24 years wrote on Oct 11, 2008 6:25 PM:So the school district waits 24 years, doesn't ask the city for the money that is owed to them, and then comes and asks me and you to give them 98 million.

Oh yeah - and we pay for the next 50 years.....

Sorry Charlie, I mean Ed. The answer is No on Prop T!

No on Prop T wrote on Oct 11, 2008 6:55 PM:Twenty years after the redevelopment district started collecting funds to pay for new high school facilities and because the parties, the school districts and the city, don't agree on how the calculations should be made the high school district has the nerve to come to the voters with another bond (tax). Mayor Pfeiler has some nerve supporting another tax (read your voter pamflet Pfeiler argues in favor of Prop T). Where's the schools' money Madam Mayor Pfeiler? That's right, it's being spent on your favorite expenditure (low income housing).

I Know wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:30 PM:I know where the money is!

The redevelopment money is in the city's Economic Incentive Development Fund and the city will be using it to build that fancy schmancy hotel downtown that noone will go to because everyone is BROKE!! $18.9 million of it will be given to the out of town developer to give him "incentive" to build in Escondido.

HEY EUHSD & EUSD: You should stay on top of this and hound the city until you get the money that was intended for the schools! Do not trust the city to "do the right thing".

Also...just to let you know...this Escondido resident will be voting NO on Prop T. The reason: between the school district and the city knowingly over-crowding our schools, I will not be one of the taxpayers to pick up the pieces of your mess!

Vote No on Prop T. Hold the school districts and the city accountable!

Ask wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:45 PM:What a joke!

And the politicians in San Diego wonder why everyone is so pessimistic and negative towards our gov't.

Fool on the Hill wrote on Oct 12, 2008 4:12 AM:The first 4 comments echo my sentiments to a tee. God bless R.F. for bringing this to our attention. This has to be really obvious for the NCT filter to allow this to see the light of day. I signed one of the no on T statements and will support all truths when I have the opportunity. We have two more years to go before we get the chance to get rid of the old wood. We need to pay close attention and stay the course. Not easy... but right.

concerned taxpayer wrote on Oct 12, 2008 6:58 AM:Proposition T is a mistake. As a parent you want to leave to children wealth and not debts. Proposition T is asking us taxpayers (not everyone in the city) to leave to our children and grandchildren an enormous debt. has the district ever thought how to better utilize their empty buildings during the afternoon? Instead of building more space that will be underutilized the EUHSD should hire a consultant to study their facilities. drop out rates are going up, people are losing their homes and moving out of the city and the trustees and superintendent think that we need to build more classrooms? are we expecting a baby boom time and we will need those classrooms in the future? what about investing some new capable people to look into EUHSD test scores and see how our children benefit of a better education? we should get rid of high paying low performing staff and invest those savings in quality education. Also, if somebody is owing money to EUHSD shouldn't the business people try to collect it? At least, that is what happen in the real world. I owe, I have to pay. I owe I don't get credit, if the city owes money to EUHSD the city should pay and the district should try by wichever means to collect no asking the taxpayers to pay for others.

No On T wrote on Oct 12, 2008 7:31 AM:The 1990 agreement estimated that the HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT would get $145 million from the redevelopment funds to build three new high schools and upgrade the existing campuses.

Next Sunshine Project wrote on Oct 12, 2008 7:55 AM:What is City Hall going to do with $812 million to $1.6 billion?!!!! Too many zeros to ignore. This in the next SUNSHINE project in Escondido.

New to Area wrote on Oct 12, 2008 10:33 AM:I am not from Escondido. In fact, I just signed a lease Friday and won't even live in Escondido until October 15th.

I don't know anything about Prop T except what I have read here- so I want to make it clear that I'm not defending or encouraging the Proposition.

As a parent moving into the area my first concern (after finding a place to live) is the school I'm going to place my child in. After researching Escondido Unified, I was terrified of putting my child into public schools there and have instead filled out a transfer to the San Marcos district.

This is what I know. The Escondido Unified district is one of the worst in the state. The school my daughter is 'assigned' to based on where we live is going on their 4th year on CA's IP program. They lose state funding because they are under performing at such a low level.

I don't know the background of the district. It seems to me, in order for schools to be good, they need funding. Good teachers need to be paid (there are teachers in the district w.out CA credentials), schools need supplies and the administration needs to be paid.

Again, I don't know anything about the Proposition so I am neither for it or against it.

I am against putting my daughter into a school that is less than half a mile from our new home because I am concerned about her safety and the ability to learn in a less than decent environment.

As a parent, I would rather pay higher taxes to ensure a good education for my child. I would rather pay higher taxes to ensure good education for other people's children if I weren't a parent because they are our future leaders.

I don't know that Prop T is the way to go or the way not to go. I do know that there is a huge mess in the District and clean up has got to start somewhere and soon. Taxpayers should not be held accountable for mistakes the city and district have made. As a community though, we all have a responsibility to the children in the community to provide them with the best education possible.

It seems to me this Proposition just scratches the surface of what is wrong with the school district.

Do The Math wrote on Oct 12, 2008 11:49 AM:The High School District's share =

$812 million -
($81 million bond +
$24.6 million loan +
$145 million financing costs) x
20.65% x (2/3) = $73.2 million

$1.6 billion -
($81 million bond +
$24.6 million loan +
$145 million financing costs) x
20.65% x (2/3) = $185.7 million

Thus, the high school district should receive between $73 million and $185 million from the redevelopment agency.

Why does Superintendent El Nelson expecting to get only $46.6 million. Where is his calculation?

Grino wrote on Oct 12, 2008 12:22 PM:Mexican's would have already had funds granted no questions asked.

Neighbor wrote on Oct 12, 2008 12:22 PM:Mayor Pfeiler is good at giving taxpayer money to consultants and developers that provide zero return to the city or its residents.

Vote No On T wrote on Oct 12, 2008 1:50 PM:A $98 million bond? In this economy? Vote NO on T!

Bill in Escondido wrote on Oct 12, 2008 2:22 PM:Only one of the four candidates for the Escondido High School Board opposes Proposition T. Bill Durney is against this proposal. Let's get this redevelopment money FIRST, then ask the taxpayers - if it's still needed. Let's reprioritize the projects and spending. Let's work on giving the students of Escondido a better education rather than a glittery new building to be left as a legacy.

On November 4 -
Vote FOR Bill Durney
Vote AGAINST Proposition T.

Difference of opinion... wrote on Oct 12, 2008 3:41 PM:...on how calculations are done", says
Gina Manusov. Come on! This does not pass the smell test, and neither does Prop T. No way should we approve the bond issue. Someone needs to find out what happened to the redevelopment funds. Don't ask us to cough up $98M because of this fuzzy accounting.

VOTE NO ON T

Show me the money wrote on Oct 12, 2008 3:47 PM:Until then, I will not support giving one more dollar of my taxes to the school districts.

Citizens for Escondido Schools sent out a mailer last week urging us to approve Proposition T. NOT A CHANCE. Someone must be accountable for those redevelopment funds. Ed Nelson and Tina Pope can wait forever for all I care.

NO on T!!

To Gringo wrote on Oct 12, 2008 4:36 PM:Another typo, eh?

You are obsessed - and you are wrong. There are questions asked. Why don't you blame your council buddies for this overcrowding mess? They approved new development - you don't think the poor people bought all those $600,000+ homes do you? Many of those new homes are collecting dust sitting empty. Instead of blaming as you wrote "Mexicans" for all the negative things in Escondido - why don't you pull your head out of the sand and realize the city's troubles are bigger than your obsession. Your comments are old and unsubstantiated - as usual.

p.s Vote No on Prop T

New to Area wrote on Oct 12, 2008 7:09 PM:After reading through Proposition T and coming back to check comments, I am scratching my head.

Has anyone who opposes the Proposition actually read it?

The Proposition sells bonds. This does not raise taxes. If you invest in a bond, you'll pay for it and be reimbursed. If you choose Not to buy it, there is not obligation to pay for it because it's a bond, not taxes.

As I said in my previous post, I don't really have an opinion on the Prop yet, even after reading it. However, I'm leaning towards a Yes vote based on what I have read.

Again, I don't know the background of the Escondido District, but I'm wondering if part of the problem with low performance and no funding is because of the citizens.

If an overflow school would make class sizes smaller, shouldn't it be built? A teacher cannot effectively teach a room full of 30+ students. If the buildings are deteriorating, shouldn't they be repaired?

If this is being paid for through bonds, I don't understand why every one is so against it. If you don't want to buy the bond, don't.

To New To Area wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:36 PM:Well, not sure I believe you are "new to the area"...or that you just read the proposition.

Your comments sound more like a campaign speech for the bond.

I am against the bond because I cannot understand how district employees get raises and the students get resources cut and overcrowded classrooms. I am against it because I don't feel that the school district or the city have put the kids first! I am against the bond because the price tag is huge compared to the rewards.

I am voting NO on Prop T. I encourage others to do the same!

to newbie wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:49 PM:bonds are indeed taxes. If the case of Prop T, it extends the existing real estate tax many years. Your grandkids will pay for it with added real estate taxes. And even though you rent, your landlord will just pass the cost on to you.

To New to Area wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:12 PM:Prop T may not raise your tax rate, but it will extend the assessment on your property until the year 2054 and probably beyone that. It "simply extends" the 1996 bond another 30-35 years. The 1996 bond will be paid off in 2020, but the Prop T bond will accumulate interest for 11 years before the first payment is made. That amounts to about $80M just in the interest. EUHSD is being deceptive when they tell us that this bond will not affect our taxes.

Prop T bond money will be used for constructing buildings, but the school district has not addressed improving the quality (or lack of it) of education that the students are getting.
More buildings aren't going to make them any smarter. Building a specialty school for 500-800 students isn't going to help those attending the other campuses. These kids have some of the worst test scores and the highest drop out rate in California. There is a lot wrong in the Escondido schools, and it has nothing to do with buildings.

I certainly won't vote for Prop T.

to New to Area wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:13 PM:This proposition that residents vote for is authorizing the school district to issue a bond. The people paying the bond are the taxpayers in Escondido.

This will extend an existing bond. The existing bond will be paid off in 2021. That's when we start paying for this one. Escondido residents will pay for this one until 2054. This is paid with increased taxes. Do you want to obligate your grandchildren to this debt?

The proposed overflow school is a 'magnet school', supposedly focusing on high-tech (bio tech and medical) studies. This school would provide education for the top 6% of the students in the district. And expect it to draw the top 6% of the teachers too. The current staff (and expenses) would have to be spread to 4 campuses, not just 3.

Also, there are no additional operating costs coming in to support this as the district receives funding based on the number of students, not the number of schools it has.

While it may sound good initially, peel back the layers and see why so many people are saying vote No on Prop T.

To New wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:22 PM:Bonds = more taxes! The Proposition is cleverly worded to make the voters believe that we won't feel a thing, which is BS! EUHSD hired a bond consultant long ago whose business it is to get school bonds passed in California. They have been working on this for over a year. Too bad you just moved into the area, or you could have attended all the school board meetings so you would have a clearer picture of what is really going on here.

Bonds like this only need 55% voter approval, so be sure and VOTE NO on T!

To Bill in Escondido wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:31 PM:I am voting for Bill Durney, and anyone but Kurt Marler. Too bad Tina and Pam's seats aren't up for vote, because they need to go, too.

The whole EUHSD school board should be ashamed of themselves for making a disaster of our high schools. Then asking us for $98 million dollars!

New Taxes wrote on Oct 12, 2008 10:20 PM:Prop T = $400 million to $500 million in new taxes. TO: New in the area. Escondido has two school districts. One district for grades K-8 and another district for grades 9-12. Prop T is for the high school district. In 1996, voters approved a $45 million bond to build a new high school in Valley Center. Immediately after the school was finished, that high school was unified with the Valley Center elementary district, and that high school does not serve Escondido students even though most of the cost is being shouldered by Escondido property tax payers. Now the high school board claims it is not raising new taxes. Instead it is extending the 1996 tax, which was supposed to expire in 2021, to 2054. So property taxes collected between 2021 and 2054, amounting to $400 million, will be used to pay off the $98 million bonds. In the meantime, the high school district has an agreement with the City for Escondido for redevelopment funds to be used for construction of new high schools and improvement of the three existing schools. Vote NO on Prop T.

Escondidite wrote on Oct 12, 2008 10:33 PM:What will our children say about us in the year 2026 when our high schools need repairs, expansion, and to teach new technologies to the kids, and yet Escondido has just started to pay off a bond passed way back in the year 2008.

"We need to pass a new school bond," they will say. "But we have 30 years left to pay on this monster our grandparents and parents passed 18 years ago."

What a shocking legacy.

No on T

Folks wrote on Oct 13, 2008 6:44 AM:C'mon the teachers and Admin need a raise. Unino needs to raise it's dues. It's education, they will fool all the uniformed voters because it is about the kids. RIGHT!

Dear New to Area wrote on Oct 13, 2008 6:51 AM:First, we as individuals do not have the option to buy or not buy bonds. Our votes as citizens collectively authorizes the district to act.

Second, it may not be a "tax" in a sense, but more of an assessment based on our home property's value. Although we as homeowners are not buying the bonds directly, we as homeowners are paying for them.

Finally, what is your definition of being "reimbursed"? It is certainly not in the form of money back in my pocket. It is not a "loan" in which the district is paying me back.

New to Area, I suggest you read some prior NCT aricles and comments about Proposition T then see if you are so willing to have this assessment added to your property tax bill. If you were concerned about the school your child was going to be attending perhaps you should have done your research before deciding to move to the area of Escondido which you chose.

But then again, I suspect that you are not actually a homeowner but a renter, as your first post reads that you "just leased". Until you are a homeowner directly paying a property tax bill, you will never understand what we homeowners have gone through with the high school district and its lack of fiscal responsibilty.

Maybe you should go live in San Marcos instead. Or was it too expensive there?

NO ON T wrote on Oct 13, 2008 7:03 AM:I refuse to give one penny to the school districts until they can assure me I am not educating any more ILLEGAL aliens. ENOUGH!

Double No on T wrote on Oct 13, 2008 9:02 AM:Teachers and adminstrators, a simple lesson in English. Until you stop teaching Espanol, no more MONEY! Not even a peso!! Federal problem? Write your law makers sames as the rest of us voters do.

Ditto to Double No wrote on Oct 13, 2008 9:40 AM:I hear ya! English only in the classrooms, especially at the high school level.

Buster wrote on Oct 13, 2008 10:22 AM:When is the NCT going to do an in depth story on the redevelopment funds. As a voter I would like to know the history of the delay in the school districts getting their money. What are and have been the positions of the past and sitting school board members, council members and mayors concerning the pay out of these funds? What is the money being spent on if not the schools?

To Buster wrote on Oct 14, 2008 3:32 AM:The answer to your question is the 1st of never. The mayor supports the bond and NCT doesn't cross the mayor. Sorry but that is just how it works. Same deal with PPH. NCT's ink puts a permanent stain on all of us. Censor alert!

Skip wrote on Oct 14, 2008 4:10 PM:There is a story in another San Diego newspaper today that says the amount of Non-English speaking students in San Diego has grown to 123,000 just this year. Last year it was estimated to be at 116,000 non-English speaking students.

I'LL GIVE YOU ONE GUESS AT WHO IS PAYING FOR THAT!

Not only are the American taxpayers paying for this, but the schools are being dumbed down for American students.

After my house mortgage, my family's biggest expense is for private schools for our children.

New to Area wrote on Oct 16, 2008 9:12 AM:Thank you, everyone for your input. I didn't choose Escondido, my husband's company did. I did research the schools before enrolling my child in school, which is why she is attending in the San Marcos district.

The truck is packed and we will be there this evening. I do appreciate the suggestion to read through the original proposition and research the history of the district.

Since the election is so soon, I may not vote locally at all. I don't think I have time to really research each of the propositions before I vote and I don't want to vote for something I have not educated myself about.

Again, thank you everyone for your suggestions. I am excited about moving into an area that seems to be so involved about their own community!