2 Views of Proposition 26

Re “Yes on Majority Bond Vote,” editorial, Feb. 20.

Ninety million dollars. That is the amount saved in interest cost by the taxpayers in Thousand Oaks when they fought the bond measure by the Conejo Valley Unified School District.

The district first proposed a $97-million bond to be paid over 40 years. Because much of the money was to be spent on repairs--roofing, asphalt and the purchase of equipment that has a 15-year life--we argued the term was too long. The measure received a majority but lacked the two-thirds required.

The district came back with a special election, this time reducing the repayment period to 30 years, and again we argued that it made no sense to pay for 30 years for equipment that would have to be replaced in 15 years. It is analogous to taking out a 20-year loan to buy a car. Again, the measure received a majority vote but lacked the two-thirds.

On the third try the district reduced the amount from $97 million to $88 million, but, more important, changed to 15-year bonds. That measure passed.

An amortization table comparing a $97-million bond over 40 years with an $88-million bond for 15 years shows the interest saving of $90 million.

Local school bonds are added to the property tax bill where state school bonds are paid out of the state’s general fund. Has The Times forgotten the pre-Proposition 13 years when property taxes were so high people had to sell their homes because they could not afford those taxes? Do we want a repeat of those times? Vote no on Proposition 26.

JERE ROBINGS

Thousand Oaks

*

A yes vote on Proposition 26 on the March 7 ballot is a vote for local control of our local public schools. It would enable local school districts to invest in our children and fix our schools now. Make California children our top priority, as 46 of 50 states have made their children. Eliminate the unfair two-thirds vote requirement that has left many California schools dilapidated, unsafe and severely overcrowded.

Proposition 26 would not raise taxes, only provide the tools to fix our schools when they need fixing. The language of the proposition holds school districts strictly accountable for every dollar spent. Local school district bonds passed with a simple majority would require construction to be completed on time and on budget. Voters would get a detailed list of all projects before election day so that all local bond money is spent on projects approved by you. Additionally, districts would undergo two annual independent audits of bond proceeds making sure that every penny is spent on school facilities--not salaries or operating expenses.

The average public school in Ventura County is 45 years old and in dire need of repair and modernization. Ventura County is growing and our public schools are filled to capacity in many areas. The solution is building new schools and classrooms in some communities. Proposition 26 would empower communities to build school classrooms and tap state bond resources for half the bill.

A yes vote on Proposition 26 would enable Ventura County to maintain our outstanding local public schools. I ask you to let the local voters decide when schools need fixing and join me on March 7 in voting yes on Proposition 26.

CHARLES WEIS

Ventura County Superintendent

of Schools