Home > Uncategorized > Times-Standard on the McK bonds

Times-Standard on the McK bonds

Quite a good set of articles, IMO, by Kaci Poor, Grant Scott-Goforth, and Luke Ramseth.  (I realize people don’t need to check the Herald to know what’s in the T-S, but after my continual criticism of the T-S, it’s only fair to point out this material.)

http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_22156898/hook-72-million-mckinleyville-trustees-discuss-how-get

http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_22156899/local-school-bond-financing-highlights-larger-statewide-issue?source=rss

There’s a third, but the T-S website is not responding just at this moment, so I haven’t read it: http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_22156908/instrument-or-terrible-deals-school-bonds-spotlight

I am curious to hear more from Mr. Hanger at the HCOE about how CABs are not necessarily a bad thing — they seem to me like bribes offered to Wall Street, pure and simple.  They may be a necessity in order to get Wall Street to sell you bonds, but anything that involves encumbering people 40 years hence by giving 10:1 interest to debt ratios seems to me to be poison.

  1. Anonymous
    December 9, 2012 at 10:55 am

    The community voted for 40 years of encumbrance when they passed measure c

  2. December 9, 2012 at 11:01 am

    Perhaps when they voted for their school board, Anonymous.

  3. Plain Jane
    December 9, 2012 at 11:14 am

    Why couldn’t laws be changed so that community infrastructure funding is done through a govt. funded community credit union or Small Business Administration type agency with controlled interest rates? Letting legal loan sharks starve our future educational system and communities is unacceptable. That the opportunity to do so came from the financial industry’s malfeasance makes it even more despicable.

  4. Anonymous
    December 9, 2012 at 11:36 am

    Nope, the deal was always 40 years Mitch

  5. December 9, 2012 at 11:42 am

    Anonymous,

    Show me where the taxpayer was offered 40 year bonds in ANY material for Measure C. Show me where an 8% interest rate was mentioned. Show me where the total amount due was mentioned.

    The taxpayer approved $14 million, with the reasonable expectation that they’d be paying mortgage-like interest over a multi-decade period.

  6. Anonymous
    December 9, 2012 at 11:54 am

    There is an interview at the McK Press blog with the superintendent and the business manager from 2008. They were asked how long and how much. For some reason I can’t paste a link here. It is about 10 stories down.

  7. Plain Jane
    December 9, 2012 at 11:55 am

    And that they would actually get the improvements the borrowed money was intended for.

  8. Anonymous
    December 9, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Is that in question, that the money was not spent properly? I hadn’t heard that.

  9. Plain Jane
    December 9, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    They are talking about using a large chunk of it to pay for refinancing, #8.

  10. Plain Jane
    December 9, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    *help pay for refinancing.

  11. Anonymous
    December 9, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    You man fees or paying down the loans?

  12. December 9, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    #6,

    Found it. Here’s the link: http://mckinleyvillepress.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/measure-c-interview/

    You are correct. Dena McCullough utters the words forty years.

    Q. How long will the tax be collected? How long will it take to pay off the bonds?

    McCullough: Forty years.

    Hester: But if our assessed value in McKinleyville increases, we can refinance the bonds to pay them off in a shorter period of time.

    Q. What is the interest rate on the bonds?

    McCullough: We don’t know yet. It will be the current market value. That’s what it states on the ballot measure.

    Hester: Our rating as a school district is very high because we don’t have any outstanding debt. So when people who want to buy our bonds look at our history, they can see that we are very secure and that might get us a lower rate.

    Q. Some of the costs seem quite high for what you’re getting. Have you thought about establishing a committee of local people who are in the building trades, to get a second guess on some of these estimates?

    McCullough: Our architect is involved with that. He does a lot of local work. I don’t have any problem with having a group look at that. Some of the costs seem high, but some of them seem low.

  13. Plain Jane
    December 9, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    Fees, #11.

  14. Anonymous
    December 9, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    I am curious to hear more [...how...] CABs are not necessarily a bad thing — they seem to me like bribes offered to Wall Street, pure and simple.

    Simple. CABs provide needed money that the state refuses to provide (sometimes, IMHO, the state illegally refuses to provide and/or withholds from schools because of the state’s own financial woes).

    It’s possible for a person to view a CAB, that takes place over a shorter time period, as better (or “good”) than one that is longer and incurs greater debt.

    If you are opposed to any interaction with Wall Street, well, that’s a different matter. What’s your better solution?

    Schools are drowning, grasping at straws to stay afloat. Some California schools have gone bankrupt (‘unable to meet future obligations’) because they are not given a minimum level of funding to do what they are legally obligated to do.

    In one school district, a student with special needs requiring an attendant can cost the district $30,000. You can bet a district isn’t receiving adequate funding to meet the needs of that one student, so money is pulled from other places. Schools close their libraries, eliminate all of their classroom aides, eliminate the school nurse (except for paperwork), eliminate most administration and clerical staff, eliminate sports, music, art, eliminate math and reading intervention, eliminate field trips, balloon class sizes well past state limits (the state has reduced its daily fines so it’s usually financially less expensive to stuff classes than to hire another teacher). Etc. Schools are in crisis. If they turn to a shitty mechanism for their funding, on some level, I can’t blame them. The government has turned against its people, especially kids.

  15. December 9, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    #14,

    For starters, people are entitled to know the detailed indebtedness they are voting on. Instead of authorizing $14 million, the bond measures should be framed as receiving $14 million in exchange for payments of $x over y years, totalling $z. Each should be a firm cap, so that the total indebtedness cannot exceed z, the value voters approve.

    Voters have (unwisely, IMO) capped the tax rate for current taxpayers. To exploit a loophole by generating a huge debt for future taxpayers should be illegal.

    I agree the schools need more money than is allocated. I don’t agree that they have a right to use creative accounting to get their money, especially without this being made 100% clear to the voters who decide on the money.

    If voters are willing to approve a $70 million debt for their grandkids to get their own schools $7 million, I don’t know what to say. It would be enough to make someone think that voters won’t act now to protect from devastating climate change the planet their grandchildren will have to deal with. And that would clearly be insane.

  16. Anonymous
    December 9, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    For starters, people are entitled to know the detailed indebtedness they are voting on.

    That’s not a flaw of CABs. That’s a flaw of the electoral process if people are voting on bond measures without knowing how an elected body plans to structure the debt. Oh, wait, did I say an elected body? Your beef is with the elected body then for making a decision you don’t like.

    To exploit a loophole

    Loophole? This ‘loophole’ has existed for a very long time. I’d hardly call it a loophole. Politicians essentially endorse its usage by not banning it. They’ve had decades.

  17. December 9, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    #16,

    Explain, please, the wisdom of borrowing a sum of money such that you are unwilling to pay interest on it during the period for which you’ve borrowed it, thereby allowing the entire repayment to fall upon people not yet born.

    Explain why bond deals are structured so that some (or in McK’s case, all) of a bond deal is issued in this manner.

    Explain why people who have mortgages at 3% should be happy to borrow at 8%.

    Explain who the CAB buyers are.

    Thanks.

  18. tra
    December 9, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    It looks like in that McKville Press interview, voters were indeed informed that these would be 40 year bonds, and that there was no way to know for sure what the interest rate would be (though there is a suggestion that the interest rate ought to be low, given the district’s good credit rating). But I don’t see any discussion about when repayment would start, what approximate overall repayment amount would be, and what would be the approximate ratio of what they were borrowing vs. how much would have to be repaid.

    Which is significant, because while 40 years at a high interest rate is bad enough, another important reason that the total amount the school district will have to be repaid is so huge compared to the amount the school gets from the bond (the 10:1 ratio) is because of the “capital appreciation” structure — these bonds are structured so that repayment doesn’t even begin for decades, with the interest getting added to the capital throughout.

    I haven’t seen where voters were made aware that they would be on the hook for $70 million over the long haul in order to get $7 million now.

    I understand that there is no way to say exactly what interest rates would be available when the bonds were issued, and maybe the school district was indeed caught by surprise and left in a situation where that the only way they could issue the second part of their bond package would be to use these CABs. So it’s not that they necessarily set out to misinform voters, but the outcome is still that the voters ended up on the hook for a deal that they might not have supported at the ballot box, had they known at the time what the total price-tag would end up being.

    Perhaps in the future, there should be some mechanism whereby the authority to issue the bond could be approved by the voters, but in a way that is contingent on favorable-enough terms being secured before the bonds are actually issued. In other words, “we the voters approve this amount of money being borrowed, as long as it can be borrowed for an interest rate of no more than x% and a ratio of no more than x:1.

    As far as the argument that future growth will take care of repaying these bonds, that seems to ignore the fact that the future growth will mean the need for even more school construction, and those future taxpayers (today’s kids) will have to come up with the money for that, too — or push those cost out to even further-future taxpayers (the grandkids), and on and on in a rather Ponzi-like manner, until finally a day comes when the growth levels off and some generation is left in the lurch.

    In my view, the only fiscally prudent solution is to adequately fund schools on more of a pay-as-you-go basis. In other words, there’s no way around the fact that if we want good school facilities, we have to be willing to pay for them with current and near-term general tax revenues and, when necessary for larger projects, with standard “current interest bonds.” If that means changing state law to allow school districts to raise a little more in taxes to pay for facility repairs and upgrades, then that’s what we need to do. The kind of fleecing McKinleyville School District taxpayers are getting on this CAB is Exhibit One in the case against the status quo of starving schools for funding, then throwing them on the mercy of Wall Street to be wrung dry for decades into the future.

  19. Anonymous
    December 9, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    Explain, please, the wisdom of borrowing a sum of money

    I never exalted CABs as wisdom. I explained that CABs are a way for schools to continue to stay open and operating. It seems you only give lip service to the importance of keeping schools open. Do you have a better solution than CABs?

    If I’m bleeding out, I don’t much care whether the doctor uses an expensive procedure or expensive piece of equipment to save me, so long as I continue to live. I sure won’t like the doctor’s bill, but at least I’m alive for another day.

    I understand CABs can be structured a gazillion times better than the worst districts cited in the LA Times article. And I understand that not every district using CABs are using them for essential, critical purposes (e.g., Arcata doesn’t need a new theater, and McKinleyville High School doesn’t need a new stadium). But that’s not the case in every district. CABs have emerged as an essential tool, and they will remain an essential tool until a better solution is found.

    Explain why bond deals are structured so that some (or in McK’s case, all) of a bond deal is issued in this manner.

    Your question is unrelated to my original statement. I don’t know the answer to your question. I suggest calling the registrar of voters.

    Explain why people who have mortgages at 3% should be happy to borrow at 8%.

    Again, unrelated to my original statement. More importantly, I don’t speak for all people. Do you have children, Mitch? If you’re a parent, you might see value in anything that helps your child’s ailing school.

    Explain who the CAB buyers are.

    Again unrelated. I expect the buyers could be different in each CAB case. I suggest talking to a financial adviser who specializes in CABs.

  20. Just Watchin
    December 9, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    Short answer…..the voters are dumber than a box of rocks.

  21. Plain Jane
    December 9, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    The people with children currently in school aren’t paying for it and their kids won’t be able to pay for it and fund own kids’ educations. The systems is badly broken and putting exorbitantly expensive (for future taxpayers) bandaids on the cracks only makes them worse every year. If we need a different revenue stream for our schools, so be it. This is the most ridiculous way to maintain our schools imaginable.

  22. Anonymous
    December 9, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    If we need a different revenue stream for our schools, so be it.

    How about state government giving schools the amount of funding it legally promised to give schools? That would be a start. And then, work on a formula for expenses where the state gives schools the amount required to operate a school according to the school’s legal obligations? That would be great. I’m not talking lots of money, just enough money to do all of the things that the state and federal government requires schools to do. School reformers love to layer on more and more regulations without providing any funding to enact changes.

  23. December 9, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    #19,

    I don’t have children and I don’t live in McKinleyville. I just don’t like seeing people ripped off.

    If McKinleyville USD is bleeding out, then the school board should go to the public and explain, in detail, its plans and their projected impact PRIOR to setting up an arrangement where borrowing a buck requires someone else to pay back ten.

    There are lots of approaches that could work, they will all be considered pie in the sky. One very straightforward example would be offering every McKinleyville taxpayer the opportunity to invest up to, say, $50,000, at 4% annual return. It would be totally voluntary, but a spectacular deal in this interest rate environment. You get 140 people wanting to put in the max, you’ve got your $7 million and, if the loans are handled the same way as a 30 year mortgage, the total cost to the taxpayer is $12,031,200, paid at $401,040 per year for 30 years.

    Four percent doesn’t attract enough local money? Try 6%, and your cost increases to $15,120,000.

    Coast Central currently offers 0.2% on savings. A lot of people would jump at the opportunity to get 6% from MUSD, knowing that there’s some risk but recognizing that future school boards will be hesitant to shaft the neighbors who their predecessors borrowed from.

    Is this illegal? Probably. But if the people of McKinleyville had known of the $70 million plan for obtaining $7 million, perhaps they could have worked to get a waiver, or to come up with other plans. Or perhaps they would have gone with the $70 million plan, shafting people who are yet to be born. It’s hard to know for sure.

  24. tra
    December 9, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    I am sympathetic to the view that current school board members are stuck between a rock and a hard place — the rock of failing to repair and upgrade schools as needed and thereby shortchanging students in the near-term, and the hard place of approving costly long-term CABs that fleece the taxpayers in the long-term. I can understand that they’re facing an ugly, ugly choice.

    It’s even possible that if I were in their shoes, I’d feel the need for the funds was urgent enough to justify having to take the lousy financing options, with the hope of maybe being able to restructure the debt later, which is what the McKinleyville school officials have said that they hope to do.

    But, if so, I think it would be my responsibility to kick up one hell of a fuss about it, making sure the voters realized just how bad a deal the school system had been forced into accepting (assuming, again that the repairs and upgrades were necessary and urgent, and no other financing options were available) because the amount of current and near-term future tax revenue is so inadequate.

    In other words, they should have used this as a teaching moment, to make clear the consequences of starving the schools for funding, and to make clear that the only real options are to pay a little more now and in the near future, or to pay way, way more in the longer-term future. Lay it out there, make the voters aware of the painful choices.

    It seems like, at least to some extent, this “teaching moment” is happening now…better late than never, I suppose. But it shouldn’t have taken an article in the Los Angeles Times to bring this issue to our attention.

  25. tra
    December 9, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    Mitch,

    I like your idea at #23. Not only could the school district potentially save a bundle on interest, the interest it did pay would go into local pockets, cycling back trough the local economy, rather than simply being extracted and hauled off to wherever, by whomever.

  26. December 9, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    It’s hard to believe, tra, but even offering people 12% per year interest, the total outlay for $7 million amortized over 30 years would only have been $25,920,000, about 1/3 of what is currently scheduled.

  27. Anonymous
    December 9, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    This goes beyond class warfare. This is intergenerational warfare. Stealing from people who have not been born.

  28. Anonymous
    December 9, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    There are lots of approaches that could work, they will all be considered pie in the sky..

    Correct. What you dub ‘pie in the sky’ is also knows as unrealistic never-going-to-happen poppycock. That’s why CABs exist.

  29. Anonymous
    December 9, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    CABs exist because we have cheap chiselers in local government and greedy investment bankers to enable them. Wall St. has just reached right down into little McKinleyville and stolen its once happy future. Too fucking bad.

  30. December 9, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    I suspect both #28 and #29 are correct. And #27, too.

  31. Anonymous
    December 9, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    Here’s the deal.

    I am down here at the Avalon about to enjoy one of their $12 hamburgers. I borrowed the 12 bucks from my kids and I will pay them back in 12 monthly payments of $1.08.

    So that is all butter so to speak but here’s the problem. I am like halfway through building my meal and I realize that I didn’t order any tater tots! Fucking tater tots are $4.00!

    I know you will tell me hey no prob just go ask your kids for 4 bucks more but they gave me a 12 dollar limit! If they had given me more I would have gone to the Sea Grill for Christ sake.

    So I really don’t have much choice if I want to complete my meal project.

    Anyone have $4 they can lend me for 40 years? IOU $56 on Jan 1, 2052.

    We’ll keep in touch.

    Oh I forgot I am the handsome guy in the corner with the empty Scotch.

  32. December 9, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    Wrong restaurant, #31. Try breakfast or lunch at Renata’s Creperie, and you won’t want tater tots. Of course, if you drive to Arcata you’re contributing to global warming, and if you switch to McDonald’s you’ll have to bring your own booze or swipe it from a fellow customer.

    Life is filled with conundrums. That’s what makes it exciting, right?

    You could try panhandling for the $4; I hear it’s really easy. Or join Costco; they’ll sell you a big hot dog and coke for $1.50, and the clientele is far more respectable than that at the Avalon.

    But if none of that is acceptable, for a small fee I’ll be happy to work out a restructuring with your kids, offering your grandkids some unusual opportunities as well, all tax-free. How committed are you to the pickle?

  33. Anonymous
    December 9, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    OMFG Mitch your financial acumen is amazing bro.

    I just realized that I can leverage debt!

    I can borrow $13.00 to pay back the kids, a dollar kick back (I mean fee) to you for greasing the wheels (I mean facilitating the loan) and an extra dollar for me because I do need some walking around money, lets see thats $15 so anyone wanna loan me $15.00 for $200 due in 2052? The vig (I mean interest) is a sweeeeet 7%.

    We can discuss it over lunch at the Ingomar. You buy. Let’s be clear on that.

  34. Union pensioner
    December 9, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    Somebody has to pay for my lifetime pension and benefits. It might as well be your kids.

  35. December 9, 2012 at 9:39 pm

    #33,

    Two dollars for me, and I’m not your bro, bro. Don’t worry, it’s the standard percentage. There’s a lot of fees. Just remember, paying 12% to McKinleyville residents is poppycock, so I’m your only option.

  36. Union pensioner
    December 10, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    Anyone who doesn’t think government workers deserve higher pay and benefits for the marvelous job they do is a right wing communist the last election proved what the American people want. More government intervention.

  37. Cheers
    December 10, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    I absolutely agree with Mitch. Local schools should issue bonds to local investors and save tens of millions of dollars while paying excellent interest rates. Or, the schools can install less-expensive temporary classrooms and seek volunteers for construction and repairs from thousands of talented locals.

    The local unions might make exceptions based upon individual cases.

    However, I disagree with this quote by Mitch on 12/6:

    “They thought they’d successfully pried a buck from the self-centered, stupid, pathetic citizens that make up the California electorate, enough to pay to fix some roofs.”

    The dumbing-down of the potential electorate is illustrated by the less-than-half that participate because this story, like most relevant stories, will soon eclipse when reported at all. Will we see Ch 3 News or Times Standard reporters raising their hands to demand answers to tough questions? Will it remain front-section news until resolved?

    NEVER!

    “The paper’s not local to Humboldt, I’m afraid. Just local. The Times-Standard is on it, though. You can set your watch by it.” (Mitch 12/6/12, exactly!)

  38. Anonymous
    December 11, 2012 at 11:31 am

    What better lesson for our children, the nation, and the world, that we would have our children study in heated tents rather than burden them with debt.

    The hurricane ravaged schools on the East Coast remained open to teach, but primarily to continue to provide meals to poor children.

  39. Just Watchin
    December 11, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    Union pensioner :Anyone who doesn’t think government workers deserve higher pay and benefits for the marvelous job they do is a right wing communist the last election proved what the American people want. More government intervention.

    LMFAO…..Not a commie here, but goverment workers are leaches for everyone paying taxes.

  40. Anonymous
    December 11, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    “Leeches”?

    Take solace in your personal American heroes who looted billions in bailouts then opened factories in Vietnam, filling them with child-labor to perform high-tech U.S. jobs, then hide the loot offshore while American taxpayers subsidize their military protection, courts, technology and communications.

    And yet, so many fools haven’t a clue why our infrastructure is crumbling?

    You lost in the last election JW, it’s time to grieve and lick your minority wounds.

  41. Just Watchin
    December 12, 2012 at 7:54 am
  42. Just Disgusted
    December 12, 2012 at 8:33 am

    Here are two sentences from Just Watchin’s article.

    “The result isn’t only a heavier burden on California taxpayers. As higher expenses competed for fewer dollars, per- pupil funding of the state’s public schools dropped to 35th nationally in 2009-2010 from 22nd in 2001-2002.”

    Sometimes the devil is in the details. I’m all for cutting prison guard pay to what the market will bear. I’m all for insisting that overtime be spread equally among employees. And I’m all for firing every manager who has allowed overtime crimes. I’d also be for a requirement that payroll costs make up no more than a fixed percentage of money the taxpayers allocate for anti-poverty and social services programs, in order that such money actually goes to poor people.

  43. High Finance
    December 12, 2012 at 5:56 pm

    It is not that CAB’s in itself that is the problem. There are decents CAB’s and there are toxic CAB’s. It is the payback ration that is the problem.

    For example, a normal 5% 30 year mortgage has a payback of about 2 to 1. There are CAB’s out there that are close to that. They don’t have to be 10 to 1.

  44. Anonymous
    December 12, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    The LIAR returns.

    LIAR = Low Information And Republican

  45. Anonymous
    December 12, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    Maybe you can tell us how Eureka got 8 million $ behind in pension payments. Stealing from the employees comes to mind.

  46. Anonymous
    December 12, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    With media asleep at the wheel, no one will know until the moment Eureka retiree’s checks are recalculated after bankruptcy settlements.

    Eureka has been tens of millions behind in infrastructure updates for decades, resident complaints are ignored, local media are little more than cheerleaders for developers while citizens were being buried in infrastructure liabilities, sewer spills and triple digit water bills.

    It was smart money betting on Bonino and they know it.

    With status-quo republican acumen on the Mckinleyville school board, the money will keep flowing to local developers and the public always pays.

  47. Anonymous
    December 12, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    How does that money flow to developers. Please connect the dots for me.

  48. Anonymous
    December 12, 2012 at 10:28 pm

    It’s not your fault that no local media reports the dots! Hell, Hank Sims had to go to L.A. to find this story!

    Did you think it was charity driving our development community to typically outspend all political opposition to get their candidates elected to local offices!?

    They spend pennies and get back dollars by building local communities into moratoriums from subdivisions few local residents qualify to own, but are required to subsidize, while the elected officials they bought look the other way.

    If I were part of the development community, I would want members of my team in every public office, making damn sure there’s taxpayers money available to keep building stuff regardless of infrastructure limitations or having to forcing the public to pay back $10 for every $1 borrowed!

  49. Who is awake? Who is trolling me?
    December 12, 2012 at 11:14 pm

    For as long as I’ve been alive, here’s what I’ve witnessed schools doing with any and all money they get: building building building building building building….painting the buildings…building more buildings….paving parking lots for the new buildings…repainting the new buildings etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. Teachers should be paid more. Parents shouldn’t have to cough up money for their children to participate in scholastic activities. The nation is centered around the easy way out regarding “jobs” and “financing” and “economy”…that is all things “development”. The high school I went to hadn’t seen a fresh coat of paint in over 30 years, yet I feel I recieved an exponentially greater degree of attention and education because the focus of education was on individual attention and personal education. Teachers should be paid MORE, whereas “development” is a cannibalistic endevor, doomed to starve itself to unresolvable debt.

  50. Anonymous
    December 14, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    Anonymous :
    The LIAR returns.
    LIAR = Low Information And Republican

    I am offended by your lack of intelligence & maturity. In the past people like you at least knew enough not to speak to adults.

  51. Anonymous
    December 14, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    Who is awake? Who is trolling me? :
    For as long as I’ve been alive, here’s what I’ve witnessed schools doing with any and all money they get: building building building building building building….painting the buildings…building more buildings….paving parking lots for the new buildings…repainting the new buildings etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. Teachers should be paid more. Parents shouldn’t have to cough up money for their children to participate in scholastic activities. The nation is centered around the easy way out regarding “jobs” and “financing” and “economy”…that is all things “development”. The high school I went to hadn’t seen a fresh coat of paint in over 30 years, yet I feel I recieved an exponentially greater degree of attention and education because the focus of education was on individual attention and personal education. Teachers should be paid MORE, whereas “development” is a cannibalistic endevor, doomed to starve itself to unresolvable debt.

    It sounds like you are a teacher. You care more about the teacher than you do the children. Let the kids learn in hovels as long as the teacher has a fat paycheck you say? Pathetic.

  52. Anonymous
    December 17, 2012 at 6:22 am

    The reason they are building is because the codes change and buildings require maintenance. ADA requirements, earthquake retrofits, asbestos abatement, smaller class sizes. The voters keep approving these bonds, and it wasnt the developers pushing the bonds, that’s for sure.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,161 other followers