Re “Schools Need This Compromise,” editorial, July 21: School boards and school administrators throughout the state, along with the PTA, oppose this $9-billion school bond because of its many flawed provisions, one of which offers $160 million to developers, supposedly to fund low-income housing. However, the provisions of the bill allow developers to get reimbursed three different times for the same project. In some areas of the state, a developer could be paid by the state for “low-income” housing after building a $2-million mansion. How likely are voters to approve future school bonds when opponents can accurately portray the bonds as payoffs to developers? Not very.
Additionally, under this measure, local communities would lose their ability to deny development projects because school facilities are inadequate, and could no longer force developers to pay their fair share of school costs.
The Times says Republicans would “grudgingly” vote for this proposal. “Gleefully” is more like it. There’s time to work out a better solution, fairer to local school districts, fair to homeowners and fair to developers, without giving away the store.
JOHN L. BURTON
President Pro Tempore