The Internet Is the Scene of The Crime Where Prop E Supporters Seriously Underestimate the COST & DURATION of Prop E Bond Debt Repayment
Social media is a double-edged sword. The internet makes it easier to spread important information. Unfortunately, many times the information that’s being spread is wrong, wrong, wrong. Take Prop E supporters. They are spreading so much misinformation online, it’s overwhelming. Why do they do it? Because voters who know the truth will vote NO on Prop E on June 3.
Prop E supporters seriously underestimate the cost and duration of the Prop E b bond debt repayment.
Are you tired of Prop E supporters crying “victim” and calling you “mean” while they bully you and say mean things about you? You’re not alone. Prop E supporters are bold enough to bully others online who don’t agree with them. But Prop E supporters aren’t thoughtful enough to check the facts.
Reading – Put Down That Kool-Aid and Read the Facts
Here’s page 7 of the 2013 CUSD audit: To read the entire 2013 CUSD audit by Christy White Associates, click here. Here’s what we read on page 7 above in black and white: CUSD’s funding INCREASED by $3.2+ million in 2013. Look at the “Net Change” column (vertical) for the “Total Revenues” row (horizontal) . . . CUSD’s revenue went up $3,236,883 . . . that’s $3.2+ million. Here’s what we heard voters read in an online item:
Bombshell #2: Audit Proves CUSD funding INCREASED $3.2 million in 2013! Sounds true to us. The facts speak for themselves. Here’s what we heard a Prop E supporter wrote in response to that online item: “That’s a deceitful lie.” Really? A true fact . . . CUSD’s funding INCREASED $3.2 million in 2013 . . . is called a “deceitful lie” by a Prop E supporter? Prop E supporters need to accept the reality of true facts . . . not embarrass themselves and mislead others by calling a true fact a “lie.” Put down that CUSD Kool-Aid . . . Open your eyes . . . Read the facts . . . CUSD is lying to our community by saying that they are in a “financial crisis” because their “funding decreased.” You know who Prop E supporters should be angry at? CUSD . . . for manipulating them into believing their Big Lies of “decreased funding” and “financial crisis.” You know who Prop E supporters should stop bullying and being mean to? NO on E voters . . . who refuse to drink CUSD’s Kool-Aid.
Mathematics – Dissection of a Typical Internet Comment From a Prop E Supporter
Over at www.Coronado.Patch.com, John Tato posted his article Reasons to Oppose Proposition E on why he’s voting NO on Prop E. A thoughtful commenter named Julia posted a comment on why she’s voting NO on Prop E. This is America . . . we have our First Amendment right of free speech . . . well, no, not really . . . there’s no real freedom of speech in Coronado with Prop E supporters around. A pro-tax hike commenter named “Kathleen” tried to set Julia straight . . . except she didn’t. All “Kathleen” did was prove that she can’t read and she can’t add numbers. Poor thing. “Kathleen” doesn’t understand Prop E, but she’s voting for it. It’s interesting to us that “Kathleen” completely ignored John Tato’s Patch article, with its well-researched facts and its mountain of evidence against Prop E. It’s interesting that “Kathleen” targeted Juila for to bully online. If “Kathleen” understood the true facts, she would vote AGAINST Prop E. Read it all on Patch by clicking here. Here’s “Kathleen’s” comment: Kathleen May 05, 2014 at 08:46 PM Julia, Based on your home’s assessed value, you would only have to pay $32.87 per year for the school bond. That’s just $.09 a day. It would be nice if a bridge toll could be used to support our schools, but that is CALTRANS and that money will never be allowed to support CUSD. Oh, brother. There are so many things wrong with “Kathleen’s” comment! Where do we begin? First, it’s creepy that “Kathleen” thinks she knows the assessed value of Julia’s home. How did she find out where Julia lives? After she figured out where Julia lives, did “Kathleen” call the San Diego County Tax Collector to get the true assessed value for Julia’s house?
Second, where the heck did “Kathleen” come up with $32.87? If “Kathleen” read her Ballot Pamphlet page PR-1301-3, which is easily available to her online or in her mailbox, she would know that the rosy predictions from CUSD superintendent Felix were 3 separate bond issues for a total face value of $29 million with rosy, estimated costs to property owners of:
- $31.19, and
Not $32.87. Sorry, “Kathleen.” You’re wrong. Third, if “Kathleen” read her Ballot Pamphlet page PR-1301-3, she would know that CUSD’s rosy cost prediction is PER $100,000 ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUE. So, unless Julia’s house is assessed at $100,000 . . . which is impssoble . . . “Kathleen” got it wrong again. The way bond cost predictions work is you take the estimated dollar amounts and multiply (times) them by each $100,000 of the assessed value of your property . . . which the County Tax Collector assesses . . . not CUSD . . . in order to calculate your property tax hike for the proposed Prop E school bond. So if Julia’s house is worth $1.5 million, that’s $39.87 and $31.19 times 15 because there are 15 $100,000s in $1.5 million. Or, to put the same concept another way, $1.5 million divided by $100,000 is 15. And remember . . . our assessed property values increase at the whim of the County Tax Assessor . . . which increases CUSD’s amount of our tax dollars they “rake in” every year . . . and . . . it also increases the potential Prop E burden on property owners over the years. This is BASIC MATH . . . not nuclear physics. So using basic math, along with “Kathleen’s” wrong number, if Julia’s house was assessed at $1.5 million, the cost per year of her property tax hike . . . over and above her annual tax hike under Proposition 13 . . . would be (“Kathleen’s” wrong number) $32.87 times 15 . . . which is $493.05 per year . . . or nearly $500 per year . . . not $32.87 per year as “Kathleen” incorrectly wrote. To add insult to injury, “Kathleen” incorrectly chides Julia by writing that her (completely wrong) property tax hike of $32.87 is “9 cents per day” . . . wrong again, “Kathleen.” Fourth, why does “Kathleen” feel entitled to tell Julia that Julia would “only” have to pay (insert any amount of property tax hike here). Who died and made “Kathleen” boss? Why does “Kathleen” feel entitled to patronize Julia and tell her, essentially, to shut up and give CUSD more money because it’s “only” (insert any amount here). Whether or not a taxpayer can afford yet another tax hike . . . and whether or not that taxpayer thinks yet another tax hike is justified by any public bureaucracy . . . is a personal decision for each taxpayer to make. “Kathleen” doesn’t get to decide that for everyone else. Shame on you, “Kathleen.” Fifth, who made “Kathleen” the authority on CalTRANS and tolls? Did she contact a person in authority at CalTRANS and get it in writing that, as “Kathleen” wrote: “It would be nice if a bridge toll could be used to support our schools, but that is CALTRANS and that money will never be allowed to support CUSD.” “Kathleen’s” condescending tone is very un-neighborly to put it mildly. Sixth, “Kathleen” completely misses the boat on the DURATION of the bond debt repayment. Using “Kathleen’s” (wrong number of) $32.87 per $100,000 assessed property value per year for (the wrong duration of) 10 years as cited by other Prop E supporters . . . is around $500 per year for 10 years . . . which is $5,000 . . . for Julia to pay off her additional burden of the repayment of principal and interest on . . . merely 1 series of bond issues . . . out of the three that CUSD intends to issue . . . for the proposed Prop E ballot measure. We don’t know how wealthy “Kathleen” is, but $5,000 . . . for yet another property tax hike . . . on top of the annual property tax under Proposition 13 . . . and CUSD’s Prop KK property tax hike we are still paying off for CUSD’s previous school bond . . . and Southwestern College’s Prop CC tax hike we are still paying off for their school bond . . . is a lot of money to any person who knows the value of a dollar. Maybe “Kathleen” is as rich as Mrs. Jay Z . . . you know . . . Beyonce . . . but the rest of us aren’t made of money. Do you think “Kathleen” would offer to pay her share AND our shares of the Prop E property tax hike burden? We don’t either.
What Prop E Supporters Don’t Understand – County Counsel’s Independent Analysis Sets the Facts Straight
In a nutshell, Prop E supporters are so overwhelmed with melodramatic emotion and broad generalities of “supporting our schools” and “helping our children” that they are easy prey for CUSD and its cronies to ensure they will make a fortune off of ALL Coronado taxpayers if the Prop E tax hike is approved. Here’s how it works. Read page PR-1301-1 and 2 of your Ballot Pamphlet. See how the County Counsel’s Independent Analysis proves that . . . legally . . . CUSD can indebt Coronado property taxpayers up to $60 per year per $100,000 assessed property value for up to 40 years. So, let’s do the math on that reality . . . $60 per year on Julia’s $1.5 million assessed property value for 40 years is . . . $60 times 15 times 40 . . . which is $36,000! Do you think “Kathleen” would still chide Juila and tell her, in essence, to shut up because Julia “only” has to pay an additional $36,000 in property taxes over the next 40 years so that CUSD can have yet another school bond . . . instead of the sensible option of CUSD making the hard choices . . . and cutting out its wasteful spending . . . and keeping their hands out of our wallets? We certainly wouldn’t tell Julia that. We respect our neighbors.
Still Not Convinced? CUSD Superintendent’s Extensive Legal Disclaimer Admits His Rosy Cost Estimates are Wrong
If you don’t believe the County Counsel’s Independent Analysis . . . which is impartial and unbiased . . . then read page PR-1301-3 of your Ballot Pamphlet. There you will see CUSD superintendent Jeff Felix’s . . . untitled yet extensive . . . legal disclaimer . . . which says, in essence, that his rosy cost predictions are wrong. CUSD can’t be held to any rosy promises about the low costs they claim ($39.87 and $31.19) for the short duration they claim (10 years, or until 2024). It’s the worst of all worlds . . . because . . . according to Felix’s legal disclaimer . . . Prop E would give CUSD sole discretion on when to issue the 3 series of bonds . . . but CUSD doesn’t control the bond market interest rates.
Bond Interest Rates Are Key
Bond interest rates are key. The higher the interest rates, the higher the cost of debt repayment for Coronado taxpayers. CUSD’s rosy claim is that they will issue the bonds at less than 1% interest rates. Ha! CUSD would be lucky to get 3% to 5% interest rates on its school bonds. The interest rate on the Prop E school bonds could legally go up to 12%! Prop E would cost us all SO MUCH MORE than Prop E supporters understand.
Basic Survival Rules
As a basic rule of life, if you don’t know what you’re talking about . . . it’s best to say nothing at all . . . silence is golden. As a basic rule of voting, if you don’t understand the ballot proposition . . . vote NO and move on. Why? Because when ballot proponents make their ballot materials so complex and confusing that the ballot supporters themselves don’t understand what they’re supporting . . . someone is trying to pull a fast one on the voters . . . don’t fall for that old trick. To read our next article Prop E Supporters Refuse to Accept Reality of ENORMOUS Costs of Prop E, Don’t Drink the CUSD Kook-Aid, Vote NO on Prop E, click here.
Vote NO on Prop E
Vote NO because when you read the facts, Prop E is bad deal for taxpayers. Vote NO because when you do the math, Prop E costs WAY TOO MUCH for FAR TOO LONG. Vote NO on Prop E on June 3 to force CUSD to live within its means.