Why should we pay for more school bonds?
Is there any place I can go to find a list of bonds that have been approved, how many have been sold, and where the funding is going (local and state)?
I believe that bonds are one of the most expensive ways we can fund new projects, yet our state and local governments persist in providing bond measures as the only way to perform capital improvements because they don't directly raise taxes--although down the road they do because such a large percentage of our general funds will go to paying off bonds that we'll need a tax increase to pay for essential
services.
We pay $3.4 billion for every $2 billion in bonds we approve, according to the election pamphlet. Instead, why can't we appropriate a small sum of money into a savings account over just as many years as we spend paying off the bonds and earn 5 percent interest over time, instead of paying 5.5 percent interest?
The city of Sunnyvale doesn't request bonds to repave roads, or to improve its city infrastructure. Our townhouse association has been saving money for 10 years now for new roofs, which will be needed in the next 10 years; thus I won't be assessed a special fee to pay for new roofs. Personally, I also try to save money in anticipation of buying a new car because it's much cheaper than paying the interest on a loan. Why can't our state and educational districts fund projects in advance?
In particular, I'm concerned about all the educational bond measures we are "afflicted" with. Proposition 203 is a $2 billion bond act on our ballot this month that isn't even discussed on the ballot pamphlet, so the discussion of bond debt in the ballot pamphlet is inaccurate. There will be a $34 million bond act at a special election in June for the SESD.
On the same page of The Sun (Feb. 28) that talks about the merits of this is a discussion about the $71 million bond act already in effect for the CUSD.
How are these bond acts different? If the state provides a bond act for educational facilities, why do individual districts need their own bonds? Is it because we can't count on the state providing the money locally? If so, then why should I vote for the state act? If the state will provide the money locally, then why should I vote for the local bonds? Do we really need to pay off the high interest on both sets of bonds?
In particular, regarding the SESD bond act, why couldn't they have put the bond act on the March or November ballots, saving the money of a costly special election in June? I seem to recall a special election in June 1995 for a bond act as well. Surely the costs for these special elections could be better used by the school districts directly, and use a standard election for the bond measures instead.
There is an alternative, as I mentioned above, called saving and planning for capital improvements, rather than using expensive bonds to pay for the shortsightedness of the past. When will someone stand up for what we really need--good planning, savings, money management, and capital expenditure planning, so we can earn interest, instead of pay interest?
Ken Gudan
Crescent Terrace
Ken_Gudan@quickmail.apple.com
According to Doris Wilson, superintendent of Sunnyvale Elementary School District, the CUSD bond is exactly the same type of bond as the one proposed in SESD. It is called a general-obligation bond, and its tax is based on assessed value of every parcel of property within that school district.
To obtain records of various bonds passed, citizens should query individual school districts within Santa Clara County or the state treasurer's office in Sacramento.
For more information about state Proposition 203, see page 14. --Editor
This article appeared in the Sunnyvale Sun, March 20, 1996.
©1996 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.