Letters to the Editor

Registered users may submit a Letter to the Editor after they first log in.

Editor:
Here we go again. As a property owner, we currently pay on two measures each year: School Measure B1 for $984.00 and Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) Measure A for $815.00. This does not include the 40% of the property tax that is allocated for the schools. These numbers are from our own 2021 property tax bill. They go up every year.

Now we have a new additional measure on the June 7 ballot that is asking for more money from property owners. Look at what has gone up so far this year! If you have an apartment(s) that you rent out, the allowable amount that you are allowed to increase does not cover the increases in re-occurring bills, such as property taxes, garbage, PG&E (gas) and EBMUD, going up 8%.

One other thought on Measure B. Why are the banks receiving 42% and the schools only receiving 58% from every dollar? And remember, this measure is not fully paid off until 2057!

What I’m really upset about is that seniors are not exempt from Measure B. At least the two current measures, seniors are exempt. At what point do we say enough, the well is dry? Remember, Governor Gavin Newsom just announced billions of more money for schools. Speaking of money paid per school districts, it is a fact that AUSD is one of the highest cities in the county.

What about the State Lottery? We were told millions would be allocated to schools. Where is all that money? How much has Alameda Schools received from the State Lottery? And finally, what about COVID relief funds for schools? Did AUSD request money from the Federal Government?

Please vote NO on Measure B.

— Robert Farrar

Editor:
The writers of the article, (“Argument Against Measure B,” May 12) in last week’s Alameda Sun seem to be confused about how bond measures work. It’s not unusual that a bond comes with interest that must be paid, and it’s not “buried” in the measure. This is simply how bonds work, and yet they cast it as something secret and nefarious. Bond measures are a tool for school districts in California to secure the funds they need to support building costs in the absence of state funding. It’s not the ideal way to fund our schools, but cities’ hands are tied by California State law and it’s the tool we have available.
The letter writers also argue that Alamedans are already paying too much in taxes to support our schools, but then propose a (much harder to pass) parcel tax as an alternative to the bond measure.

This makes it clear that the writers simply don’t want to pay to improve Alameda schools. That’s a fair position to take, but the fact that they feel the need to resort to these misleading, illogical arguments speaks volumes. They’re hoping Alameda voters aren’t paying attention.

Measure B is a garden-variety bond measure, like countless others that support the infrastructure of school districts all across the state. The cost is modest and the investment will support our schools for decades to come.

If you are in favor of strengthening our schools as well as the fields, theaters, pools and other facilities enjoyed by all Alamedans, Measure B should be an easy yes.

— Andy Murdock

Editor:
In woke parts of California, many public schools were brought to full scale arrestment on Friday, May 6 to protest the Supreme Court hitherto non-decision on Roe v. Wade.

Because I teach a racist topic, i.e., math, at a public high school, and worse, I insist on classroom order and decorum, and grades that reflect academic performance, many students have accused me of being a Republican, a conservative and yes, even a Trumpster.

Amid the recent controversy, the interrogations of my students have become more direct and demanding; they ask, “Mister Smith, are you Pro-Life?”

As a political invertebrate and social chameleon and for the sake of job security and the safety of my car in the parking lot, I assure them I am not Pro-Life; that in fact, I am Anti-Life and see eventual human extinction as the only solution to Global Warming, rising commodity prices and as an effective means of finally relieving all human suffering.

While many students do not understand the Supreme Court’s Constitutional mandate or stare decisis, they do have a profound understanding of “Student Walk-Out,” particularly the phrase “Walk-Out.”

As informed and uninformed citizens, they eagerly exercised that Constitutional right to grant themselves active participation in the Democratic Process, to gain access to a three-day weekend and to sidestep an education for at least another day.

As revealed in the news, Washington security forces have erected a security fence circumscribing the Supreme Court. Who could argue with that prudent gambit?

But a close examination of the fencing reveals that it is the same fencing that for a while inscribed the White House, then retroactively encircled Congress and now graces the recently festooned Supreme Court.

For socially responsive students who busily text message in civics class, this is a good way of highlighting the concept of the three countervailing branches of our federal government.

As a closet conservative, I can appreciate the left’s eagerness to redirect attention away from nagging issues like inflation, falling real wages, gasoline prices, impending food shortages, escalating crime, the semipermeable porous border, the educational value of critical race theory and of course the contents of Hunter’s laptop and the Russian collusion hoax.

At this point, the people with their itchy fingers on the triggers of fully charged bull horns, who are amicably screaming at each other outside the Supreme Court perimeter fence are merely demonstrating.

But two burning questions come to mind.

One, knowing the liberal press’ penchant for hyperbole, at what point will this vociferous protest be redesignated as an insurrection, a revolt, or an attempted coup?

And two, how many times can Washington security forces safely recycle that same old fencing?

— Lieutenant Commander Jeffrey R. Smith, U.S. Navy Retired

Pages