WELCOME TO THE OPINION PAGE
The following letters and other commentary express only the personal opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Piedmont Civic Association.
Submit a letter, opinion, article, etc. | Receive email notice of new articles
Citizen letter to the City Council, as it continues to consider adopting a Risk Management Policy –
Dear Piedmont City Council,
re: April 1, 2013 Risk Management Policy Agenda Item
City Policy of enforcing agreements: This aspect is not included in this policy report. As of June 2012, PRFO [Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization] owed the City $220,000 with $31,400 in additional legal costs directly incurred as a result of their project through November 2012. What is the City Policy in regards to enforcing arbitration clauses in signed agreements? > Click to read more…
A is for Appreciative – Thank You, Piedmont!
Measure A was approved by 77% of voters in the March 5th Special Election
Dear Piedmont Community,
With the passage of Measure A we would like to extend a heartfelt thank you for once again demonstrating your strong commitment to Keep Our Schools Strong. You have just ensured 8 years of stable, locally controlled funding for our school district.
Seeing and talking with friends and neighbors on the campaign trail has been tremendously rewarding for everyone involved with the effort, and we feel honored to have received the community’s trust and support. > Click to read more…
Dear Piedmont Community,
Over the last few months, an extraordinary effort has been made to engage our community in a public discourse concerning the funding of a quality education for our district.
Measure A was passed as a result of those conversations. > Click to read more…
Opponents Support Progressive Tax and Senior Exemption to produce the same budget for the schools-
Piedmont’s Measure A election is unique in that both proponents and opponents want the same full funding for our schools. Opponents believe that the most expensive California school tax requires both a progressive structure and compassion for needy seniors. > Click to read more…
Resident Asserts: The Piedmont School Budget could have survived a low income senior optional exemption –
How School Districts are funded in California is both arcane and extremely complex. Comparing districts is helpful and #1 academically ranked San Marino is probably the best comparable we have with its 13,161 population, similar affluence and limited but larger commercial tax base than Piedmont. Despite Proponent’s Feb. 7 LWV false comparisons necessitating an unusual School District correcting memorandum, Proponents continue to use this comparison in recent comments here at PCA. > Click to read more…
This website has recently posted opinion pieces from well-intended Piedmont residents who support our schools but are opposing Measure A. As a longstanding parent volunteer in school- and District-level programs, I appreciate their efforts to ensure that voters make thoughtful and fair decisions, but I believe they have several important things wrong. > Click to read more…
Opponent of Measure A responds to proponent –
The Borikas decision has been vacated by the Court of Appeal. The lower court decision stands, which does allow a size-based parcel tax. Mr. Elliott misstates the claim that Borikas needs to be settled before an equitable school parcel tax can be passed in Piedmont. It does not. Currently, existing law allows tax based on parcel size. Furthermore, Borikas did not challenge the per-square-foot tax, it challenged the differing tax rates levied on different types of property (residential, commercial, etc.). Piedmont could pass a tax that is fair and equitable, based on parcel size, without violating the law. And we could do so in June, 2013 and still meet the deadlines outlined in Jon Elliott’s opinion article. > Click to read more…
Measure A opponent asks: Was our School Board too hasty in changing Measure A to a flat tax?
On December 11, 2012, the Board was advised by legal counsel to change Measure A to a uniform flat tax rate that applies to every parcel. His advice followed the ‘Borikas Decision’ wherein an appeals court reversed an earlier judgment that had ruled in favor of the Alameda School District’s 2008 tax measure that had variable tax rates based on use and size of parcel. The Appeals Court concluded that the governing statute (Sec 50079-50079.5) while allowing certain exemptions does not otherwise permit these variances, although this has been an accepted practice for years. A final ruling and its ramifications may not be known for months or even years. > Click to read more…
Is there misinformation in mailer and Superintendent letter?
Both the letter of January 25th sent by Superintendent Constance Hubbard, and the Proponents mailer and website state that without Measure A funds, the Piedmont Unified School District would need to reduce personnel by one-third.
In fact, in the event of Measure A failing, Measure B continues to July 1, 2014. > Click to read more…
Over the years I have served on many budget, finance, and investment committees including the Piedmont Schools Annual Campaign, the Piedmont Education Foundation, two Municipal Tax Committees, and the current chair of the City’s Budget Advisory Committee. I am well-versed in financial matters relating to school and city funding issues in California.
We have two structural issues in California that put tremendous stress on school and city funding. The first issue is that the State takes local base property taxes and re-allocates them based on State priorities and not local priorities. As a result, education receives less funding than local communities would otherwise provide due to competing State priorities. The second issue is that our property tax system restricts tax growth to 2% unless properties sell, regardless of increases in the costs. Further exacerbating this restriction is Piedmont’s very low property turnover. Almost 1 in 5 homes have not sold since 1980 and carry a very low property tax burden. It is very beneficial for our city to have long standing members who can rely on their basic property taxes not increasing out of control, but the result is that we just don’t collect enough property tax to pay for the services we use – it is true of every city in California.
In Piedmont, we are extremely fortunate to have a vibrant, active community where we can come together and provide the needed funding for our priorities. The simple truth is that the costs for the school system we desire – the one that supports the high values for our homes and the high success rate of our children – are not covered by our basic property taxes. Every year going back decades, Piedmont residents have paid an additional tax that has gone directly to our schools, and Measure A is that tax.
Piedmont has demonstrated over the years that our schools are a top priority, and we need the school support tax, Measure A, to provide a stable, locally-controlled source of funding to maintain the quality of our local schools. All of the money collected from the passage of Measure A will stay in Piedmont to support Piedmont schools and Piedmont priorities Please join me and vote YES ON MEASURE A.
Bill Hosler, Piedmont Resident
Editors’ Note: This Opinion is that of the author and does not necessarily represent that of the Piedmont Civic Association. PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.
Content on the PCA website by Piedmont Civic Association is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Some icons are Copyright © Yusuke Kamiyamane
