Posted by I (heart) SBCC 2 on May 26, 2008, 10:20 am, in reply to "Re: Measure V"
70.177.16.178
Uh oh, you dropped into the straw dog mode of argument. Slow down and parse out what I actually said and then re-respond to my prior statements. I admit I always hate losing arguments I never made.
I never said SOMA, a new building, was not funded by the bond campaign. It clearly is. Why would you claim I said it was not. Please re-read my statements and show where I stated otherwise. This building has long been in the planning process and is being partially funded by the bond, along with donations and state money.
If the college does not get bond money for its final completion, that money has to come out of general operating funds (aka salaries, maintenance programs and supplies). It could be done without the bond, but the bond will help take the sting out o f hurting other program areas of the college that bond money cannot fund.
You intentionally misread everything I said about the $8.50 per year per $100,000 assessed valuation facts. Don't know where to go with you on this one.
This amount is clearly stated in the bond material. And yes, many people in this town because they bought their houses so long ago will only be paying $8.50. And it is clearly stated this is $8.50 per $100,000 assessed valuation.
Not sure I follow your argument that you would rather pay double your tuition for your entire time at SBCC to pay your share of the bond issue, rather than pay $8.50 a year spread out over the entire community.
But that is your choice and one you want to inflict on all other students for the next 30 years. However, the bond issue allows voters the final choice in this matter, which seems more fair than you deciding every student should pay this building maintenance surcharge.
Do you think this building surcharge doubling student fees only for SBCC for the next 30 years would make coming to SBCC uncompetitive, or do you think the rest of your fellow students would see it as a good investment?
Bonds are a conventional way of raising money upfront, paying the loan off over time spread out over the entire parties of interest (the entire community benefits from a good community college, not just the current students)and you can start projects now with today's dollars instead of slowly saving money doubling students tuition and then finding out you can no longer do the projects at tomorrow's prices with today's dollars.
Glad to hear you think a latte at Starbucks is worth paying for, but SBCC is not. There is comfort in knowing the college did a good job educating you.
And don't let me be the first to inform you but the buildings you used for your education age over time and in 20 years will not be the same facilities you enjoyed if they are not maintained and upgraded with a community investment. But that would make me sound like a common scold and whoowhee is that ever a discussion turn-off. Sorry.
It is prudent planning to provide for their continued maintenance and upgrading as circumstances warrent. Even Starbucks knows this.
It is easy to say "no new taxes". Granted. It is a lot harder to accept that some new taxes are a good thing. And a realistic and necessary thing.
So if all you are going to do it say no new taxes, and let someone else pay for it, there is little more to argue. We have both made our cases.
Please help the SBCC Foundation identify those donors who want to write checks for the full amount instead of raising taxes, including the state's share of matching funds.
You are correct, there are plenty of wealthy people in this town who could write checks for this amount, no strings attached. The Foundation has been working hard making its case to the donor community, but have yet not found people who want to write these checks. Most of these people say, stick it to the students because their own kids go to the Ivy's and they feel no compulsion to pay extra for your education too.
Drop by the Foundation and give them a hand. Then we can both celebrate no new taxes because according to you the responsibility of supporting public education should rest entirely on those fortunate few who made money off the system and not the taxpayers at large.
Hard not to agree with your thinking. Turning this thinking into reality is a bit more problematic.
I too stumble trying to find those people who want to write those checks. Perhaps you have better insights into this and we can finally relieve the tax payers of this burden supporting public education. And it is a burden.
I wish you had not taken advanatage of this public largesse and had paid your true full share now that I know you are willing to step up to the plate and pay the same $170 plus a unit charged to international students. The plus being the building maintenance surcharge on top of the full fare tuition of $170 plus a unit.
Can you write the college a check tomorrow for this amount so we can get this burden off the backs of the taxpayers? Otherwise you have to admit you took advantage of someone's elses tax dollars and not your own.
You are right, public education should not be a tax on the public. It should be a tax fully paid by the students. Hope your check is in the mail. Not to worry, paying your fair share for your education will only set you back a few lattes. Forever.
99
Message Thread:
« Back to thread