Claremont school bond measure draws o...

Claremont school bond measure draws opposition

There are 93 comments on the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin story from Oct 24, 2010, titled Claremont school bond measure draws opposition. In it, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin reports that:

Voters will decide Nov. 2 whether the school district should issue $95million in facilities bonds under Measure CL.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Tech Boy Slim

Claremont, CA

#82 Oct 28, 2010
stewie wrote:
It isn't so much about the stadium as it is about their promise Not to build the stadium if the previous bond passed then going ahead with it. It is about trust. They also promised a new theater and that didn't happen. They told us what we wanted to hear and proceeded to do what they wanted. Giving more money to incompetent leadership will not benefit the kids. Try looking at this bond from a broader prospective than the IT department. Everyone wants the best for the kids but it has to balanced by the economic realities of today. This is the wrong time to take on more debt.
Has anyone asked the question, "how many administrators are with the district today that were here during measure Y"?

While I may agree with you that this is a difficult time to pass a bond measure, the reality remains that the district is actually in trouble. The tough economic times don't help.

I initially responded to a comment about IT as that's my area of expertise. But, I can also see the way the district is funded and the fallout.

I lay the blame squarely at the doorstep of this state's legislature (union's too but that's another issue). They obviously do not value education. Or, it's just a great hot button to force higher state taxes. Unfortunately, the local residents must fill in the gap. As a society we all benefit from an excellent education system. It is immoral, in my view, not to give today's kids the same opportunity that many of us adults received from a good public education.

I'll add a pet peive...

How is it that we always hear about the importance of funding higher ed? This is even at the expense of K-12. What chaps my hide is that while we have a moral obligation to educate the children (K-12), the 18+ crowd (adults) should be more responsible to pay their own way through higher ed. I worked through college, it's not that tough. Let's educate the youngsters!

Lastly, these folks that keep barking out, "17%(or whatever number you wish to use) of the kids families won't have to pay", as a reason to not vote for the bond. How inane that view is. Turn it over, 83% of the student are Claremont kids and will benefit. So, let's turn our back on the 83% for the sake of the 17%? Doesn't wash, just another empty excuse.
Claremont Mom

United States

#83 Oct 28, 2010
Parent2 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is simply not true. Get your facts straight before spouting untruths.
Facts are straight - this is what I have been told directly by two different district staffers that know the issues. It doesn't surprise me that the union wants to spin this.
stewie

Cambridge, MA

#84 Oct 28, 2010
Tech Boy Slim wrote:
<quoted text>
Has anyone asked the question, "how many administrators are with the district today that were here during measure Y"?
While I may agree with you that this is a difficult time to pass a bond measure, the reality remains that the district is actually in trouble. The tough economic times don't help.
I initially responded to a comment about IT as that's my area of expertise. But, I can also see the way the district is funded and the fallout.
I lay the blame squarely at the doorstep of this state's legislature (union's too but that's another issue). They obviously do not value education. Or, it's just a great hot button to force higher state taxes. Unfortunately, the local residents must fill in the gap. As a society we all benefit from an excellent education system. It is immoral, in my view, not to give today's kids the same opportunity that many of us adults received from a good public education.
I'll add a pet peive...
How is it that we always hear about the importance of funding higher ed? This is even at the expense of K-12. What chaps my hide is that while we have a moral obligation to educate the children (K-12), the 18+ crowd (adults) should be more responsible to pay their own way through higher ed. I worked through college, it's not that tough. Let's educate the youngsters!
Lastly, these folks that keep barking out, "17%(or whatever number you wish to use) of the kids families won't have to pay", as a reason to not vote for the bond. How inane that view is. Turn it over, 83% of the student are Claremont kids and will benefit. So, let's turn our back on the 83% for the sake of the 17%? Doesn't wash, just another empty excuse.
We do share some common ground especially when it comes to higher education. California subsidized higher education more than most state plus it encourages everyone to attend even those that would be better served with vocational education. The drop out rate is way too high and ends up wasting time and money. As far a the problem being the states fault you are right there is a structural problem that impacts local government as well but as long as we keep voting as we do it will never change until the state goes bankrupt.

To expand on why I am against this bond I feel the needs are not clearly defined and justified, virtually all the money supporting it has come from groups that stand to benefit from the bond and the district leadership has a history of lying. While not in my top 3 reasons to vote NO I do feel Claremont has too many out of district student which causes over crowding in some schools and I see little reason to finance the expansion of our facilities with this being the case. In closing I would also say the district can wait especially when 20% of Californians are unemployed or under employed. The kids will survive and from our test scores it doesn't look like the budget is causing them too many problems.
Wait until the economy picks up come to us with a clear and justifiable plan and we will support it.
Claremonter

United States

#85 Oct 29, 2010
Vote, NO NO NO on this wasteful measure. The district will just throw it away.
Felipe

Torrance, CA

#86 Oct 29, 2010
Imagine the scene from "Animal House":

"Thank you, sir. May I have another?"

Sending more money to schools is similarly masochistic.

Insert definition of insanity here.

Privatization is the only real solution.

The status quo is failing our children -- especially the poor and minorities.
Tech Boy Slim

Claremont, CA

#87 Oct 29, 2010
Felipe wrote:
...Sending more money to schools is similarly masochistic...

...Privatization is the only real solution...
Would you rather invest more in schools or more in prisons?

We could privatize both, right?
Claremont Observer

Whittier, CA

#89 Oct 29, 2010
Claremont Mom wrote:
<quoted text>
If the NEW bond frees up bonded indebtness from the old bond, the District is in effect moving money around and thus freeing up funds to be used for salaries and benefits. That is what this bond is really about.
You are slightly off on two counts. Money from the new bond would not be used to pay off the old bond. A small amount (about 10%) of the money from the new bond would be used to refinance other obligations. Maybe the distinction between the old bond and other payment obligations is a minor point, but when you say "that is what this bond is really about" you are approximately 90% wrong, since only about 10% of the new bond money would be used to refinance anything and thereby free up funds which could be used for salaries. 90% of the money will not be used for that. This has been explained many times by the YES on CL campaign, but the information keeps being ignored because it doesn't fit neatly into the predetermined NO on CL script.
Wasnt There

Diamond Bar, CA

#90 Oct 29, 2010
Tech Boy Slim wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you rather invest more in schools or more in prisons?
We could privatize both, right?
Umm... Neither. It is not an either or question. Both systems are extremely bloated.
Not a Fan of CL

Cambridge, MA

#91 Oct 29, 2010
Tech Boy Slim wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you rather invest more in schools or more in prisons?
We could privatize both, right?
Do you really believe not passing this bond will cause Claremont kids to turn to a life of crime.....LOL

If money equals student achievement Wash DC school kids should all be in Ivy league schools but I believe they are dead last in all measures....
Claremont Mom

Mira Loma, CA

#92 Oct 30, 2010
Claremont Observer wrote:
<quoted text>
You are slightly off on two counts. Money from the new bond would not be used to pay off the old bond. A small amount (about 10%) of the money from the new bond would be used to refinance other obligations. Maybe the distinction between the old bond and other payment obligations is a minor point, but when you say "that is what this bond is really about" you are approximately 90% wrong, since only about 10% of the new bond money would be used to refinance anything and thereby free up funds which could be used for salaries. 90% of the money will not be used for that. This has been explained many times by the YES on CL campaign, but the information keeps being ignored because it doesn't fit neatly into the predetermined NO on CL script.
I appreciate your clarification. I do believe as do many others, the genesis of this bond was to get the district out of its problem last summer ('10) when they did not have an agreement hammered out with the union. Short of budget cuts, the only option was to find a revenue stream - which certainly was not coming from the state. And yes, while many agree there are needs in the District, we all have to look at priorities and pocketbooks. How many of us make due with what we have (a dryer on the blink, a washer that doesn't clean real well, a car that stalls but generally works) just because either we don't have the money at hand or we don't want raid our savings because of the uncertain economy? The average Claremonter or anyone for that matter expects the same of our government, but our elected officials don't get it. You can't spend when you don't have the money. This doesn't mean that my children's education isn't a priority, it just means that I as a parent must carry more of the responsibility for educating my child. I make time to reinforce subjects at home, visit the library, conduct simple science experiments, etc. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to take time and supplement your child's education. And I don't want to hear from those that complain they don't have the time because they work and blah, blah, blah. If your child matters, make time. It really is as simple as that.
claremont resident

Claremont, CA

#93 Oct 30, 2010
Parent2 wrote:
I can't believe how ignorant some of you are. You use your assumptions as fact. Honestly, look things up. Get yourself educated before making a decision. Do not believe everything you read. Bond money helps districts to build schools, add on classrooms, make necessary repairs. The state DOES NOT FUND this. Schools have already taken huge cuts. Bond money can't go to teacher salaries. There is an over-sight committee for any bond money. The money can't be "switched around" or "moved" as a back door deal. I work in a school district and am well educated on the finances. Schools don't get just a pot of money that they can move here and there. Each pot of money has regulations and restrictions. For instance, Categorical money can't be used to build buildings. The state does not provide enough to make repairs or build new schools. District need bonds. The state surely isn't going to send the money.
So how do you explain that with the previous bond (Measure Y)the CUSD made all the same promises of independant oversight, auditing, specific projects, strict accountability, yet they ran out of money 20 years before the bond is satisified. Now we trust them with twice as much money? NO WAY!

All you Yes On CL folks feel free to mail in your checks every year to the CUSD for an amount equal to the CL tax you would have had to pay to show your support for this bond whether it passes or not...will you do that? If you are so committed to our school and "the children", pay the CL tax EVEN if it doesn't pass! If not, you are all hypocrites!
CL Supporter

Claremont, CA

#94 Oct 31, 2010
There was a law passed in 2001 that mandates how the oversight committee works. That is a change from Measure Y, which was passed in 2000. That may not answer all of your concerns, but that is a significant difference.
Tech Boy Slim

Claremont, CA

#95 Nov 2, 2010
Not a Fan of CL wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really believe not passing this bond will cause Claremont kids to turn to a life of crime.....LOL
If money equals student achievement Wash DC school kids should all be in Ivy league schools but I believe they are dead last in all measures....
I'll refrain from comment on the DC schools as I don't live there, do you?

Here's the point, if students do not receive an education that prepares them to take advantage of opportunities and compete, they will look elsewhere. Sometimes, that elsewhere leads to bad choices, prison, and death. It was an extreme statement of the situation, obviously lost on you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Claremont Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Glendora Flashback car show 4 hr Who cares what yo... 3
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 21 hr Nice Phartez 33,676
9210 Rochester Ave. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Sat RANCHO CUCAMONGA JOB 22
Family Dollar Warehouse Rancho Cucamonga Sat FAMILY DOLLAR WAR... 1
Review: Family Dollar Distribution Center Sat FAMILY DOLLAR WAR... 1
News Vagos motorcycle club targeted in Southern Cali... (Mar '06) Sat Im mee 4,851
Review: Elephant Bar Restaurant Aug 18 ONTARIO CA ELEPHA... 32

Claremont Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Claremont Mortgages