Vote Yes on Kern County Measure L - 2016 General Election
Are you a good listener? Keep your ear to the ground and let us know. Sign Up                                        Do you have an oversight or transparency nightmare to report about your district? Let the whole world know! Oversight Report Card                                        
Sign In

Use Ctrl-- (ctrl minus sign) to reduce text size, or Crtl-+ (ctrl plus sign) to increase.


  Commentary    Rebuttal in Favor    Argument Against  

Commentary on Measure L

VOTER ALERT!

This measure is a Proposition 46 measure requiring two-thirds voter approval. It is written as if it were a Proposition 39 (55%) measure and includes many, many things that are allowable under Proposition 39, but not under Proposition 46. Proposition 46 limits the use of bond proceeds to the "aquisition or improvement of real property." Improvement of real property does not include maintenance and repair. Furthermore, Proposition 39 allows bond funds to be spent on furnishings and equipment which Proposition 46 does not permit.

Are you sure you want vote to support this extravagant measure? It has no accountability.

This campaign was designed by Caldwell Flores Winters Inc. We figured out just the right words to get you to you to open up your checkbook.

We'd also like to introduce you to our partners -- bond lawyers, brokers, wealthy investors, architects, management firms, construction companies, and trade unions. We all stand to make a ton of money on these bonds. Our profits come right off the top, before a penny is actually spent on improving the facilities.

We're not just doing it for the money. We like to show off our work in Architectural Digest and other places where the rich and famous congregate.

Remember, we've taken a lot of risk. We gave money to get your governing board members elected, so they'd be sure to remember us when we came around for a hand-out later.

It's just business-as-usual, here in sunny Corruptifornia.

Please don't read the fine print. That's just put in by the lawyers to make what we're going to do to for you legal.

When you see highlighting in the documents below, it to see the commentary.

  Commentary    Rebuttal in Favor    Argument Against  

Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Measure L

Measure L Rebuttal to Support Argument

Providing safe, high quality learning environments for all students is critical. But it can and must be done in a manner that takes into consideration the fiscal impacts on the local community. If Measure L passes and is added to past bond measures, the district will have encumbered local residents and businesses with a total debt of $275 million. This debt means that every one of the 14,000 McFarland residents, men, women or children, will pay an average of $19,642 over the next 35 years to pay for school infrastructure. In 2018, an average homeowner will be paying an estimated $450 for McFarland Unified school bonds. With McFarland's median family income of $34,750; this tax burden is much higher than other districts in Kern County and not justified.

Michael Turnipseed
Kern County Taxpayers Association

233/250

  Commentary    Rebuttal in Favor    Argument Against  

Argument Against Measure L

Opposing Argument to Measure ___

McFarland Unified School District $100MM School Bond

The Kern County Taxpayers Association has developed a scorecard to evaluate school bond measures in Kern County. All ten school bond measures on the November ballot, including McFarland Unified, have been evaluated based on the following criteria:

1. Past Bond Performance: District voters have approved three previous bond authorizations, 1998, 2004, and 2012. The current outstanding debt is $23.7MM. The total debt cost, principal and interest, is $37.8MM. For 2016-2017, the tax rate on these bonds is $144.81/$100,000.

2. Needs and Wants: The District wants to build a new high school.

3. Project List: A new high school.

4. The Current Bond Proposal: $110MM to build a new high school.

5. Openness, Transparency, Communication. The other nine school districts, with bond measures on the November ballot, met with KernTax at least twice to discuss their district's needs and wants. Districts with more complex bond plans met several times. McFarland did not ask for any meetings, and the information provided for analysis was inadequate. No facts were provided to justify a $110MM bond for a new high school.

Conclusion: Plain and simple, when the current bond proposal is added to the three existing bonds in 2018, the total tax rate jumps to over $380/$100,000. We could not find another school district in the state with bond costs this high. The total debt cost jumps to $273MM. That's right, the taxpayers of McFarland Unified will be paying $273MM over the next 35 years. The median family home in McFarland is $118,800. In 2018, the median price homeowner will be paying an estimated $450 for McFarland Unified bonds on the property tax bill. With McFarland's median family income of $34,750, this tax burden is huge.

Michael Turnipseed
Kern County Taxpayers Association

  Commentary    Rebuttal in Favor    Argument Against  

 


Copyright © 2015-2017, Richard Michael. All Rights Reserved.