This is the first letter-to-the-editor I’ve ever written, but I feel so strong about your attitude, I felt it had to be done-especially after reading your article on the matter in your latest issue, whereby what failed once will be brought up again this coming spring.
In your recommendation prior to the election, you recommended we all vote for the school bond issue. Only $300 per parcel extra per year. A no-brainer for yes.
This last statement is an insult to the intelligence of most property owners in Malibu. I can see why it would be a no-brainer to the many rich tycoons living here in Malibu. But to those of my status, which are probably in the majority, it is indeed instead a no-brainer to vote no on any such proposal. Which the latter is indeed what I did in the last election, and will do, together along with encouraging others to do the same, in the next unless some changes, as mentioned below, are made.
I’m retired, closer to 100 than 50 years old, living mainly on Social Security payments, and have lived here in Malibu for close to 50 years. I’ve been through the various afflictions it’s had, including the loss of several of my homes in the Malibu fires and undergone the two-year wait for the last one in rebuilding it due to the city’s bureaucracy. My home sits on one parcel of four contiguous ones I own, which have a total (including my home) assessed valuation of less than 1 percent of the prices some of Malibu’s newer houses have been fetching. Though I’ve had six children, none, including my grandchildren, live in the city.
Yet, it should be a no-brainer for me to vote yes on paying out (4×300=) $1,200, over a whole month’s income I receive from Social Security, in addition to what I already pay in school taxes, each year, for no benefit to me or mine at all, not to speak of lack of justification for most others too?
Again-this no-brainer, yes, is an insult to the intelligence of most of us property (including condo) owners who would have to pay out as much or more in property taxes than those who live in mansions, or the owners of apartment houses worth tens of multi-millions of dollars sitting on just one parcel, some far larger than the total of my four, paying but, for them, a measly $300 per year!
I think the fairest way of raising the money the school district feels it needs is to request the amount to be gotten from property owners to be in the same manner the county gets its money. Based on property value instead of per parcel. And this only for an amount it really can’t do without. In this way, those who can afford to pay more would be paying more, proportionately.
But this money desired should be justified! I question the need for $8 million, if $1.5 million is sufficient, as indicated in your article. Where would this money be used, anyway? Would it be going toward better education, or just for administrative staff and facilities not absolutely essential for that education?
Is the ratio of administrative personnel now less or more per teacher than it was 40 years ago, when our children had a higher success rate in learning than they do now? As the success of the children in later life will be largely determined by their knowledge of English, is the district teaching phoneme awareness, or is it stuck in the failure prone whole-word track?
I think detailed answers and action in regards to the above are in order, before any additional money be even sought.
Even though I personally would get nothing out of it, I would support an increase in tax, if it were fair and justified, based on what I said above.
A Malibuite wanting no-brainers educated.
This letter was submitted with a name, known to the publisher, but with the publisher’s approval, it is printed anonymously