Posted by I (heart) SBCC 2 on May 25, 2008, 11:47 pm, in reply to "Re: Vote "NO" on Measure "V"!"
70.177.16.178
Please, at least do a minimum of homework before you expose yourself in public.
The SOMA building has long been in the works and has slowly been going through the Coastal Commission. It has already gotten a share of state funding and needs more plus private donations to really make it a first rate facility to provide the best training. This is being done for the students, you know. Not for anything else.
This has long been known as a buiilding in progress. Lots of public hearings on this building going on for years. It has slogged long and hard past all sorts of changes and finally got the Coastal Comission approval. So while it appears "new" to you, it is not. But technically it is the one new building.
Most people and practically all people on fixed incomes bought their houses decades ago when they cost well under $100,000. I remember in the late 1970's even Montecito was going for $2-300,000.
And with Prop 13, all those people have had only very small increases in their assessed valuation over the past several decades. So many people, particularly the long time seniors will be paying close to $8.50 a year more. That means about $4.00 a year more, and they get lots of free benefits from Adult Ed classes. Most of them are happy to get off so easy.
Sure, people who came later and are now paying over a million for their houses and have higher assessed values will pay more. But the overall *average* assessed valuation is only $350,000 which means about $40 or so dollars a year or $20 a half year payment.
This will barely buy a single pedicure or 2 lattes or one large pizza. Again, this may be impossible for you to pay since you are paying for your million dollar Mesa house while still a student. The bond is a bargain and is a very common sense way to fund building renovations over the next few decades. It sure is not going to get any cheaper putting things off.
I was hoping for a better discussion about this. You failed to include a single other funding mechanism. I wanted a good adversary. Do you want to apply again for the job?
I like sarcasm too, but irony is a far keener sport. More intellectually demanding. Sacrasm is cheap and easy. And boring. It is too predictible and devolves into ad hominum attacks all to easily. Or setting up straw dogs to effortlessly torch. Joe White would not be proud of your argumentive skills, now would he?
Now to most people living in million dollar houses, this increased bond amount isn't even close to their yearly cell phone or cable bill per month. C'mon, how about a sense of proportion to go with your moral outrage.
Elections are very expensive to run. Best to put the whole package together and start biting the bullet on all these projects. This bond is a good and responsible package. And it is fiscally sound.
SBCC has long been making the best it can with some of the lowest amount of state funding any college gets. You can be proud of what they have been able to pull off with so little money.
Kick them in the teeth if you want, but at least get your facts straight. If you don't want to vote for anything, that is why we have elections. Thank you for stating your case.
I am sorry your life cannot sustain paying this little bit more every year to help other students in the future get the same quality of education you got when the buildings were new and the state was more generous.
Just promise me you won't be fooled by claims of no new taxes, when in fact the same taxes just got passed off to voters in a new form. The state pulled the plug on building money and now the local voters are asked to pay $8.50 more a year in a different way.
Almost makes you want to go to the Chumash Casino and hand it all over to them for the sheer joy of believing for a few seconds you might strike it rich, rather than fork over that $8.50 a year to the college and all you get is this lousy educational facility in return.
113
Message Thread:
« Back to thread