Hi All. Finally here's the rebuttal I came up with. First I will copy the
proponent argument and then the rebuttal is right below it. It started out
at 279 and I've been chopping at it bit by bit and it's now 251. Since San
Francisco will only count as one word by the DOE, it should clock in OK at
250. As always, I have no ownership pride, so please make any changes
necessary to make it a stronger rebuttal.
Proponents’ Argument for Prop A (School Bond for $744,250,000)
The San Francisco Unified School District has made great progress over the
last decade. Test scores are up, the achievement gap is narrowing, and
over 100 schools have been renovated, making them safer and more
accessible. San Francisco schools serve nearly 60,000 students from
pre-kindergarten through 12th grade in 143 buildings, some of which are the
oldest buildings in the state. Many of these schools desperately need
upgrading to meet 21st century safety and accessibility standards.
San Francisco needs Proposition A to:
· Complete seismic safety and modernization projects to make all
schools and other district facilities earthquake safe, energy efficient,
and ready to provide state-of-the-art education;
· Build new schools and classrooms to accommodate a growing student
population while keeping class sizes small;
· Kick start development of a new SFUSD Arts Center an Ruth Asawa
School of the Arts to preserve and promote music and art at the center of
the curriculum;
· Invest in technology improvements including installing ultra-high
speed Wi-Fi for all classrooms to enable 21st century learning;
· Maintain and expand the district’s wildly successful green
schoolyards program to 91 school sites;
· Explore methods for developing affordable housing for teachers.
The bond program has been meticulously run by a professional management
team and, since its development, construction has stayed on schedule and on
budget. The District kept its promise to manage funding from past bonds
appropriately under the guidance of the independent Citizens’ Bond
Oversight Committee, which is comprised of educators, parents, and youth
advocates. Annual audits found that we have met or exceeded all
requirements and are in excellent financial standing.
San Franciscans have consistently recognized that our schools need critical
upgrades and have supported the District’s bond program. Please join us in
continuing this by supporting Proposition A.
San Francisco Unified School District
Even Superintendent Carranza conceded he doesn’t know where families will
move to and how the economy will look in the future. Let the Board of
Education figure out if a new school is really needed and where and then
ask for a bond—not the other way around.
Don’t count on a new SFUSD Arts Center & Ruth Asawa School being built any
time soon. The project has been in limbo for years over funding and costly
government rules. The $100 million allocated towards the project in this
bond won’t even cover 1/3 of the estimated cost—if it’s built at all. Yet
somehow the SFUSD found the money to hire a new Executive Director for
Creativity & The Arts to “kick start” the project.
“Explore methods” for developing affordable housing for teachers?! You
don’t need a bond for that. The politicians have already been “exploring”
for years and have only made housing more expensive for everyone.
The Citizens' Oversight Committee’s job is to ensure that all *requirements*
of the bond are met in order to be in compliance. This bond measure is
different from the last one. While much of the wording is the same
verbatim, some of the “will’s” were changed to “may’s”. The way this bond
measure is written, we would be surprised if it *didn’t* pass audit—and
still accomplished little of what it promised.
Vote NO on A—they’ll be back again in a few years “desperately” needing
more bond money.
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
Thanks!
Aubrey