paying 9%, that’s more Greece pays.
[/quote]The interest rate on the bond does not match the interest rate residents are paying. CFD#6 has three special tax bonds (2002, 2007 and 2010 series) and the most recent one starts with 1.2% in 2011 and goes up to 5.375 in 2036.
It looks like PUSD can issue bonds as needed at whatever cost/value they can negotiate and pay them off with money collected from the residents. I am not sure if PUSD’s ability to issue bonds is limited by the amount they are projected to collect from the residents, or some magic number specified in the original Bond Indenture that I can’t find on CaliforniaTaxData website.
-
AuthorPosts
