Many proponents of Measure E, the school parcel tax initiative defeated in the recent Alameda election, are, unfortunately, turning out to be sore losers. Churlish in their accusations against those of us who legitimately disagreed with the Measure and worked and voted against it, they have to ridicule us.
We’re being called “greedy, short-sighted, fearful and uninformed” by those whose feelings are hurt because they put everything they had behind a poorly designed and illogical political initiative and strategy. Here’s what we perceived, and what they missed:
Measure E as designed was the most unfair kind of taxation device possible, regressive for home owners, as it would have taxed all homes the same, regardless of size or value. And a split-roll tax, which will probably be found illegal on appeal, is also patently and obviously unfair to business owners on its face, with a cap protecting larger corporations and still dunning many business owners as much as $10,000 a year for eight long years.
A simple flat tax, X cents per square foot, without any cap, would give small condo owners a fair shake, and put more of the business burden on those commercial owners who can most afford it. Proponents never got this, or were simply in denial about its unfairness under long-standing American taxation tradition.
AUSD made two major claims that just did NOT hold water: 1) That Alameda schools are excellent, that that excellence was delivered by past parcel taxes, and that Measure E would guarantee the continuation of such excellence. 2) That it had made all the cuts it possibly could without such dire sacrifices as closing “neighborhood schools,” (and without naming which ones, thereby threatening all families with children in school.)
More honestly, long ago, teachers and staff could have offered to take a temporary ten percent cut in salaries, thereby saving the district the $7 million dollar deficit it will face.
In both instances, AUSD winds up making the teachers look bad. Those of us who bothered to do any serious research discovered that in many proficiency scores, Alameda schools are mediocre, not excellent at all, and Measure E brought this scrutiny to bear on schools and their teachers. Moreover, the bitterness of the campaign, and now even its aftermath, almost guarantees that many of us will not lend much strong support to the schools again anytime soon.
The claim that a “tyrannical minority” defeated the will of the people is nonsense. With a low, 50% turnout of registered voters, a tiny minority of 36% of all registered voters could have passed this Measure and imposed its terms on the majority.
One Measure E supporter goes so far as to generously and publicly call off the threatened boycott of businesses that opposed Measure E. What she doesn’t know is that very quietly, and behind the scenes, many of us who opposed Measure E have been tamping down a threatened boycott of businesses that SUPPORTED it, including both Alameda newspapers.
So, as Sainted mother used to say, there are always two sides to every issue. I know that many Measure E supporters couldn’t fathom this to be true, that some of us saw serious flaws in the Measure, and were logical enough to oppose it.
And that it definitely took more courage to display a “No on E” sign and vote against it than to say Yes.
©2010 Dennis Green
No comments:
Post a Comment