Hi Aubrey,
Okay, here's a revised argument for Prop. A. I'll get on the others.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
In 2011, the Board of Education asked voters to approve a $531 million bond measure. They stated in the Voter Handbook that it would be the "third and final" request for funds to modernize San Francisco schools.
In our opposition argument, we cautioned voters not to believe it. Now five years after that "final" request, they are seeking another bailout to the tune of almost $1.5 billion, with no firm guarantees on how the money will be spent.
Per the text of Proposition A, “Until all project costs and funding sources are known, the Board of Education cannot determine the amount of bond proceeds available to be spent on each project, nor guarantee that the bonds will provide sufficient funds to allow completion of all listed projects.”
Uh oh, blank check alert! The proposition uses the word “may” (not “shall”) 26 separate times. Letting them again spend as they please, including on things that should be covered by operating funds, like “green schoolyards” and $5 million for teacher housing (which at $750,000 per unit would only yield 6.67 units).
School bonds are for one-time major capital expenditures like constructing new school buildings or buying land for the same. Instead, they're making a routine habit of deferring maintenance and and then expecting to cover these costs with expensive borrowing.
What would you tell a grade-school child who came home and said, "I spent some of the money you gave for the upcoming field trip on extra cookies at lunch so I had to borrow some from Johnny, but he's making me pay back double what I borrowed so I need some more cash mom"?
A responsible parent might consider teaching a lesson by saying no to the field trip. Vote NO on A.
Libertarian Party of San Francisco