Rent Increase Survey

Have you submitted your latest rent increase data to the rent increase survey?

Special AUSD Meeting Tomorrow Night

AUSD has called a special Board meeting for tomorrow, Tuesday, night. On the agenda is the Cook/Dietrich lawsuit and a resolution about using vote-by-mail for a potential upcoming parcel tax.

Here is the full agenda:

Special Board Meeting
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
4:30 PM
Alameda Unified School District
Superintendent’s Conference Room
2200 Central Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
D. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION – Superintendent’s Conference Room
D-1. Conference with Labor Negotiators – Pursuant to Subdivision 54957.6
Agency designated representatives: Laurie McLachlan-Fry, Chief Human
Resources Officer and Danielle Houck, General Counsel
Employee Organizations: AEA, CSEA
Unrepresented Employees: Management, Psychologists, Behavioral Specialists,
Occupational Therapists, Confidential
D-2. Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release – Pursuant to Subdivision 54957
D-3. Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation – Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of
Section 54956.9
Beery et. al. v. AUSD, and Borikas, et. al. v. AUSD consolidated Case #RG
Kerry Cook and Serena Dietrich v. AUSD, Case #RG 10-498999
D-4. Initiation of Litigation: (1 case) Litigation Contemplated Against the State of
E-1. 2009/10 Second Interim Financial Report and Strategic Budget Reduction
Recommendations – Information
E-2. Resolution No. 10-0026 Ratify Memorandum of Understanding with Alameda
Education Association (AEA)
E-3. Resolution No.10-0025 Approval of an All Mail Ballot in June, 2010 for Potential
New Parcel Tax

6 comments to Special AUSD Meeting Tomorrow Night

  • R. Beck

    Before they decide to put this parcel tax on the ballot, that will cost anywhere from $150,000.00 to $200,000.00,($3.00-$5.00 per vote)
    I would like to know the outcome of the polling they did last month.
    How many people would be willing to more than double their property tax.This information should be made public.

  • R. Beck, I’m not sure how this will affect commercial businesses, but wouldn’t the cost of a parcel tax (a few hundred dollars) be more than offset by the retention or improvement of property values (measured in the 10’s of thousands) assuming AUSD improves or at least retain their reputation?

    I know there are plenty of reasons to rag on how AUSD will or will not spend the money, but for home-owners: doesn’t the simple math say that it’s better to accept the parcel tax instead of letting the schools go to sh*t?

  • R. Beck

    Jack, I am a commercial property owner and I am paying $1200. just for measure H alone not counting measure A and the bond we are all still paying off. To make matters worse, my longtime tenants both ask me for a rent reduction, which I granted. Everyone knows, business is bad, just look at the empty storefronts in the city. Ask some of the business owners how this is affecting them.Everyone agrees, the schools need the money, there is no question about that, but this has been going on now for a long time and our elected officials in Sacramento have completely ignored Alameda, starting with Perata.Jack, if you and people like you don’t mind paying a few hundred dollars more, why not make the tax $808.00 for everyone, that would bring in the $14million dollars AUSD say they need. Remember, measure H was supposed to be an emergency tax because measure A was not enough.What will prevent the District to come again in a couple of years with another tax. The economy will take years to recover and Sacramento is broke and on the verge of bankruptcy.People are angry at Washington, at Sacramento and also right here in our City. We are asked again and again to open up our wallets,pay more and more taxes, which is never enough no matter how much we pay.

  • R., I don’t disagree with anything you have said. It’s very frustrating for us all… and I have a natural distaste for these kinds of taxes.

  • In 2008, we suggested to Measure H proponents that they a) work on Sacramento fix the ADA inequity problem, and b) push back on the redevelopment machine – see the link below to the California Redevelopment Association’s (CRA) update page on the CRA lawsuit concerning the State’s attempt to transfer $2 billion of redevelopment funds from developer subsidies to schools. i.e. CRA is trying to block it.

    At that time, Measure H proponents said “There’s no time for that! We have to save the schools now!” If they did anything – lobbying Sacramento over redevelopment or ADA – between Measure H passing in 2008, and now, we would like to see it.

    The school board and Superintendent Vital are well aware of both of these issues. If anyone on the board, or at the District office, would like to share with us details of their lobbying efforts, we would be happy to write about it. But we’re right back to “There’s no time for that! We have to save the schools now!”

    It’s going to be very difficult for us to take an editorial stance in support of this new parcel tax.

  • Barb

    I hardly think that passing either of the last two school parcel taxes did anything to keep my property values from plummeting these last few years! Or the Hospital $300 parcel tax that is going to need anther parcel tax to earthquake proof the hospital.

    I won’t move until I am forced too. Why should I care how much the alleged parcel tax increase would benefit my heirs if it drives me out of my home now?

  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,