The True Cost of Paying for Schools

Re “Assessment District Urged in Capistrano,” Feb. 25:

The two pictures showing the crowded classroom conditions in San Juan Capistrano speak volumes.

Recently, there has been the observation that California schools are gaining more students every year than any other state. This should alarm every taxpaying citizen in the state.

Now that the developers are beginning to howl, perhaps our illustrious solons in Sacramento and Washington will finally do something to stem this financial drain on the middle class.

Overcrowding of our public schools will never cease until the nation’s borders are closed to legal and illegal immigration. Capistrano, Anaheim, Santa Ana, all are impacted today and will continue to be so tomorrow until our leaders, local and national, halt this inundation from the Third World.

JOSEPH A. LEA

Anaheim

* While your story was on target relative to the broad issue under discussion, there was the omission of an important point which needs to be made in order to clarify our district’s relationship with local developers.

Building Industry Assn. lobbyist Steve La Mar said, “Builders are being asked [in some cases] to pay for 100% of school facilities around the state. We think it’s a broader burden and it shouldn’t be put in the form of a tax on new-home ownership.”

Although it is true that a few California developers pay the entire cost of new school construction, that is not the case generally.

In Capistrano Unified, for example, we have never adopted a developer-pay-all posture. We approach our negotiations with developers by asking that they share the expense for new school construction by paying roughly half of the cost. After all, it is their residential development projects which contributed to the need for additional schools.

By participating in California’s 50/50 School Construction Program, our district matches local developer-generated funds with state building funds.

This visionary concept of shared state and local costs has enabled our district to build 12 new schools in the last five years, with two additional schools under construction at this time.

While La Mar’s argument has merit, it should be understood that if either of the bills before the Legislature on this issue pass, the baby would be thrown out with the bathwater.

Local school districts would not even be able to participate in the planning process. We in CUSD could not be sure that we would be able to obtain even half the school construction costs from local developers. It would be a field day for developers, some of whom would no doubt be driven more by maximizing profits than attending to the infrastructure needs of the communities they create.

JAMES A. FLEMING

Superintendent

Capistrano Unified School District

San Juan Capistrano