183 replies to this topic

[dave]

Developers are paying their fair share.  If it's not enough then other changes needs to be made - state funds, local funds, and property taxes are the 3 pieces of the school funding pie.  But I cringe everytime I hear that developers should pay more.  Why?  Just because they seem to have all the money?   Why not have the schools and government better manage the funds they're already provided? 

Sorry, you'll never get me to agree that developers aren't doing their fair share.  It's simply that the schools can't manage their money.

I think people are using incorrect terminology. We should stop calling it "developer fees." It should be called "new home school fees."

When we all bought our new homes, we should have paid for our full share of what the average home requires in school capacity. We paid fully for our driveways, garages, etc. We also paid our full share for our sidewalks and streets and various underground pipes. Why wouldn't we pay for our full share of space we require in schools?

The answer is that the builders have a very good lobby down in Sac. (There is a long history of private companies getting government to fund part of what should be its own costs. An example is the recent case of United Airlines dumping its pension obligations on taxpayers.)

The only reason the school fees are paid by builders when they get a permit to build our home is so the school district can get the $ a little earlier.

So Terry: why should you and I pay for school facilities that are required by all the homeowners who are moving in to Empire Ranch homes this week? Should we also help pay for their streets, sidewalks, driveways, bathrooms, and bedroom furniture?

[AKD]

I don’t have kids, why should I be taxed? Please don’t tell me it is for the betterment of society. This state spends over $50 Billion on education, and we have over 25% functionally illiterate who cannot compete in a global economy.

Most parents want daycare for their kids and have someone else raise them. Hire a nanny, quit taxing me. Please don’t tell me that developer's fees are not taxes. If I pay the fees, they go to run a government entity, they are a tax. The developer is the collector of those fees. You and I pay them when we buy the house.

Socialism is bad!

[tgianco]

I don’t have kids, why should I be taxed?  Please don’t tell me it is for the betterment of society.  This state spends over $50 Billion on education, and we have over 25% functionally illiterate who cannot compete in a global economy. 

Most parents want daycare for their kids and have someone else raise them.  Hire a nanny, quit taxing me. Please don’t tell me that developer's fees are not taxes. If I pay the fees,  they go to run a government entity, they are a tax. The developer is the collector of those fees.  You and I pay them when we buy the house.

Socialism is bad!

I can understand to an extent, but anyone and everyone would have a complaint about a tax for something they don't use. Where would you draw the line? I'm not a socialist and don't like giveaways, but paying taxes is part of this society.

Should those that don't drive be exempt from Mello Roos or CC&Rs b/c they don't use the roads? Or because they drink bottled water instead of tap or filtered water?

By the way, you chose to live in a family-dominated community where we take great pride in our schools. No one forced you to move to a certain community in Folsom or anywhere else. Just sayin'.

[Terry]

Another interesting comment I hear often about school funding is that California is at the bottom of the nation's list in per pupil spending.

This might be significant if it had a direct correlation to the number of California public school pupils who graduate from high school and/or who go on to get accepted to colleges.

Why not compare California high school gradutes numbers to states where the per pupil spending is at the top in the nation? See how that falls out.

[benning]

Another interesting comment I hear often about school funding is that California is at the bottom of the nation's list in per pupil spending. 

This might be significant if it had a direct correlation to the number of California public school pupils who graduate from high school and/or who go on to get accepted to colleges.

Why not compare California high school gradutes numbers to states where the per pupil spending is at the top in the nation?  See how that falls out.

Great idea, Terry. After you do your research please get back to us. But please, start another string because this one is supposed to be about where we get money to build new schools that are required due to growth.

[DrKoz23]

Another interesting comment I hear often about school funding is that California is at the bottom of the nation's list in per pupil spending. 

This might be significant if it had a direct correlation to the number of California public school pupils who graduate from high school and/or who go on to get accepted to colleges.

Why not compare California high school gradutes numbers to states where the per pupil spending is at the top in the nation?  See how that falls out.

I wonder who keeps telling you that California is near the bottom of the nation's list in per pupil spending. This statement that these people keep telling is quite far from the actual truth. During 2003... California ranked right in the middle of the pack (26th). Here is the link for the Census Bureau .pdf document stating the Public Education Finances for 2003. Its the latest data available.

http://ftp2.census.g...ol/03f33pub.pdf

I am sick of hearing people whine about this state not spending enough money on our kids' education! In fact... a state that is touted as having quite an excellent school system (Minnesota at $8073 and in 21st place) only spends $382 more than California at $7691 and 26th per pupil. Plus... I don't see Minnesota right at the top of the spending list. I could start justifying spending more on education if there was an actual correlation between money and the quality of the education... but there just isn't.

There has got to be a deeper issue here other than money... and I wish the teachers' unions would give it a rest that we need to keep tossing more money into education without many results or accountability.

[AKD]

You are correct; no one forced me to live here. Six years ago when I moved here, I did my research and found a nice conservative community that values family and understands that the government is not our keeper, and taxes are not the answer to every question.

May I suggest that you might want to look at cities a wee bit west of here, like maybe Davis? They have the mindset that government should throw money at social problems to fix all the injustices in the world by taxes us pesky capitalist.

I would like to apologize for taking a couple days to respond. I am a capitalist and work everyday. Silly me, that is the American dream I am chasing.

Socialism is bad!

[ducky]

I would like to apologize for taking a couple days to respond.  I am a capitalist and work everyday.  Silly me, that is the American dream I am chasing.

So you haven't perfected keeping the manner of living to which you are accustomed with no visible means of support either?

[tgianco]

You are correct; no one forced me to live here.  Six years ago when I moved here, I did my research and found a nice conservative community that values family and understands that the government is not our keeper, and taxes are not the answer to every question.

May I suggest that you might want to look at cities a wee bit west of here, like maybe Davis?  They have the mindset that government should throw money at social problems to fix all the injustices in the world by taxes us pesky capitalist. 

I would like to apologize for taking a couple days to respond.  I am a capitalist and work everyday.  Silly me, that is the American dream I am chasing.

Socialism is bad!

As a business owner, I chase the same dream and do not give my tax dollar w/o much trepidation. What do you seriously expect? Not to pay taxes at all?

God, these forums are getting lame w/ everyone looking for a fight.

[valdossjoyce]

I don’t have kids, why should I be taxed?  Please don’t tell me it is for the betterment of society.  This state spends over $50 Billion on education, and we have over 25% functionally illiterate who cannot compete in a global economy. 

Most parents want daycare for their kids and have someone else raise them.  Hire a nanny, quit taxing me. Please don’t tell me that developer's fees are not taxes. If I pay the fees,  they go to run a government entity, they are a tax. The developer is the collector of those fees.  You and I pay them when we buy the house.

Socialism is bad!

Payig for pubic schools is not the equivalent of socialism. Public education has a long history in thie nation without any ties to socialist movements. Whether we're getting enough bang for our buck is another matter. It behooves us to insist that dollars are spent where results pay off.

If you don't thing you "use" schools because you don't have kids, picture this: one day when you're an old codger and you go to the emergency room, the illiterate failure of our public schools may be the paramedic trying to keep you alive. Today's kids will be running the businessess and services you will require. Wouldn't you prefer they be educated and literate? Your life may rest in their hands. Society is a tapestry in which our individual lives are interwoven. Doesn't mean it's socialism. If you don't like that, go live on an your own private island.

[AKD]

The public education system seemed to have work well for you.

In the future, I will take my chance with a foreign born doctor, oh wait, I do that now.

[benning]

Bob, see my previous posts on this subject.  Even districts with NO growth moan and groan about not having money. 

My opinion is my opinion, and I have yet to have anyone present information that would change it.

They may groan about not having enough money, just as you or I might.

However, they're not groaning because they need to build a new school because the city/county/developers just allowed 2000 new homes to be built and only provided for 1/3 of the costs to build the school to house those kids.

For every dollar the district must pay to build a school, they are provided less than 34 cents. There is no way out of this hole, a hole that will never be filled by 'curing' inefficiencies within a bureaucracy.

I'm all for accountability and efficiency within a school. Do you know what I would do with those savings? I would provide a better education for the children who attend the school. I certainly wouldn't transfer the money to a school construction fund so that developers/new homeowners don't have to pay to house the children.

[benning]

You can pay it forward and expect others to do so.

I live in a slightly different place where people operate from there own self-interest, and you have to negotiate with people...give them what they want in order to get what you want. I call this place "reality". It's not warm and fuzzy, there aren't cute little bunnies hopping around, but it works well and people end up getting what they want usually.

We do give them what they want (money). They, in turn, should give us a home with four walls, a roof, a garage, a porch light, a community with roads, sewers, stop signs, and a school to house the children who are here to learn.

Would they give you half a roof if they could get away with it? According to your logic, yes. Why, then, are they allowed to get away with only providing 1/3 of the school? Because they have an extremely strong lobby and they know that any one individual homeowner who is lining up to buy the home is none the worse for not knowing.

I believe there are many developers out there who would give more than their minimum legally required share and 'pay it forward'. Unfortunately, they are under tremendous pressure from their fellow builders NOT to do this, because it might establish a precident. No good deed goes unpunished.

[Terry]

We do give them what they want (money).  They, in turn, should give us a home with four walls, a roof, a garage, a porch light, a community with roads, sewers, stop signs, and a school to house the children who are here to learn.

Would they give you half a roof if they could get away with it?  According to your logic, yes.  Why, then, are they allowed to get away with only providing 1/3 of the school?  Because they have an extremely strong lobby and they know that any one individual homeowner who is lining up to buy the home is none the worse for not knowing.

I believe there are many developers out there who would give more than their minimum legally required share and 'pay it forward'.  Unfortunately, they are under tremendous pressure from their fellow builders NOT to do this, because it might establish a precident.  No good deed goes unpunished.

You don't seem to understand that if developers were to fund schools 100%, it would just increase the cost of your home!!!

[Terry]

Okay, here are some statistics of selected states' funding, teacher salaries and graduation rates. You can read more at nea.org, and manhattan-institute.org:

Arizona, 59% high school grad rate (hsgr), 2nd lowest per pupil spending (pps)
Mississippi, 62% hsgr, 5th lowest pps, 3rd lowest average teacher salary(ats)
Alabama, 62% hsgr, 3rd lower pps
California, 68% hsgr, 1st highest ats
New York, 70% hsgr, 1st high pps
Arkansas, 72% hsgr, 4th lowest pps
Delaware, 73% hsgr, 5th highest pps
Connecticut, 75% hsgr, 2nd highest pps, 2nd highest ats
Massachussetts, 75% hsgr, 4th highest pps
New Jersey, 75% hsgr, 3rd highest pps, 3rd highest ats
South Dakota, 80% hsgr, 1st lowest ats
Utah, 81% hsgr, 1st lowest pps
North Dakota, 88% hsgr, 32 lowest ats

There's a lot of material here if you want to state various arguments about California schools.