Prop E Supporters Refuse to Accept Reality of ENORMOUS Costs of Prop E, Don’t Drink the CUSD Kool-Aid, Vote NO on Prop E

To Laugh or to Cry . . . That is the Question

laugh or cryIt’s difficult to know whether to laugh or cry at the things Prop E supporters write online.

To read our prior article enter Prop E Supporters Have It All Wrong & Seriously Underestimate the Cost & Duration of Bond Debt Repayment, Vote NO on Prop E, click here.

You’ll read in that prior article that . . . over at . . . a Prop E supporter named “Kathleen” is so very wrong, wrong, wrong about Prop E . . . in a comment she wrote targeting a Prop E opponent named Julia who posted a thoughtful comment.

Well, our friend “Kathleen” posted another comment after a friendly Prop E opponent let “Kathleen” know . . .  in a very nice way . . . that she was wrong about the cost of Prop E to property taxpayers. “Kathleen” seriously underestimated the cost of the proposed Prop E property tax hike on Julia.

We don’t know whether to laugh or cry . . . because . . . it’s amusing that “Kathleen” is firm in her denial . . . but it’s sad that she and voters like her are going to vote on Prop E when they don’t understand it at all.

We can’t help but notice that it’s CUSD’s job to inform voters about the true facts about Prop E since CUSD is trying to raise our property taxes over and above the constitutional limit set by the Proposition 13 constitutional amendment to the California State Constitution.

But . . . then again . . . voters who know the truth will vote NO on Prop E.

So you can see why CUSD continues to misinform voters . . . and Prop E supporters continue to be misinformed.

The Friendly Comment to “Kathleen”

Here’s the friendly comment to “Kathleen.” You’ll notice the tone and content is very nice and neighborly.

buy generic doxycycline mr rogers hello neighborJerry Toci May 08, 2014 at 03:44 PM
Kathleen, I agree with Mr. Tato, Jim Brown and Julia Viera. You misread the bond’s repayment formula. Piper Jaffray touts an example of tax increase for homeowners as being $32.87 per year per $100,000 of ASSESSED VALUATION (a $1mil home would pay $328.70 per year) HOWEVER, as is fully disclosed in the Voter Information Pamphlet, the amount will be determined by what the bonds actually SELL for, and the cost to homeowners can be up to 12 TIMES that amount. Further, the school district and underwriters can make us pay such an amount for 10, 25, or 40 years! CUSD plans to spend the money within 9 years, after which the overpaid administrators will be long gone, collecting their fat pensions. To repay this unnecessary $29 million loan, homeowners actually will shell out $42 million – $60 million dollars! The bonding costs are enormous. Think about how many truly beneficial, long-lasting projects could be built with that much money.

“Kathleen’s” Second Unfriendly Comment

kool aid oh yeahAs we wrote in our prior article available here, “Kathleen’s” first comment wasn’t just WRONG . . . it was bullying, patronizing, condescending and entitled.

Well, her second comment is more of the same:

Kathleen May 09, 2014 at 01:07 AM
I didn’t misread anything. YOU are mistaken, Mr. Toci. You’re spreading misinformation and outright lies. I provided Julia with correct information about what her annual bond debt would be and it is only for 10 years…that’s it! I support our CUSD Board of Trustees and our Superintendent. You should consider being part of the solution instead of the problem. Sacramento is the villain here not CUSD and our kids deserve better. Vote YES on E!!!


The Problems with “Kathleen’s” Second Unfriendly Comment

wrong logo

Whew! There are so many problems with “Kathleen’s” comment . . . it’s difficult to know where to begin.

Let’s discuss 8 of the problems with “Kathleen’s” unfriendly comment.

Read the Ballot Pamphlet for the Facts – Don’t Be Hoodwinked by CUSD’s Pro-Tax Hike Spin

First, she did indeed misread the bond repayment formula.

It’s silly for “Kathleen” to insist that Julia’s total property tax hike would be “only” $32.87 per year for 10 years.

fool and his money are soon partedAccording to our Ballot Pamphlet materials . . . which we assume “Kathleen” hasn’t read and won’t ever read . . . if Julia’s house was worth $1.5 million, her property tax hike would look like this:

  1. $39.87 per $100,000 assessed property value (times 15) = $598.05 per year for the first bond issue for up to 40 years = $23,922
  2. $31.19 per $100,000 assessed property value (times 15) = $467.85 per year for the second bond issue for up to 40 years = $18,714
  3. $39.87 per $100,000 assessed property value (times 15) = $598.05 per year for the third bond issue for up to 40 years = $23,922.

Total Prop E property tax hike for Julia could be up to almost $67,000!

Stop Calling Prop E Opponents Wrong – Prop E Opponents are Right

P.T. Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute.

P.T. Barnum was right. There’s a sucker born every minute.

Second, Mr. Toci isn’t mistaken. He’s correct.

It’s common knowledge that the repayment of school bond debts is usually double or triple the face value. So CUSD’s $29 million face value of General Obligation Bonds . . . called GO Bonds . . . will probably cost Coronado taxpayers $58 – 87 million!

Stop Falsely Accusing Prop E Opponents of Lying – CUSD & Prop E Pundits Are Obviously Lying To You

Third, “Kathleen” is way over the line wrong when she accuses Mr. Toci of “spreading misinformation and outright lies.”

Project much? ‘Nuf said.

Stop Underestimating the Enormous Costs of the Prop E Bond Debts – Think About It – Would There Be Such an Uproar Against Prop E If It “Only” Cost Us Next to Nothing?

Fourth, “Kathleen” clearly provided misinformation to Julia.

neighbors talkingFor goodness sakes . . . if merely $38.97 per year for 10 years is all that Coronado property taxpayers would be forced to pay for the Prop E property tax hike burden of debt repayment of principal plus interest . . . like “Kathleen” stubbornly and incorrectly insists . . . do you think there would be such strong opposition to Prop E as exists in our community?

Of course not.

Opponents of Prop E . . . UNDERSTAND  . . . Prop E. That’s why we’re voting NO on Prop E on June 3.

Indeed, as Mr. Toci wrote, “The bonding costs are enormous.” 

Stop Insisting Coronado Property Taxpayers Will Be Able to Pay Back the Principal & Interest on the 3 Series of Prop E School Bonds in 10 Years – CUSD’s Rosy Prediction of 10 Years is Improbable & Unenforceable

Roll over dogFifth, the bond debt repayment would probably last BEYOND 10 years. CUSD stated it intends to issue three series of bond debts in 10 years. CUSD will take it’s money and run . . . and leave us with the bill . . . to repay the principal plus interest on the school bond debts.

Regardless of what the CUSD snake oil salesmen promise voters to trick them into voting for Prop E . . . it can take us . . . the property taxpayers . . . legally . . . up to 40 years under the law to pay back the bond debt of principal and interest.

CUSD can re-finance the bond debt issues . . . over and over again for 40 years . . . it’s called “rolling over” the bond debt . . . and there’s nothing we can do about it if Prop E passes.

CUSD re-financed . . . rolled over . . . the 1998 Prop KK CUSD school bond debts in 2012. CUSD has rolled over its  bond debt before . . . it will do so again. Past behavior is the best predictor of future performance.

It’s common knowledge that bond debt repayment . . . for each bond issue . . . usually . . . and legally . . . takes around 25-40 years.

pool-lap-swimmersCUSD’s snake oil salesmen and pundits are trying to hoodwink voters into believing that all debt will be repaid . . . by Coronado property taxpayers . . . in 10 years. But CUSD can’t legally be held to any of its rosy promises. This is all explained in your Ballot Pamphlet materials . . . and on this website.

CUSD doesn’t control the bond market . . . CUSD doesn’t control the bond interest rates . . . so . . . LEGALLY . . . CUSD could force us to repay the Prop E bond debt for up to 40 years!

Open your eyes . . .  Read your Ballot Pamphlet materials . . . Refuse to be misinformed like “Kathleen” is misinformed.

fool court jesterStop Trying To Shame Prop E Opponents Into Joining You in Your Folly

Sixth, “Kathleen” tries to target Mr. Toci as the problem . . . and tries to shame Mr. Toci out of his correct interpretation of the bond repayment program . . . by writing “you should consider being a part of the solution instead of part of the problem.”

What the what? The “problem” is that Prop E supporters don’t understand Prop E  . . . and refuse to listen to reasonable people who explain Prop E to them.

Stop Making the State (Sacramento) the Villain – Demand Financial Transparency, Accountability & Reason from CUSD Who Created Its Financial Woes By Ignoring the Needs of Our Children

snidely whiplash villainSeventh, “Kathleen” regurgitates the Big Lie that “Sacramento (the State of California) is the villain here not CUSD” . . . when we know CUSD’s well-documented wasteful spending and financial mismanagement is the problem . . . heck . . . CUSD received a $3.2 million INCREASE in funding in 2013 and still spent more than it “raked in” in revenues in 2013.

CUSD’s claims of “the sky is falling” and the State (Sacramento) is villain who caused our “financial crisis” . . . are silly.

The people responsible for CUSD’s financial woes are the people who are running CUSD . . . into the ground.

Wake up!

Girl Playing Hide and Seek in ParkStop Hiding Behind the Children

Eighth, “Kathleen” falls back on “the children deserve better” when . . . in fact . . . the children of CUSD could have had $3.2 million in INCREASED revenues . . . for classes, programs, teachers, and more . . . but CUSD administrators and trustees wasted that windfall on everything but the children . . . superintendent’s 20% raise . . . top heavy administration’s compensation . . . attorneys . . . outside consultants . . . travel  . . . conferences . . . the School Pool boondoggle!

The Children Deserve Better Than Prop E

The children of CUSD deserve better administrators and better trustees who focus on the CHILDREN instead of greedily grasping non-stop for more money . . . money . . . money . . . to feed their overspending addiction.

happy childrenThe children of CUSD deserve better teachers who don’t refuse to teach their students in class . . . and instead waste an entire class period to propagandize to non-voting children about CUSD’s “financial crisis” (of CUSD’s own creation) and CUSD’s  “desperate need” for (unnecessary) Prop E. Yes, parents have told us they are upset that their children’s teacher refused to teach an entire English class and instead propagandized about Prop E . . . to non-voting students . . . who weren’t taught that day. Professional teachers who care about children don’t deprive students of teaching or conduct political propaganda sessions during class time. For shame!

The children of CUSD deserve better voters who care enough to vote NO on Prop E . . . in order to force CUSD . . . to cut its well-documented wasteful spending . . . to live within its means . . . and to responsibly manage this small public school district in our small town.

Reach Out to Prop E Supporters and Help Them Understand

neighbors talking over fenceIf you know voters like “Kathleen,” please reach out to them in a friendly, neighborly way . . . like Mr. Toci did on Coronado Patch . . . and help them understand Prop E.

If they are addicted to the CUSD Kool-Aid, you probably can’t reach them.

But if they didn’t drink the Kool-Aid yet, you may be able to help them see that the costs of Prop E will be enormous.

Don’t let your friends and neighbors underestimate the cost and duration of Prop E.

When voters cast misinformed votes, we all lose.

Vote NO on Prop E

credit card cat d2a1104b495a52e2d88ba0876dfee1ba67bab5b6b93613c6f9c0cfc347ae48afVote NO on Prop E because it’s too expensive.

Vote NO on Prop E because it’s simply another credit card for CUSD to max out like a spoiled child.

Vote NO on Prop E because it’s the only way that CUSD will be forced to stick to a reasonable budget plan.

Vote NO on Prop E on June 3.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Articles, School Pool Boondoggle, Silly Pro-Prop E Campaign Promises