Margret Buckley Schmidt

Argument Against Measure A

Pizza? Proponents soft-pedal the cost of making payments on this bond, comparing the tax to the cost of a pizza. However, if you own or rent a home assessed at $300,000 today, you can expect to pay an extra $600--$1,200 over the life of this bond.

Looking back: If trustees had set aside $2.7 million for each of the last 25 years--anticipating repairs--they would have had $148 million in the bank today (if invested at 6%). Every condominium association in California is required by law to plan this way. Responsible planners don't let property deteriorate and then ask residents to take out "second mortgages" after the fact.

Vote against irresponsible planning! Our community colleges are not presently encumbered with debt, and there is no reason to start down that road today.

Going into debt for 25 years to make repairs today is like starting a lifetime smoking habit to lose 10 pounds. --And once politicians get into the bond debt habit they never quit.

Costs: Bond advocates want to blow $148 million now, and then spend over $10 million annually thereafter on investor payments for the next 25 years (totaling over $250 million). Most purchases would deteriorate before they're paid for!

Because bondholders are paid interest of roughly 5-1/2% every year, taxpayers would spend almost twice as much money for the same purchases as under a pay-as-you-go discipline. Every American who has ever declined a credit card knows this. Why don't the incumbents get it?

Looking forward: If--instead of going into debt--we simply budgeted $5.92 million of current revenue for maintenance and upgrades each year, we'd spend the same $148 million in total--and some of the equipment would be new every year. That's fair to every generation.

SAY NO TO DEBT!

/s/ Margret Buckley Schmidt
Candidate, Community College District Governing Board

/s/ John J. "Jack" Hickey
Candidate, Community College District Governing Board

/s/ Lacy Nelson
Chairman Pro Tem., Libertarian Party of San Mateo County

/s/ David L. Collins
Resident, San Mateo Highlands

Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Measure A

It's true! An "unprecedented" number of people have their hands on the public purse today. --Witness the politicians lining up to raise your taxes! They should be ashamed--not proud.

Where did the money go?

• Since 1992, District property tax revenue growth far outpaced inflation: 70% to 22%.
• Bay Area sales tax revenue rose 36% from 1993 to 1997.
• County property tax revenue increased by almost 9% last year alone!

Taxes already on the books could pay for everything on the proponents' wish list, with only a minimum of patience. No increase in the tax rate is necessary.

Coffee?? They compare the cost of this bond to 170,000,000 cups of coffee. So what?! There are only about 250 thousand families in San Mateo County to pay for all that spending--$250 million in principle and interest. That's about $1000 on average per family in new taxes, no matter how you count it.

Forget something? The #1 use of Measure A funds--nearly half the total--would be interest payments.

This is NOT a referendum on the value of our community colleges. They will continue to be well funded by the taxes we already pay whether this measure passes or fails. Last year, SMCCCD got 8.7% of all property taxes collected.

This IS a vote on bonded indebtedness--passing costs to another generation of taxpayers, many of whom are too young to vote or haven't been born yet.

SAY NO TO DEBT! Vote NO on Measure A!

/s/ Margret Buckley Schmidt
Candidate, Community College District Governing Board

/s/ John J. "Jack" Hickey
Candidate, Community College District Governing Board

/s/ Vi Gotelli
Former Mayor, Pacifica

/s/ Christopher R. Inama
Economics Professor, Attorney

/s/ Wayne Harter
Tax Preparer