Friday May 9

Measure A costly, unwarranted

Guest Opinion

By Wayne Martin

With the Building For Excellence projects funded by a 1995 bond just completed and all the schools in generally good condition, the Palo Alto Unified School District has now placed Measure A on the June ballot. Its projects represent a total cost to the taxpayers of almost $800 million ($378 million for construction and approximately $378 million for financing). The 2007 facility master plan mentions PAUSD's intentions to spend about $771 million over a 20-year period. This makes Measure A just the opening salvo of almost $1 billion in bond-financed spending. When all of the technology plan's costs are considered, the total cost to the taxpayer will be almost double that amount, nearly $2 billion.

PAUSD provides voters with scant justifications for Measure A's projects. In addition, it could produce few public records explaining why specific projects were chosen. Some are short-lived, some have a questionable benefit and some a doubtful need.

Traditionally, bonds are used to pay for long-term "capital" projects - like buying land, or building buildings which provide service for 50 to 100 years. Used, as Measure A proposes, to buy computers with four- or five-year lifetimes, to landscape playing fields and to repave and restripe hard courts and parking areas, all of which time, tide and technology will overtake, the district in essence meets today's operating expense with tomorrow's money. It is a recipe for bankruptcy.

Measure A proposes energy-conserving projects for existing schools. While on the face of it, this seems a good and noble thing to do, in fact many of the schools considered for such improvements are already good performers. They were oriented on their sites to stay warm in winter and cool in summer. Even 60 years ago, when they were built, lighting costs were a consideration. In consequence, these schools require little artificial light. The millions of dollars to be spent on improving these buildings' energy performance only marginally are best spent elsewhere or not spent at all.

The district claims it must build classrooms to house an expected 25 percent increase in students. Yet it can do this and more by going to year-round schooling and not have to build one more square foot of facility. Since the district touts sustainability," it must realize that building nothing more and making efficient use of existing facilities is the most sustainable of all activities. In an era of vanishing books, the district talks of refurbishing school libraries. It appears to be asking for a second theater to be built at Palo Alto High School, and gives no justification for its need, nor does it indicate that it will not build "yesterday's" theater all over again.

Particularly troubling is the role of a group called the Planning Review Committee (PRC). While this PRC seems to have been influential in the Measure A planning, its members are not required to file economic disclosure forms, nor is the PRC responsible to the Brown Act.

The halcyon projection of property value increase that the district uses to support its repayment scheme for these bonds does not seem to contemplate any falloff of economic growth. It does not seem to consider that energy, food and water are all likely to be in short supply in coming decades, and that everyone's standard of living will suffer a decrease. If the gravy train of the past decades slows or stops, taxpayers will experience difficulty meeting the district's demands for money to pay off its bonded indebtedness.

I must give the school district credit for trying. Proposition 39, passed eight years ago, demands spending specificity in exchange for passage with a 55 percent majority, and Measure A does its best to look specific, at least until it's examined closely. The district has strategically scheduled the election for June 3 in hopes that a low turnout will guarantee passage.

But none of that changes the fact that Measure A is fiscally unsound. Moreover, with a total taxpayer cost of almost $800 million, it shows no promise to advance student achievement.

The findings of our almost two months of detailed examination of Measure A can be seen at: www.paloaltansforcommonsense.com. This Web site should be required reading before voting, even for you folks who always say, "I just vote for the schools."

Common sense demands a "no" vote on Measure A on June 3.