I couldn’t figure out another way to reply, Jim, as comments are already closed on this article you posted yesterday.
You make several points that are worth discussing. I’m glad you bring up another jurisdiction’s course of action for dealing with financial issues; there are like 900 school districts in the state, and I wish I knew more about ideas that have worked, that have failed, etc. There’s a whole body of knowledge out there that I just don’t have.
Unfortunately, rather than an analysis of the pro’s & con’s of the Del Mar Prop CC, you use this rejected proposition as an analogy. Traditionally, analogy is the weakest form of logical argument – if A is like B in some ways, they are also different in many others. As a result, I don’t find your argument compelling; maybe that’s just me.
1. You say the the SD County Taxpayers Association “does not support” Prop E. While true, it’s not really the whole story, is it? SDCTA is actually “neutral” on the issue; whereas they actually opposed the Del Mar proposition. Yet you don’t discuss why their opinion differs between the two, which would be a central weakness in your argument. For the organization that gives out San Diego’s “Golden Fleece” awards to rate a bond issue as “neutral”, they must think it’s at least worth consideration. There’s a great analysis on their website, which describes the SDCTA’s rationale for a Neutral rating: see it here.
2. Where did San Diego Tax Fighters (which appears to be one guy, Richard Rider) announce their opposition to Prop E? It’s not in SDTF’s voter guide (here), nor on Mr. Rider’s own blog (here).
3. Your statement about GO bonds (“are for immediate facility needs, NOT for a wish-list of future, undefined projects or scheduled maintenance.”): Once again, you cite SDCTA’s rejection of the Del Mar Prop CC as evidence that Prop E should be rejected. However…. the SAME ORGANIZATION doesn’t agree with the way you’re using their two positions. Again: they opposed Prop CC, and they’re at least neutral on Prop E. Why the difference? You don’t explain.
4. This notion (which is, in fact, in SDCTA’s point paper on Prop E) that there is no clearly defined list of projects, with associated schedules, execution plans, etc. It’s true. But these bonds are intended to pay for projects over the next ten years; how can you develop a scripted execution plan for repairs in that timeframe? Here’s another analogy: I don’t know if you own a house, but it seems that guessing at all the preventive & corrective maintenance projects, as well as potential upgrade projects, would be a fools game ten years out. What if the hot water heater blows tomorrow? What if the dishwasher lasts an unexpected 10 extra years? It seems using a categorical approach to expenses, which is what the CUSD Long Range Facilities Maintenance Management Plan appears to do, is about as close as you can get. If the bond issue had detailed projections of all the possible repair & maintenance projects, including program execution plans, schedules, etc., they wouldn’t be able to deal with actual requirements when they occurred, if they differed at all from this scripted guess at our future facilities needs. The Long Range Facilities Maintenance Management Plan looks like a logical document – have you examined it? If so, what’s wrong with the strategy laid out by CUSD? (Once again, SDCTA is not opposed to this Plan.)
5. Your statement about Del Mar Prop CC wanting to pay for IT with the bond proceeds. It’s not a good analogy. In Coronado, what IT requirements will be paid for with Prop E funds? It appears to me that the proceeds will support payment of Fund 40 IT requirements… but that’s not buying all the students their own iPad.
6. Your frankly provocative (and unfounded) description of the Prop E development process. Prop E was “cobbled together only 5-6 months ago”, ending up in a “rush job” and “generic wish-list”. The timeline was compressed due to the issue’s urgency. Frankly, your comparison to SDUSD’s FOUR YEAR STUDY for Props S&Z demonstrates another problem with weak analogies; SDUSD had that kind of time. CUSD does not; they’ve burned through most of their operating reserve, and either had to make drastic cuts or identify a new source of funding And I don’t know if you participated in any of the workshops conducted by CUSD – they were painstaking, detailed, and anything but a “rush job”. Same with the Maintenance Management Plan. Have you read it? It doesn’t sound like it from your post.
7. Your statement regarding CliffordMoss is taken from the marketing pitch they used to describe their services to CUSD in support of communicating the need for Prop E; why is it relevant to a discussion of the Proposition’s merits? Your quote from CliffordMoss is taken completely out of context – it’s a communications consultant selling her services, not a statement of Prop E’s purpose or benefits.
Based on the precarious logic and assumptions made throughout your post, I remain unconvinced that there’s a real analogy w/ Del Mar’s Prop CC. And because you fail to include a balanced assessment of facts not helpful to your thesis, your recommendation to reject Prop E fails to sway me too.
–
