Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.

For Tuesday’s election, only one school district in Santa Clara County has proposed a bond measure to raise money for constructing and rehabilitating education facilities.

Sunnyvale School District voters should approve Measure C. But they and all Californians should recognize the teachable moment the measure presents about inequities in how we fund school construction.

The lesson starts with understanding that issuing bonds is a form of borrowing, much like a mortgage. The money must be paid back.

So, school bond measures are also property tax measures, with the money raised used to pay off the debt. The total tax needed depends in part on the amount of money borrowed, interest rate for the bonds and duration of the payback period.

The responsibility for paying off the bonds is divided between property owners based on the assessed valuation of their properties. Those properties include homes and commercial properties.

The moral of the story: If a school district has a lot of high-valued commercial properties within its boundaries — like, say, those belonging to major technology companies — the impact on homeowners is less.

Sunnyvale is one of those school districts blessed with key technology companies. And that’s how the district can propose to issue $214 million more in bonds and still have relatively low homeowner tax rates for paying off the loans.

Here are the numbers for Measure C: The $214 million in new borrowing would be added to three prior voter-approved bond measures. Combined, the four measures would have about $900 million in principal and interest to pay off by about 2059.

Without Measure C, property owners next year would pay about $33 for every $100,000 of assessed value. Measure C would add another $15 per $100,000 of assessed value.

If Measure C passes, the owners of a single-family home in the district with an average assessed valuation of $864,000 would see their annual supplemental tax bill for the district’s school bonds increase from about $285 to $415.

That’s very low for so much bond debt in a small district, but it’s possible in large part because of the values of commercial property in the district. Most school districts in the Bay Area would be envious.

To be sure, because the Sunnyvale district only covers students for pre-kindergarten and K-8, property owners must also pay taxes on bonds for the Fremont Union High School District, which also includes much of Cupertino.

That district also benefits from being able to spread out bond costs over its lucrative commercial tax base. Between Sunnyvale and Cupertino, the Fremont Union district has properties owned by companies such as Google, Apple, Lockheed, LinkedIn and Applied Materials.

For comparison, Hayward, where commercial and residential property values are less, is proposing a bond measure that would result in about the same amount of total debt, but the tax rate would be about 75% more.

The other key factor to consider in evaluating Measure C is how the bond money would be spent. And there, Sunnyvale has a well-thought-out spending plan for upgrading and modernizing schools that’s spelled out in the district’s facilities master plan. They’ve broken down the allocations for each of nine different school sites.

The inequity between school districts in California is stark. Homeowners in the Sunnyvale district are lucky they don’t have to spend more on school bond taxes. Leaders of other districts wish they could so easily afford the same.

If today’s presidential candidates wanted to rewrite that future, if they wanted to break the link between background and opportunity, they’d be talking a lot more about a specific stage of Americans’ lives: early childhood.

In the U.S., economic inequality is already imprinted on children when they show up for the first day of kindergarten. If their parents lack resources, as measured by education or income, they’re much more likely to have suffered substandard child care or food insecurity. They’re twice as likely to be obese and only a third as likely to have the skills and behavior to be ready for school — factors that demonstrably influence health and education well into adulthood.

Progressive Democrats have long embraced an aggressive and evidence-based solution: Do everything possible to ensure that from age zero to 5, all kids receive high-quality care, nutrition and education, even if their families can’t afford it. Establish a universal paid family leave so parents can spend time with their newborns; affordable, high-quality child care; and two years of public pre-school with a healthy breakfast, lunch and snack. Such policies generate returns for children, families and the entire economy — for example, by allowing more mothers to work and freeing up spending that child-care costs erode.

That’s not all. A child allowance, along the lines of the briefly expanded child tax credit of 2021, would deliver further net economic gains. So would addressing the doubling of maternal mortality in the US, the high out-of-pocket cost of child birth and the lack of paid sick days.

Nobody in Washington wants to deny opportunity to innocent children. So why aren’t conservatives on board with such policies? Given the positive returns, objections about cost aren’t compelling. If the US can afford a $1.9 trillion tax cut, it can afford federal child care, which would cost a quarter as much. The state wouldn’t be encroaching on anyone’s freedom. On the contrary, the vast majority of Americans — not just parents — have said they want paid leave policy, they’re worried about the price and availability of child care, and they want the government to step in.

This is a conversation the country needs to have. Let’s assume that Manchin’s worst fears are true. Policies aimed at helping children will enable some parents to buy drugs. Others will be lazy, poor managers of money or outright criminals. Nonetheless, their kids will have a much better chance of getting the care, nourishment and education they need to escape a difficult home life, to overcome circumstances over which they have no control, to realize their full potential.

The question for the U.S:. Do we eschew the monumental investment America needs to make in its children in order to keep money from parents we dislike? So far, the answer has been yes. Satisfying as it might be to avoid the ignominy of sending tax dollars to bad moms or dads, the entire country suffers as a result, in the form of reduced economic mobility and opportunity. If we want a better future, we have to make a better choice and do right by kids this time.

Kathryn Anne Edwards is a labor economist and independent policy consultant. ©2024 Bloomberg. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency.

Former UC Santa Cruz Police Department Lt. Glenn Harper — who had previously worked as an officer in the San Jose Police Department — sued the UC Regents in 2019, alleging that his race “was a substantial motivating reason” for his 2017 termination.

On Tuesday in Alameda County Superior Court, a jury took three hours to return a unanimous verdict in favor of Harper and award him $7.2 million in damages.

Harper said in his lawsuit that he had been one of only five Black sworn police officers in the UC Santa Cruz Police Department since it was formed in 1965.

A spokesman for UC Santa Cruz said the school was disappointed by the verdict.

“As the university maintained throughout the litigation, Glenn Harper’s employment was terminated in 2017 after multiple instances of unprofessional conduct,” said Scott Hernandez-Jason, assistant vice-chancellor of communications at UC Santa Cruz. “The university is considering its options for appeal.”

A lawyer for Harper, Harry Stern, said Wednesday that Harper was fired for yelling at a sergeant who had “botched” the firearms probe.

“This was the sort of case that ordinarily would result in a reprimand or maybe a one-day suspension,” Stern said.

Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.

When it comes to improving our school buildings, there’s no free lunch.

Four East Bay districts are proposing bond measures to raise money to construct or rehabilitate education facilities. But, bonds are a form of borrowing, much like a mortgage. The money must be paid back.

So school bond measures are also property tax measures, with the money raised used to pay off the debt. The total tax needed depends in part on the amount of money borrowed, interest rate for the bonds and duration of the payback period. The responsibility for paying off the bonds is divided between property owners based on the assessed valuation of their properties.

For our evaluations of the bond measures, we look at the districts’ plans for spending the money and the details of the financing. We also consider other supplemental school taxes that property owners already pay for past bonds and for ongoing district operations.

Here are our recommendations:

Antioch Measure B – Yes

Antioch is a tale of two cities — and that applies to school property taxes, too.

In the older parts of the city, residents in 2008 and 2012 voted to tax themselves modestly to make the payments on $118 million of bonds for upgrades to aging schools.

Meanwhile, in the newer sections of Antioch, built since 1989, property owners had been paying so-called Mello-Roos taxes to fund the construction of the schools there. Those taxes expired in 2016.

School officials have identified and prioritized over $1 billion of repairs and upgrades needed in schools across the city, about half of which are in the newer part of the city.

In 2020, the district sought voter approval in the newer part of the city to issue $105 million in bonds for school improvements there. It barely failed, garnering 54.62% of the vote when it needed 55%.

This time around, with Measure B, they are proposing a districtwide bond measure of $195 million. It’s still only a small portion of the need in Antioch. But it’s a reasonable start.

The bonds would be issued over about the next six years and would be paid off by 2059. No bonds would be issued for more than 30 years.

Paying off the bonds would cost property owners across the city up to $48 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. For a home with a median assessed valuation of $307,210, that works out to payments of about $147 annually.

Those in the older part of the city would also continue to pay off the bonds approved in 2008 and 2012, bringing their total, including the Measure B bonds, to $128 per $100,000 of assessed value, or $394 annually for that home with a median assessed value.

The spending plan is modest, and the taxing plan is reasonable. Voters should approve Measure B.

Hayward Measure I – No

The Hayward district has a legitimate need to upgrade aging schools. But this $550 million bond measure is too large.

Voters in 2008, 2014 and 2018 approved the district’s issuing $816 million of bonds. Now school officials are asking for permission to borrow another $550 million.

The principal and interest on the outstanding bonds and the ones proposed in Measure I would cost taxpayers $2.4 billion over the next 34 years.

Consequently, property tax rates for school bond repayments would jump 62% in two years, to $154 per $100,000 of assessed value in 2026, according to district estimates. That works out to $836 annually for an average home with an assessed value of about $536,000.

At the same time, since the 2014 voter approval, district enrollment has declined 16%. And district projections show that trend continuing in the years to come.

The district, in trying to sell Measure I, has emphasized the need to relocate Bret Harte Middle School because it’s seismically unsafe and to build a new facility. Bret Harte has only about 560 students, or roughly 3% of the district’s total.

We certainly don’t want students housed in dangerous buildings. But the $110 million cost of rebuilding the school is not justification for a bond measure of five times that amount.

Fiscally responsible voters should reject Measure I.

Moraga Measure D – No

In 2016, Moraga school officials went to voters seeking borrowing authority to raise money to upgrade their elementary schools. We supported it at the time.

District officials had conducted a study that identified $18.5 million of construction projects at the schools. They added in another 14.5 million for contingencies, soft costs and escalation. With that study, voters approved $33 million of bonds.

Now the district is back, this time seeking another $52 million. They’re using similar boilerplate ballot language about needing to upgrade classrooms, replace leaky roofs and windows and provide modern technology.

But unfortunately, this time, there is no clear plan with a budget and priorities. They’re putting the cart before the horse, asking for money before they figure out how to spend it.

The measure would add about another $300 a year to the property tax bill for an average homeowner.

As it is, property owners pay $833 annually for parcel taxes for the operations of the Moraga district, which serves kindergarten through eighth-graders, and Acalanes high school district.

And they make payments to cover the bond costs of the two districts of about $55 per $100,000 of assessed value. Measure D would increase the bond payments to about $86 per $100,000 of assessed value. Put another way, the owner of a home with an average assessed value of about $943,500 would see annual payments for bonds increase from about $520 to about $811.

Moraga’s financing plan would be reasonable if there was a clear spending plan for the money with delineated priorities. But that’s lacking. Vote no.

San Leandro Measure J – No

When the San Leandro school district sought voter approval in 2020 for another school bond measure, we recommended against it, noting that it would be the fifth one on the property tax rolls.

Now the district wants property owners to pay the tab for a sixth bond measure, this one for another $174 million, on top of $514 million authorized in prior years. It brings the total amount of approved bonds to a whopping $80,000 per student and the future debt service — principal and interest — to over $1 billion. This is for a district with just 8,600 students.

Property owners already make annual payments equal to $180 for every $100,000 of assessed valuation. For an average home in the district, with an assessed value of about $482,000, that works out to $867 annually.

District officials claim the measure won’t raise taxes. Indeed, the way they propose to structure the debt for Measure J would not increase the annual tax rate for all the bond measures.

But that’s in part because they plan to postpone a significant portion of the Measure J repayments for more than a decade, until bonds from some of the earlier measures are paid off. That postponement will drive up the borrowing cost and the total price for taxpayers.

There’s another problematic issue with Measure J: District officials plan to spend about a third of the money on designing, acquiring and constructing rental housing units for teachers and staff, including all related amenities and facilities.

What exactly that would entail is not clear. How the district could provide housing more cost-efficiently than private developers is also not clear. And while stating in the measure that none of the bond money would go to teacher salaries, providing subsidized housing is just another form of compensation.

Yes, we need to help our teachers, police officers, firefighters and other essential workers live in the communities where they are employed. But there’s already an approved countywide housing bond measure that adds to property tax bills. Having every school district and city pile on with their own housing measures is not the answer.

But even without the housing element of Measure J, the economics of the plan, like for the one in 2020, do not make sense. Voters should reject it.

ST. LOUIS COUNTY, Mo. — The first time Hailey Hall went to college, it was 2008. She lived in Georgia and had been diagnosed with autism four years before.

In high school, the diagnosis meant she had access to smaller classes and a therapy group that helped with social skills. But when college started, that all stopped.

“I was responsible for everything,” said Hall, 35, who lives in Ballwin. She ended up dropping out.

Since Hall was diagnosed two decades ago, the number of children with autism has shot up from 1 in 125 to 1 in 36. Now, college administrators across the country are responding, training staff, adapting to learning differences and promoting self-advocacy. A few local universities are even touting some success: Small steps, they say, appear to be working.

Webster University has a resource center where students learn strategies to cope with the rigors of college.

St. Louis University assembled a sensory room, with a tabletop fountain and a miniature rock garden. It had hundreds of visits last year.

And the University of Missouri-St. Louis has a two-year program that fosters interpersonal and life skills.

“It’s a retention issue,” said Jonathan Lidgus, the director of UMSL’s Office of Inclusive Postsecondary Education. “What can we do to help them persist through their undergraduate degree, to help them unlock their next steps?”

Autism spectrum disorder, a developmental disability, has no correlation with intelligence, and is marked by difficulty with social interactions, communication deficits and repetitive behaviors.

And, for many, it makes college difficult: The rate of completion for autistic students lags that of the general postsecondary population, 39% to 59%, according to the National Institutes of Health.

In elementary and secondary schools, adaptations — as mandated by the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act — have become routine. Fidget toys and movement breaks reduce stress and improve concentration. Visual cues and written instructions clarify daily expectations.

After high school, the legal framework around disability changes. Adult students are covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination but has no metrics for individual progress. The onus to articulate needs and ask for assistance shifts from the school to the student.

Higher education has been inching toward inclusion, advocates say, but there is a long way to go. And the measures taken — like classroom modifications or informational campaigns — are mostly voluntary.

“Colleges have been slow to catch on,” said Lee Burnette Williams of the College Autism Network, a national advocacy and research nonprofit.

“It feels like those students have just fallen off a cliff of support,” said Burnette Williams. “What inevitably happens is they don’t succeed.”

Almost all campuses have an office that provides resources to students with documented disabilities, but comprehensive support programs for autism are rare. The first one, at Marshall University in West Virginia, opened in 2002.

Today, there are about 100 such programs, according to the College Autism Network.

‘Everything looks so different’

The transition to college is a jolt for almost any 18-year-old. No one checks to make sure you are studying, or even attending class. Sleeping and eating habits fluctuate. The guardrails of childhood are gone.

Autistic students often also struggle with isolation, unpredictable schedules and an increased emphasis on grades, experts say.

“Everything looks so different,” said LaToya Griffin, the academic coordinator at Webster University’s resource center, known as the Reeg. “We are teaching students to self-advocate so they can come on the campus and thrive.”

Dara Massey, 24, earned her associate’s degree before enrolling at Webster in the fall of 2022. Getting her point across to professors and classmates has always been a challenge.

“I sometimes ramble,” said Massey, who lives in Ferguson.

But the Reeg has given her strategies: Take a deep breath. Write it down. Massey, who is majoring in animation, expects to graduate this spring. Her drawings help her communicate, too.

“I like creating characters to tell different stories,” she said.

Three years ago, SLU’s Center for Accessibility and Disability Resources applied for a $3,000 grant to build a sensory room on campus. The therapeutic spaces — commonplace in grade schools — house items like bean bags, weighted blankets and bubble tubes that people can use to calm themselves or regain focus.

Occupational therapy professor Sarah Zimmerman enlisted her students to design SLU’s version, which includes a “cocoon” swing and adjustable music and lighting.

“There’s not a lot of areas to decompress and recharge,” said Zimmerman. “Why would that not benefit our kids in college?”

It took some time for the room to catch on. In its first year, only five students visited. Last year, more than 230 students accessed the space, signing up for 30-minute slots with an app.

Kayla Baker, a junior from Overland studying education, makes regular appointments there for “an escape from the day-to-day stressors that come with autism.”

As she goes about her routine, little things — things many people are oblivious to — drain her: small talk, eye contact, background noises.

“Those are all checklist items I have to manually consider throughout the day,” said Baker, 21. “Even with all the accommodations in the world, I can never not be autistic.”

The long-term goal is to build another sensory room at the opposite end of campus, said Kendra Johnson, the director of SLU’s resource center.

“It’s expensive to start, and you have to replenish it,” Johnson said. “But it would be very beneficial.”

‘Life-changing’

The Link program, for autistic students at UMSL, launched five years ago. It follows the model of the university’s Succeed initiative, which serves students with intellectual disabilities.

Each semester, a couple dozen students enroll in Link, at a cost of about $2,600, plus regular tuition. The program, which lasts two years, goes beyond academics, covering independent living, interpersonal skills and career planning, said Lidgus, the UMSL director.

When students complete Link, they earn a certificate or continue on toward a four-year degree.

For a long time, a credential of any kind seemed out of reach for Conner Stewart, 24.

“School is not that easy,” said Stewart, who lives in the Central West End.

But Link, which he finished last year, benefited him inside the classroom — with tutoring and extended test times — and out. Stewart learned to navigate the MetroLink, buy groceries and manage his money. He practiced writing a resume and doing interviews and then landed a job at the St. Louis Zoo.

Stewart still meets with a coach once a week. Now he is working toward a bachelor’s in history, though his childhood on a farm and his work at the zoo are pulling him toward something with animals.

The college experience is not always rosy. Some professors are not as understanding. Some classmates are not as friendly. But most are. And Link has put Stewart on a path he likely would not have considered otherwise.

“It’s been life-changing,” said his mom, Charlene Stewart of Millstadt.

‘A sense of belonging’

Hall, who dropped out of Georgia Gwinnett College more than a decade ago, never thought she’d return. But her husband encouraged her to give it another go, and she enrolled in St. Louis Community College in 2022. On the Meramec campus tour, she saw the Access Office for students with disabilities.

The number of autistic students using the Access Office has almost tripled over the last decade, from 54 to 158, according to director Amy Bird. A true count of autistic students is difficult because it’s up to them whether they disclose a diagnosis.

The Access Office staff identifies, in partnership with the student, what kinds of interventions will facilitate their learning, from wearing headphones during lectures to adding closed-captioning to films. “Instructor notification forms,” which outline needed accommodations, provide a directive to professors who might otherwise be left in the dark.

But the office’s purpose is not just about academic success, said Bird.

“Everyone wants a sense of belonging,” she said. “Finding your people when you’re here is important.”

The space has become a touchstone for Hall, who is studying fine arts. She works there a few hours a week as an assistant and checks in with Bird or other staff members on her off days.

“They’re very happy to have me there,” said Hall, “which is a nice feeling.”

©2024 STLtoday.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Chancellor Carol T. Christ and Executive Vice Chancellor Benjamin E. Hermalin addressed the incident in a letter to the campus community Tuesday. They said the actions of the protesters “violated not only our values, but also some of our most fundamental values.”

The incident happened at the Zellerbach Playhouse, where attorney Ran Bar-Yoshafat was scheduled to speak about his experience fighting in Gaza, among other topics.

“Minutes before the event was to start, a crowd of some 200 protesters began to surround the building,” Christ and Hermalin said in the letter. “Doors were broken open and the protesters gained unauthorized entry to the building. The event was canceled, and the building was evacuated to protect the speaker and members of the audience.”

The event was organized by Students Supporting Israel, according to club member and second-year student Sharon Knafelman. The 19-year-old arrived at the venue to find protesters, many of them masked, blocking the front doors. As Knafelman made her way inside, a fellow attendee was grabbed by the neck and shoved, she said.

Knafelman said the protesters also shoved a second attendee and yanked on her arm hard enough to send her to the emergency room.

Just half of the expected audience of 60 was present for the event, which was originally scheduled to take place at Wheeler Hall and later moved to the Zellerbach Playhouse after another student club, Bears for Palestine, published a social media post calling on the community to shut down the event, Knafelman said.

The post claimed Bar-Yoshafat was dangerous and had “committed crimes against humanity.”

An online account for Bears for Palestine did not return a message seeking comment on the post and its involvement in the incident.

The Zellerbach Playhouse was picked as an alternate location because it was believed to be more secure, university officials said.

“We approach events like this with two priorities: to do what we can so that the event can go forward, and to do what we can to safeguard student safety and well-being,” Christ and Hermalin said. “Last night, despite our efforts and the ample number of police officers, it was not possible to do both given the size of the crowd and the threat of violence.”

At one point, the protesters used a side entrance to get inside the building and tried to push past a contingent of university police officers who were providing security. Knafelman said they called the attendees “pigs” and other slurs, including anti-Semitic language.

The university police chief and another school official then arrived at the venue and told the attendees and Bar-Yoshafat they needed to leave, Knafelman said, adding that they were led out of the building through an underground passageway.

In their letter, Christ and Hermalin expressed their “deep remorse and sympathy” to the attendees, as well as urged them to report what they witnessed and experienced to law enforcement and the Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination.

“We share your anger and concern, and we understand that we must do all that we can to prevent anything like this from happening again,” Christ and Hermalin said.

The impetus was an open letter the Ethnic Studies Faculty Council wrote last fall, criticizing the UC administration’s response to the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks in Israel.

Regent Jay Sures responded by expressing his view that the letter “perpetuates hate and discrimination.” He pledged to “do everything in my power” to protect “everyone in our extended community from your inflammatory and out of touch rhetoric.”

Sures is now making good on that promise by pushing a policy that would ban political statements by faculty members on university websites.

My colleague at UC Davis, Brian Soucek, and I spent two years wrestling with this issue as chairs of the state’s Academic Freedom Committee. After months of consultation across the entire UC system, including with university lawyers, the governing body of the UC faculty endorsed our committee’s carefully crafted recommendations for making statements on political issues.

In contrast, the policy Sures proposed was rushed and breathtakingly broad. It would prohibit any “official channels of communication” from being used “for purposes of publicly expressing the personal or collective opinions” of faculty members. As written, it would prohibit any faculty member’s opinion on any subject from appearing on any university-run website, course page or social media account.

It would prohibit me from posting a link to this op-ed anywhere on the Berkeley Law website.

At a recent regents meeting, the university’s general counsel explained that “the original motivation for this discussion was concerns that people had about some speech that they thought was hate speech and whether the university wanted to be associated with it.”

Regent Hadi Makarechian noted that the policy was brought “because some people were making political statements about Hamas and the Palestinians.” Sures responded by acknowledging “there was an abuse of the websites and not a designed policy in place.”

Sures told his fellow regents that the “policy as written is very clear.” But it wasn’t. Soucek and I pointed out the deep ambiguity of the proposal. At the meeting, the regents considered limiting the proposal to the “landing pages” of university websites, but the decision was ultimately postponed until March.

Speech restrictions that are politically motivated and target particular viewpoints are often disguised as neutral. For example, the true impetus for Sures’ policy was to restrict what he and others considered to be an “abuse” of university websites and the promotion of “hate speech.” But throughout the January meeting, UC officials claimed that the purpose of the policy was to avoid confusion that faculty members might be speaking on behalf of the university when they opined on political issues.

Many faculty of all political stripes, myself included, often bristle when departments issue statements on controversial topics. They are often performative. They can chill minority views and serve as political litmus tests, which is particularly dangerous in a university setting. Our 2022 recommendations included a number of steps departments should take to guard against these concerns, including being more judicious about issuing statements in the first place.

But here’s the thing: it’s much more dangerous to prohibit speech altogether. What is happening at the University of California is what often happens when those with governmental power reactively move to suppress views they dislike. They create hastily-drafted restrictions that are overbroad, vague, rife for abuse and chilling.

And, like this policy, they are usually disguised in “viewpoint-neutral” language. We should not be fooled.

Ty Alper is a law professor at UC Berkeley. He chaired the University of California’s Committee on Academic Freedom. Alper wrote this column for CalMatters.

The Fremont Union High School District board of trustees voted early Wednesday morning to update the turf at Fremont, Homestead, Lynbrook, Monta Vista and Cupertino high schools, part of the district’s goal to repair and replace old turf fields over the next few years. The district serves students in Cupertino, Sunnyvale and San Jose.

“We have plans now, that is to replace the synthetic turf,” Superintendent Graham Clark said. “We don’t have plans to replace it with natural grass.”

The district used bond funding to replace 12 of its 15 grass fields between 2009 and 2013 in an effort to conserve water and improve athletic facilities. The remaining three fields were converted in 2018. The turf has a life expectancy of eight to 10 years, leading local heath and environment enthusiasts and board members to debate the change now.

“I think considering all the negative impacts, there really is no good benefits for keeping artificial turf,” said Lynbrook High School junior Daphne Zhu. “The fact that it’s plastic and not degradable or recyclable, it’s not better for athletes’ health and for the environment.”

Cupertino High School junior Clarabelle Wang supports grass as a matter of personal preference. Wang, who runs track and field, said warming up on an artificial field can be uncomfortable, especially during hot days when the turf absorbs heat. The small bits of turf that get into her shoes doesn’t make exercising an enjoyable experience, either.

“I feel like it has been more of a burden to use artificial turf, at least at my school,” Wang said. “There are lot of little rock pieces everywhere and it would get into everyone’s shoes and stuff like that.”

Making the switch to real grass would delay replacements for the already worn-out turf by a year, according to district staff. Trustee members believe students who regularly use fields for after-school activities can’t afford to wait that long.

“The music program and athletics program make our school district much stronger,” trustee Rosa Kim said. “I think it will be really, really challenging if we delay this process and then go back to natural grass.”

Synthetic turf has come under increasing scrutiny as it can can contain hazardous micro-plastics and chemicals like PFAS, known as “forever chemicals.” The latter can leach into food chains, contaminate water supplies and have negative developmental effects on children and others.

In August 2023, the Santa Clara County Medical Association penned a letter about the health concerns of artificial turf to the Los Gatos-Saratoga Unified High School District, where community members were pushing to replace turf fields with grass.

The Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club also wrote to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in November about how the plastic turf is difficult to break down and properly dispose. The turf fades and cracks over time, the letter states, which can cause small bits of plastic to enter waterways.

Still, the benefits don’t persuade Linda Hutchins-Knowles, co-founder of Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley, to support turf. Established in 2016, the local chapter of the nationwide climate justice organization is helping parents and students advocate for grass fields. They sent a letter to the school trustees, which was supported and signed by 12 other local organizations and 96 community members, urging them to reject any future artificial turf plans.

Hutchins-Knowles thinks there are more benefits to having natural grass than artificial turf, even if district studies say otherwise. Disappointed with Wednesday’s decision, she believes trustees should do more research into natural turf alternatives and make children’s safety a priority.

“Before making a decision about future field replacement, we ask the trustees and staff to thoroughly research state-of-the art natural turf alternatives,” she said. “The health of our students and environment demand no less.”

Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.

Four East Bay school districts seek voter permission in the March 5 election for what they say are extensions of existing parcel taxes.

Two districts honestly and transparently present their measures to voters. Two are hiding tax increases.

Here are our recommendations for the four measures:

Alameda Measure E – Yes

Property owners in the city of Alameda currently pay two parcel taxes for school operations and two others to help retire bonds for school construction.

The two parcel taxes, approved by voters in 2016 and 2020, are due to expire in 2025 and 2027, respectively. Measure E would combine them and extend them to 2034.

While we supported the first tax and opposed the second, the issue now is whether to extend them at the same rates. Given that the money has been baked into the district’s finances, with voters’ approval, we don’t see a reason to upend the funding. Voters should approve Measure E.

Indeed, we commend the district for combining the two measures. It’s much more transparent than the tactic taken by some districts to spread out multiple tax measures between elections and hide the full impact from voters. (For an example of obfuscation, see our comments on Berkeley Measure H below.)

The two Alameda school parcel taxes, when combined under Measure E, would total 58.5 cents per square foot of building area. For an average-sized single-family home in Alameda, that works out to $1,067 annually.

The tax contains a cap of $15,998 per parcel, which has drawn opposition because it advantages the owners of properties larger than 27,347 square feet. That’s a building roughly half the size of a football field.

The 2016 and 2020 measures contained similar caps that prompted a court challenge of the latter measure because of the inequity. But the challenge failed. While there is a legitimate public policy debate over the wisdom of such a cap, the issue in Alameda has now been settled by voters and judges.

In addition to the two parcel taxes, property owners also pay an annual tax, about $111 per $100,000 of assessed value, to cover bond payments on money the district borrowed for school construction. For the owner of an average residential property in the district, assessed at $680,960, that’s about $756.

Total Alameda supplement taxes for schools are hefty. But Measure E doesn’t increase them.

Albany Measure G – No

Albany already has some of the highest supplemental school taxes in the East Bay. Now district leaders are seeking more while deceiving voters about it.

Like past Albany measures, Measure G doesn’t pass the transparency test. Voters should reject it.

The ballot wording claims the measure is “renewing parcel tax authority.” No, it’s not. It’s completely changing how the tax is calculated, from a flat amount per parcel to a tax based on building square footage.

The owner of an average single-family home would face about a 42% increase. The revenue raised from the tax would be doubled. And the sunset provision in the current tax would be eliminated, meaning voters would be stuck with it forever, complete with its 3% annual increase.

It’s not just Albany school officials who are misleading voters. They are being enabled by County Counsel Donna Ziegler, who prepared the deceptive “impartial analysis” that fails to explain the core changes and tax increases, and City Council members and the League of Women Voters’ local president, who signed illusory ballot arguments that claim citizens somehow could repeal the measure at any time. They should know better.

Albany property owners currently pay two annual parcel taxes that subsidize school district operations. The first, approved by voters in 2009, is currently $591 annually and has no expiration date. The second, currently $490 and expected to hit about $515 next year after an inflation adjustment, was last renewed and increased by voters in 2020 and is due to expire in 2027.

It’s that second tax that Measure G would make permanent and radically change. Measure G would raise $4.8 million, double the amount currently brought in by the 2020 measure it would replace. Rather than a flat amount per parcel, the tax would be levied based on square footage of buildings.

The idea of making owners of larger buildings pay more is reasonable. But Measure G is more than simply a redistribution of tax burden: It would also increase the amount for people of modest means. The owners of a single-family home with an Albany average size of 1,326 square feet would face a tax increase next year from $515 to $729.

That’s in addition to the tax of $591 per parcel from the 2009 measure. And it’s piled on top of taxes for the district’s construction bond debt that next year will cost property owners $178 for every $100,000 of assessed value, or $1,134 for a home with an average assessed value of $637,000.

In other words, typical Albany homeowners are going to pay roughly $2,500 annually for supplemental school taxes. For those whopping amounts, they deserve honesty and transparency from school officials. With Measure G, they didn’t get it.

Berkeley Measure H – No

Berkeley has a maze of very costly supplemental taxes that are practically indecipherable to voters.

For starters, they have three different parcel taxes for various parts of school operations — all with annual inflation increases and each with a different expiration date so that voters don’t see the full picture when it comes time for renewal.

Measure H purports to be a renewal of one of those parcel taxes. By our calculations, it’s actually a tax increase. The old tax, approved in 2016, after the included adjustments for inflation, would be about 49 cents per square foot of building space in 2025. Measure H would start in 2025 at 54 cents per square foot.

The increase alone amounts to about $100 a year for a single-family home with 1,971 square feet, which the school district says is the average. If Measure H passes, the total of the three parcel taxes would be about $1,571 for that average-size home.

In addition, Berkeley property owners are paying off bonds from prior voter-approved school construction measures, and the district has yet to issue more than $300 million in bonds that voters approved in 2020, which will likely drive up property taxes in the future. Berkeley failed to provide us an accounting of the projected tax rates that accounted for the future bond issues, so we are using their projections from 2020.

The district’s projections at the time showed the tax rate for bonds could reach about $126 per $100,000 of assessed valuation, or $933 for an average home in the city. If Measure H is approved, the three parcel taxes and the bonds could bring the total school supplemental tax bill for an average homeowner to roughly $2,500 annually.

Voters should reject Measure H because of the district’s total supplemental tax burden, which contributes to the high cost of owning a home in Berkeley, and the district’s lack of transparency.

Martinez Measure C – Yes

Measure C is an eight-year renewal of an existing $75-per-year parcel tax that voters approved in 2018. The tax provides $850,000 annually, equal to about 1.5% of the district’s yearly budget.

While the use of the money is technically restricted, the categories are broad and effectively cover most academic programs as well as technology equipment and infrastructure. In practical terms, this is a supplement to the district’s ongoing operation costs.

The tax is in addition to separate voter-approved bond measures that next fiscal year will cost property owners $105 per $100,000 of assessed value or about $468 a year for the owner of an average home in the district. Thus, the total supplemental taxes for an average homeowner in the district would be about $543 next fiscal year.

Compared to most Bay Area school districts, the supplemental tax bill for Martinez schools is modest. Voters should approve Measure C.

Known online for sharing his unique brand of positivity, mental health support and “library joy,” Threets was named a winner of the American Library Association’s “I Love My Librarian” award for 2023 — one of just 10 winners nationwide from a pool of over 1,400 librarians.

“Dear Solano County Library, I just want to say thank you,” Threets said in a Tik-Tok video announcing his resignation. “Thank you for raising me as a homeschool library kid. This is the place where I’ve always felt safe, where I’ve always felt like I belong, where I’ve always felt like I’ve had friends.”

RELATED: Bay Area librarian and TikTok star Mychal Threets works to spread ‘library joy’

Despite an overwhelming outpouring of love and support for his hopeful and encouraging content, Threets has repeatedly faced online bullying and harassment for the videos he makes. He has repeatedly spoken candidly about how the backlash has affected his mental health while remaining kind and positive about those who have hurt him.

“I hope those people have a much better day tomorrow,” he said of the bullying on Tik-Tok. “I hope they experience kindness. I hope they experience joy. I hope they remember that they still belong at the library. I hope better days are ahead of them.”

Threets, whose last day is March 1, says his first job working in a library was in the Solano County Library, and it gave him a chance to follow his dream.

“I went from library kid to being in charge of the library where I grew up in,” Threets said. “It has been the honor of my life.”

Threets apologized to those who would be disappointed in his absence but assured them he would still be around and visiting the library. He said he has made some of his closest friends at the Solano County Library.

“To the library kids, to the library grown-ups, I am so very sorry,” he said.

Threets’ content often focuses on “library kids” and their interactions with him and library resources. While Solano County is considered to be one of the more diverse counties in the nation, Threets says children of color are shocked that there is someone who looks like them and their family working at the library with tattoos and big hair.

Threets says the drive to help people feel like they belong comes from his own experience as a lifelong library visitor.

“I am the truest form of a library kid,” he said, “I first visited the library when I was 3.”

Threets hopes to fight for literacy across the nation and continue to support libraries worldwide as he moves forward. He plans to go before Congress to speak about the importance of library funding and support. Threets said he hopes people in Solano County understand that the library is for everyone, and that mentally ill and unsheltered people should feel safe and welcome there. Often, the library can connect resources to those in need.

“Funding libraries is funding the community, funding our togetherness, our unity,” he said.

The librarian said he would be checking in with those close to him and using this time to focus on his mental health while continuing to search for library joy.

“Your mental health matters and it always will,” the librarian wrote in his farewell post. “Be kind, my friends. This librarian is proud of you for existing. I see you, I see you shining. You’re extraordinary.”