Joseph N. Bell -- Pro

We’ve finally reached the end of the trail.

In two weeks we will decide at the ballot box whether or not we are

willing to tax ourselves ever so slightly in order to provide our

children with civilized space in which to get an education. Not plush or

frivolous or ostentatious space. Just toilets that flush and faucets that

work and roofs that don’t leak.

I’ve been immersed in this issue for several months, and it is very

clear to me that it all comes back to the question I asked in my first

column on the school bonds: what is best for the kids?

I’ve listened to a cacaphony of adult voices making what I consider

unfair charges against the members of this school board, and tax

nay-sayers who apparently think they have no stake in helping to meet the

cost of educating our young people.

The argument that the taxpayers have no assurance the bond funds will

be spent properly by an untrustworthy school board has been addressed and

destroyed. No fair-thinking person could possibly pursue that argument in

the wake of the assessment of the bond proposal by Orange County

Treasurer John Moorlach.

Using criteria developed with a group of the toughest local anti-tax

conservatives, Moorlach gave the highest grades across-the-board to every

aspect of the Newport-Mesa bond proposal.

The main components of his assessment were: provision of a set-aside

fund for future maintenance; making sure the bond money would not cut

into the district’s future maintenance budget; making sure the bonds are

not all borrowed before the funds can be put to use; ensuring proper use

of the proceeds; and provision of a community oversight committee.

These are precisely the issues on which the bonds have been attacked

by opponents. How could their concerns possibly be dismissed in a more

effective way than the Moorlach report card? In a letter transmitting it

to school Supt. Robert Barbot, Moorlach wrote: “I firmly believe that

those registered voters in your district that intend to vote in favor of

your bond measure can do so with a strong confidence that it is being

pursued with the utmost professionalism and oversight.”

So it comes around, then, to the tax nay-sayers -- and especially

those local citizens who feel particularly put on because they are

already paying higher taxes for their Mello-Roos assessments. They say

they want “equity” in taxation.

But the kids who live in their school district want equity in leaking

roofs. Buying into a Mello-Roos community was a free choice that doesn’t

remove district-wide obligations to kids with leaking roofs -- especially

when the tax bite amounts to a dinner for two once a year at an upscale

Newport Beach restaurant.

If we’re talking about principle here rather than the size of the tax

bite, let’s look at it from the other end. The end that asks, “What’s

best for the kids?” If Measure A goes down, the school kids will be the

injured parties -- and equity in taxation will offer little solace for

that leaking roof.

We could debate endlessly the alleged past sins of the school

administration and school board -- and why this bond issue wasn’t put

before the voters sooner. But to what end?

We come back -- as we always will -- to the roof that leaks and the

toilet that won’t flush and what to do about it. Adult nit-picking in

that vacuum only creates more hot air.

As with any public issue, there are differing points of view, and I

have no personal quarrel with the people who oppose the school bonds. But

I would suggest that this isn’t just “any” public issue. It concerns the

needs of our children in a very substantial way -- needs they can do

nothing about. They can only depend on us to see that they are met

promptly and effectively. How we got here is now irrelevant, and chewing

this over must not be allowed to get in the way of action.

The needs have never been an issue. Even those most ardently opposed

to Measure A are appalled at the deterioration of our school plant. So

the issue is how and when to meet those needs. And it’s hard to imagine a

stronger, better protected, more detailed and highly professional

blueprint for action than Measure A. If you doubt that, check wih John

Moorlach.

So when you step into that polling place on June 6 -- and please do --

don’t kid yourself about the impact of voting “No.” Look it straight in

the eye. You are voting to deny perhaps a whole generation of kids in one

of the wealthiest areas in the country a clean, decent, safe and

wholesome environment in which to be educated.

Ask yourself if you are willing to pay that price to affirm whatever

principle you feel is being violated.

Meanwhile, hopefully -- so hopefully -- two-thirds of your friends and

neighbors will be voting “Yes.”

Before you pull that lever on June 6, take a moment to think about the

import of a “No” vote. And be honest with yourself. A vote agasint

Measure A may very likely condemn a whole generation of kids in one of

the wealthiest areas of the country to a public school education in

structures that a Third World country wouldn’t countenance.

* JOSEPH N. BELL writes a weekly column for the Daily Pilot.