Measure B fails to
prioritize academics

Measure B is a $195 million bond (pretty word for tax) to paint, repair and update Antioch schools. Two prior bonds (taxes) were passed to do the same thing.

Students in Antioch schools are scoring poorly on state testing. For Example: Black Diamond Middle School Math: 8% proficiency. This means 92% of the students are below grade level. Only two students in a classroom of 25 can do math at grade level on average. Reading: 18% proficiency Less than five students in a classroom of 25 can read at grade level. Other schools in the Antioch School District aren’t much better. This is a travesty.

Our school district has a superintendent, principals and curriculum coordinators with master’s degrees, and they can’t figure out how to help our students succeed. The Antioch school administrators and school board should make academics a priority, not aesthetics.

Our children deserve a better education. Vote no on Measure B.

Lynette Solorio
Antioch

Unions favor Miley
for county supervisor

Your February 13 editorial discussing the District 4 Supervisorial race emphasized the role candidate Jennifer Esteen has played in public employee unions.

You neglected to mention that both public employee unions to which she belongs have endorsed her opponent, Nate Miley.

Dale Silva
Fairview

A right to speak,
but no call to listen

Re: “Man spews anti-Jewish hate at meeting” (Page B1, Feb. 22).

I join in the outrage over the hate speech delivered at a recent Walnut Creek City Council meeting.

Here is one solution to put such vile remarks in their place: Immediately upon hearing any hate speech in the council chamber, the council members quietly walk out, returning only when the speaker is done. Those in the audience should do so too.

There may be a constitutional right to free speech at City Hall, but there is no constitutional right to be heard.

Mark Peters
Walnut Creek

Kennedy would chart
new course for nation

I’m a mom of three young children in the East Bay. I’d like to introduce to my fellow residents our independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Many American families, like my own, are feeling increasingly distressed economically due to inflation and lack of job security. Kennedy recognizes that the average American’s quality of life has not improved since the 1960s. A massive military machine and rampant corruption have contributed significantly to the decline of the middle class. His proposed economic policies are centered around ensuring that hard-working individuals can lead a decent life. Kennedy plans to, among other things, make housing more affordable by backing 3% home mortgages with tax-free bonds, support small businesses by redirecting regulatory scrutiny onto large corporations, and expand free child care to millions of families.

I call on everyone to support Kennedy, as his presidency will reform and revitalize our nation.

Scarlett Fang
Danville

Deny hate speech
a council audience

Re: “Man spews anti-Jewish hate at meeting” (Page B1, Feb. 22).

The First Amendment guarantees all Americans the right to speak freely, even at the Walnut Creek City Council meetings.

There is nothing (to my knowledge) in the U.S. Constitution that forces the council members to listen to a Nazi moron’s diatribe.

Esteemed members, when he begins his ranting, leave the room for a couple of minutes. He’ll have his 120 seconds of notoriety and you will have a couple of minutes of peace and reflection. You will have also made a massive statement of your disgust for him and his ilk.

Robin Hall
Walnut Creek

Church’s attributes are
needed in neighborhood

Re: “2 private Catholic schools will shutter amid Diocese of Oakland’s bankruptcy” (Page A1, Feb. 24 ).

I sadly read the Feb. 24 article regarding the closure of my alma mater, St. Anthony’s School in Oakland, due to the diocesan bankruptcy. It maintains that “officials at the diocese attributed the closure to more than just financial constraints.” Rather, dwindling enrollment was due to “rising homelessness, unemployment and human trafficking in the surrounding San Antonio neighborhood.”

It seems to me this is where the hope and resources presented by the church and its institutions should be the most visible and accessible.

James Erickson
Brentwood

Alabama embryo ruling
wastes resources

The United States, including Alabama, once counted a Black person as three-fifths of a human. How much of a human will the eggs be? Maybe Alabama will make sperm a partial person whether it fertilizes an egg or not. A woman who miscarries can be charged with involuntary manslaughter. A technician who forgets to turn on the refrigerator housing embryos is a murderer. If the utility company turns off the power, they will be an accessory to murder.

Alabama must find a better way to use its resources than looking into wombs.

Norman Weiss
Orinda

]]> 10368689 2024-02-29T16:30:33+00:00 2024-02-29T11:28:04+00:00 https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/02/29/letters-1632/ Fri, 01 Mar 2024 00:00:57 +0000 https://www.mercurynews.com/?p=10368726 Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

Elect Sally Lieber as
District 5 supervisor

As a long-time Santa Clara County resident and community advocate, I wholeheartedly endorse Sally Lieber for District 5 representative to the county Board of Supervisors. I have known Sally since her early days of serving on the Mountain View City Council. She has also been mayor of Mountain View and a state Assembly member. Sally currently serves on the state Board of Equalization.

Sally is honest, ethical, fair, collaborative, communicative and transparent in her decision-making and actions.

Sally has been the thoughtful champion for a variety of issues. When elected, Sally will be a pair of pragmatic boots on the ground. Sally has neither been bullied by nor beholden to self-serving special-interest groups, individuals or industries and will continue to champion important issues for those represented in District 5 and the county. Please vote for Sally Lieber for the Board of Supervisors, District 5.

Elinor Stetson
Sunnyvale

Casey is strongest
S.J. council candidate

George Casey is the best candidate for all of District 10.

He was the best candidate two years ago, when the other council members appointed someone else to temporarily serve our district, and he’s the best by far now. His life has been spent attaining the skills that will serve all of us in this position. He grew up in a couple of homes in two separate parts of the district, attained a high-quality education, including a law degree, master’s in urban planning and a master’s in real estate. He has used that knowledge and his negotiating skills to serve all of us for several years on the Planning Commission. He truly understands how the city functions and will use his negotiating skills to protect our neighborhoods while supporting Mayor Matt Mahan’s agenda to address crime, homelessness, and blight.

It’s time for us to select a strong council member.

Rich Crowley
San Jose

Tara Sreekrishnan for
Assembly District 26

Climate change is the issue of our times. We must elect leaders to the Legislature to reduce emissions and limit overall temperature increases.

Tara Sreekrishnan supports and champions the need for California to draw down carbon and move to a renewables economy. Her priorities include transitioning to solar, wind, EV adoption, sustainability and green buildings. Of particular note has been her effort to highlight the emissions from the Santa Clara Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant, and to move the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to dramatically increase oversight of the plant’s emissions reductions with a goal toward eventual closure.

Tara, a strong millennial voice and advocate for the environment, will work with the Legislature to champion change and push for climate solutions. Her proven record of leadership with grassroots environmental groups and youth is needed in the state Assembly.

Please join me in voting for Tara.

Carrie Levin
Sunnyvale

Return Zoe Lofgren’s
expertise to Congress

I am proud to serve with Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, the chair of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation and one of the most respected members of Congress. She is an expert on immigration law, science policy and a former chair of the House Ethics Committee.

I’m disgusted by Charlene Nijmeh’s campaign that is centered on disinformation — including the recent distribution of flyers with pictures of Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries with the candidate, clearly meant to mislead voters. Both Pelosi and Jeffries endorse Zoe Lofgren.

Disinformation destroys democracy. Voters must stand with truth and vote to reelect Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren.

Rep. Anna Eshoo

Menlo Park

Liccardo will get things
done in Congress

Sam Liccardo’s recent eight years as a get-things-done mayor of San José showcased how effective he would be in Congress. Liccardo’s successful leadership of the nation’s then-10th largest city ⏤ from homeless mitigation to the high cost of living ⏤ was a doctoral treatise on how a major metropolitan area can prosper in difficult times. He explains online how he will do it again as a new member of the House.

Some may view District 16 as a Palo Alto and North County preserve. It is not. District 16 has evolved with exciting potential. With changes to California’s district maps following the 2020 census, District 16 is an engine of accomplishment and challenge from metropolitan San José to high-tech in Santa Clara County. Sam Liccardo has a track record of successfully dealing with the multifaceted demands of 2024 unmatched by any other candidate in this election.

John Heagerty
San Jose

Simitian best prepared
for seat in House

Re: “Crowded field raises more than $4M in bid to replace Rep. Eshoo” (Page A1, Feb. 16).

The article on the run for Anna Eshoo’s open congressional seat is a good comparison of candidate positions on important issues, including climate change.

Because of its urgency, climate change is the most important issue in this race for U.S. Congress. Please vote for Joe Simitian.

Rob Hogue
Menlo Park

House needs Lofgren
on agricultural policy

If we want the Salinas Valley to continue as the “Salad Bowl of the World,” we’d better elect to Congress a politician who supports agriculture.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren is a staunch advocate for the agricultural industry. She has experience, vision and a track record of support for AgTech.

She has already secured emergency relief for growers impacted by the 2023 storms and helped get $2.8 billion in support for farmers impacted by natural disasters, along with emergency USDA loans.

Addressing the agricultural labor crisis, she authored the Farm Workforce Modernization Act — the first agriculture labor reform legislation to pass the House since 1986. It helps grant 1.5 million farmworkers legal status, protects them and gives flexibility to employers.

She has led bipartisan efforts in crop science, precision agriculture and other research projects. She wants to reform specialty crop insurance.

Want District 18’s agricultural industry to flourish? Vote Zoe Lofgren.

Jim White
Salinas

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.

The last official count found more than 181,000 Californians without homes, nearly a third of the nation’s homeless population. When new data is released later this year, the number will probably approach 200,000.

The numbers have continued to grow despite many billions of dollars in federal, state and local funds having been spent — $20 or so billion by the state alone over the last five years. As the problem worsens, it consistently ranks as one of Californians’ most pressing public policy issues, polling has found.

How is it, one might ask, that so much money could be spent with so little, if any, progress?

One factor, certainly, is that the underlying causes of homelessness, such as sky-high housing costs, family breakups, mental illness and drug addiction have not abated.

Another, probably, is that here is no consensus on what programs would be most successful and officialdom has taken a scattergun approach, providing money to a bewildering array of often overlapping programs and services in hopes of finding approaches that work.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who pledged 20 years ago to end homelessness in San Francisco when serving as the city’s mayor, is touting a measure on the March 5 ballot that would authorize bonds to build facilities for treating the mentally ill and redirect some funds from a two-decade-old special mental health tax into new programs. He’s also won legislative approval of “CARE courts” that could compel some mentally ill Californians into receiving treatment.

The multiplicity of programs to deal with homelessness cries out for some kind of independent appraisal of what’s been spent and how effective the spending has been.

We may get such an overview soon because the Legislature has approved a request from Republicans for the state auditor to delve into what’s been spent.

“Homelessness is the most urgent issue facing California,” said state Sen. Roger Niello of Roseville, one of those making the request. “Given the crisis has only worsened, we need to know what the money has accomplished and what programs have been effective in moving people to permanent housing.”

One area the state auditor should examine is what could be termed “bang-for-the-buck” — the startlingly expensive costs of providing even the most basic services to homeless Californians.

Sacramento, like other large California cities, has a large and growing homeless population and a new report from the city auditor is indicative of that aspect of the homeless crisis.

Three contracts for shelters between the city and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency amounting to more than $10 million stand out. Two 100-bed facilities cost the city almost $7 million — well over $100 per bed per day — while the third, $3.3 million for a 24-bed shelter for young people, cost the city $373 per day for each bed.

Sacramento is not alone in paying a lot of money for rudimentary shelters, and costs of that magnitude indicate that California would have to spend much more than the current levels to put roofs over the heads of its homeless people.

Meanwhile, Newsom is proposing to pare back homelessness spending because the state faces a multibillion-dollar budget deficit.

Dan Walters is a CalMatters columnist.

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.

The current GOP misadventure — which was always doomed — was seriously undercut in federal court last month.

Republicans thought they had a smoking gun, a claim by a longtime, reliable FBI informant that Biden and his son Hunter had secretly accepted millions of dollars from the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma. Unfortunately for Planet MAGA — including House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer of Kentucky, impeachment resolution author Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and the entire lineup of Fox News hosts, who have been frothing at the mouth over this story — it was allegedly all a lie.

The smoking gun is turning out to be an exploding cigar. And the informant? Not so reliable after all.

Last month, a federal grand jury indicted Alexander Smirnov, 43, on charges he lied when he told the FBI that the Bidens had gotten $5 million each from Burisma. Not only that, according to special counsel Jack Weiss, who is overseeing the probe into Hunter Biden’s finances, Smirnov was probably coached to create the story by operatives associated with Russian intelligence in an effort to hurt President Biden as he faces reelection, most likely against Putin apologist former President Trump.

Boy, that Vladimir Putin just can’t keep his nose out of American presidential elections.

On Wednesday, Feb. 21, Weiss filed a request asking the federal judge overseeing Smirnov’s case to revoke bail, alleging that Smirnov “is actively peddling new lies that could impact U.S. elections after meeting with Russian intelligence officials in November.” Smirnov needs to be confined, Weiss said, because he has the financial wherewithal and connections to flee the country. On Thursday, Smirnov was rearrested in Las Vegas, where he lives.

Explosive accusations

Sadly, Republicans can’t seem to accept the implosion of their impeachment effort.

“It doesn’t change the fundamental facts,” Jordan insisted to reporters on Feb. 21 in an exchange posted by Forbes on YouTube.

“It does change the facts,” interjected a journalist off camera, “because they are no longer facts, because they’re not true.”

How did we get here?

In June 2020, Smirnov, a dual citizen of Israel and the United States, passed unverified information to his FBI handler. He said he met with Burisma executives in 2015 and 2016, and they told him about their payments to the Bidens. At that time, Burisma was the subject of a criminal investigation by the corrupt Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was later fired. Smirnov said he was told that Hunter Biden would “take care of all those issues” — Burisma’s vulnerabilities — “through his dad.”

Smirnov also said he was told that the payments would be so hard to trace, it would take a decade to find out where the money had gone.

MAGA Republicans caught wind of the accusations, which were laid out in an FBI form known as a 1023, a raw account of conversations between Smirnov and his FBI contact, with whom he had spoken almost daily for 10 years, thus the FBI’s belief it was dealing with a credible source.

You can imagine the GOP joy. They were so excited they released the unredacted, unverified document.

The FBI later said, however, that Smirnov had lied about being in Ukraine in 2015 and 2016. According to the indictment, he hadn’t had any contact with Burisma executives until 2017, well after Biden was out of office, and, in any case, his dealings with Burisma were “routine and unextraordinary.”

Out for revenge

Really, that should be that, impeachment-wise.

“I think it’s time for Chairman Comer and the Republicans to fold up the tent to this circus show,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., ranking member of the Oversight Committee. “It’s really over at this point.”

Like Trump, they are angry. Like Trump, they are out for revenge — for the two Trump impeachments and for the 91 felony counts the former president faces. They are angry that their idol may be held accountable for allegedly trying to steal the 2020 presidential election in Washington, D.C., and Georgia, for allegedly removing classified documents and concealing them at Mar-a-Lago, and for allegedly paying hush money to a porn star. Like Trump, they are furious over the $355-million judgment against him for lying to lenders and New York tax officials about the value of his assets. And don’t even get them started on the $83 million he owes E. Jean Carroll after putting his fingers in her vagina and calling her a liar when she spoke out about the assault.

I don’t think MAGA Republicans would quite put it this way, but they are desperate to find some way to persuade Americans that Joe Biden is every bit as corrupt as Donald Trump.

They can’t, of course.

And so, like the dismembered Black Knight in that iconic fight scene from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” they comically cling to their mortally wounded impeachment scheme, proclaiming, “‘Tis but a scratch!”

Robin Abcarian is an opinion columnist at the Los Angeles Times. ©2024 Los Angeles Times. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency.

Lee will represent
the underrepresented

I would like to provide a perspective from a California citizen concerning the upcoming election for U.S. Senate. I believe that Barbara Lee is the best candidate running for the position due to her extensive experience in Congress and her diverse background.

As a woman of color who has experienced hardships ranging from having an abortion in a dark alley to being raised in a segregated town, she is equipped with the skills and knowledge to advocate for California and our diverse communities in it — being a double minority herself. She has advocated for low-income, BIPOC communities for decades now, and I am confident that her influence will benefit the California population as a U.S. senator.

Anaya Sayal
San Ramon

Burnham brings science
background to Zone 7

Alan Burnham will undoubtedly do a great job on the Zone 7 Board. He combines strong technical skills with a proven commitment to public service. Alan is an excellent candidate who will make sure that Zone 7 decisions are the best for those in its service district. He warrants our vote.

Alan is an accomplished scientist who also understands systems engineering concepts, which are an important part of Zone 7 decision-making and operations. He digs into the issues behind staff reports to make sure their implications on important decisions are well-founded. During his professional career, he has often recognized solutions missed by others.

Alan has consistently contributed to his community. He founded Quest Science Center and provides low-cost space for the Tri-Valley Haven Food Pantry and the CommonPoint Nonprofit Center. He helped shape Livermore’s downtown redevelopment and was selected to Livermore’s General Plan Advisory Committee.

Bob Woerner
Livermore

Political rhetoric should
unite us, not divide

I’m very alarmed by the highly charged political rhetoric that pits us against one another. I see most of this anger-driven hatred coming from the far right today. Everyone who serves in a public role has a duty to unite us, to serve the common good, not divide us.

This is unhealthy. We need each other in more ways than we can imagine. We are connected to the whole world. We enrich one another in so many different ways. This is why we have to be on guard against leaders who urge us to fear others based on race, gender, religion, political affiliation or nationality.

We, the people need to come out in a huge show of solidarity and unity to declare our love for our country, for democracy and inclusion.

Gregory Fite
Hayward

Vote for candidates
who will support Mahan

Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility (CFR) believes city government should focus on crime, cleaning streets, homelessness and holding government accountable for prudently spending our tax dollars. We agree with Mayor Mahan’s 2022 statement that “all residents should live in a city that is safe, clean and full of opportunity.” The mayor has worked diligently to fulfill campaign promises supporting that belief and deserves reelection.

As for this year’s crop of City Council candidates, CFR endorses the following as most likely to support Mayor Mahan’s goals of reducing crime, cleaning up our streets, supplying quick-build housing to move our unhoused residents off the streets as quickly as possible, and measuring and holding our government accountable: District 4: David Cohen; District 6: Michael Mulcahy; District 8: George Casey.

For similar reasons, we endorse Madison Nguyen for Santa Clara County Supervisor in District 2.

We urge you to support these candidates with your votes.

Pat Waite
President, Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility
San Jose

Support bill allowing
public campaign funds

Re: “Super PACs pour more than $16M into race” (Page A1, Feb. 27).

Super PACs have poured more than $16 million into the race for California’s U.S. Senate seat and candidates have raised more than $1 million, including almost $700,000 from outside groups, for the 26th District Assembly seat.

Court decisions, including the Citizens United ruling, have opened the floodgates to unlimited spending. It isn’t surprising that candidates hold fundraisers in wealthy communities and actively court the richest donors. The result: The concerns of the majority of citizens are often dismissed, creating cynicism and distrust of government.

One way to return power to regular people is a system of public financing of campaigns so candidates aren’t beholden to big money. However, California presently prohibits public financing in most cities and counties. SB 24 would remove that prohibition and give public entities the option to act. The public and this newspaper should support it.

Brian Carr
San Jose

Shoor is progressive
choice for District 6

Alex Shoor is a knowledgeable, progressive Democrat and my choice for San Jose City Council District 6.

As a mother, teacher and longtime union leader, I want a councilmember who deeply understands the biggest issues facing our community and has the experience and policy know-how to get things done.

Unlike other candidates, Alex’s policy views and platform are detailed, clear and accessible. He is clear in both his vision for our city and the steps he will take to get us there. I’ve seen too many families leave San Jose due to soaring housing costs. Alex has practical, detailed plans that will reduce costs for existing housing and support well-planned new development. I want a safe San Jose where my children and students will be able to grow up and one day have homes of their own.

Please join me in voting for Alex Shoor for District 6.

Sarah Ciccarello
San Jose

Bernstein will prioritize
climate in Congress

I’m writing in support of Joby Bernstein’s congressional bid in the 16th District.

The need for young, forward-thinking leaders like Joby is critical, as they prioritize long-term impacts over short-term gains. As an avid backpacker witnessing climate change’s direct effects on our natural landscapes, for me this issue is deeply personal. Our future demands bold action, and Joby Bernstein offers the visionary leadership necessary to guide us toward a sustainable path.

Michael Sauvage
Palo Alto

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.

Federal and state water regulators recently told the state’s municipal water agencies and San Joaquin Valley farmers that they could count on getting just 15% of their contracted allocations this year because precipitation this winter in Northern California has fallen short of normal, despite storms that caused serious flooding in Southern California.

“Many expected the initial allocation to be higher,” Federico Barajas, executive director of the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, which represents dozens of agencies that receive Central Valley Project water, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “This low initial allocation is particularly challenging for agricultural producers, who are reliant on these projections for planning crops to grow during the year and for acquiring the financing necessary to support food production.”

However, as reservoir managers were issuing that grim projection, they were also drawing down reservoir levels, which had soared from last winter’s heavy storms, to create space for anticipated runoffs later in the spring.

On Monday, the Sacramento River was running high and fast, nearly 70,000 cubic feet a second, thanks to elevated releases from Shasta and Oroville reservoirs, both of which still contain well over 100% of their usual amounts of water at this time of year.

The anomaly of sending so much water downstream while warning municipal and agricultural users of low allocations frames the ever-increasing difficulty – bordering on impossibility — of water management in an era of climatic volatility.

California has historically received most of its precipitation during a few winter months while the remainder of the year is dry. It’s why federal, state local agencies have constructed dozens of dams and reservoirs to collect water when it is available for delivery to users during drier periods.

However, the peaks of precipitation appear to be getting higher — witness this year’s near-hurricanes in Southern California — and the periods of drought seem to be becoming longer due to climate change. They upset the models that water managers have traditionally used to decide when to boost reservoir storage and when to increase releases.

Another big storm is expected later this week, and it could dump enough snow in the Sierra to bring the snowpack up to normal levels and eventually increase allocations to water users, but that’s speculation. Meanwhile, with the spring planting season approaching, farmers must guess how much water they will have to irrigate their crops.

However, we need more storage options, both surface and underground, and we need to resolve some knotty issues, such as the decades-long controversy over a tunnel or some other conveyance to bypass the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta so that more Sacramento River water can be sent southward for use or storage.

That project, meanwhile, is politically tied to efforts by the state to either persuade farmers on the San Joaquin River to reduce their diversions so that more water can flow through the Delta to enhance wildlife habitat, or force reductions by issuing new water quality standards for the Delta.

As the supply picture becomes less certain, California cannot afford more decades of gridlock and squabbling.

Dan Walters is a CalMatters columnist.