Editorial: Vote 'no' on Palo Alto's unnecessary school parcel tax

"Measure B seeks to renew a per-parcel tax at $800 per year that generates about $14.6 million annually. It represents less than 5% of the district's $354 million budget. This reliance on a "temporary" tax that never seems to end is an unfair burden, especially when the district is not in a dire financial crisis. The focus should be on better, more transparent management of funds, rather than securing a "blank check" that the district does not urgently need."

"Unfortunately, the backers of Measure B are resorting to scare tactics - telling the community that if this tax fails, it will lead to teacher layoffs and the elimination of advanced programs in science, technology, engineering and math. Why would a district with $100 million in the bank have to make such cuts?"

"The district will have a windfall in funds because property tax revenues are increasing annually and enrollment is decreasing. Per-pupil funding is at a high of $35,000. So the talk of "deep cuts" is just fear mongering."

"While some residents can easily afford this tax, others struggle to pay what they owe now. Palo Alto has a large number of "house rich, cash poor" residents who don't need more taxes. Voting "no" makes their lives easier. It is time to say no to higher taxes. Vote No on Measure B."

Measure B would renew an $800 per-parcel tax for the Palo Alto Unified School District, producing about $14.6 million each year. The district already has a general fund balance exceeding $100 million and the tax would represent less than 5% of a $354 million budget. The measure is characterized as an ongoing “temporary” tax that is not needed during a period without a dire financial crisis. Opponents argue that property tax revenues are increasing while enrollment is decreasing, with per-pupil funding at about $35,000, making claims of deep cuts unlikely. The campaign also argues that scare tactics about teacher layoffs and advanced STEM program eliminations are misleading, and that some residents are “house rich, cash poor,” so voting no would reduce burdens.

Read at Padailypost