School Bonds Failed for Good Reasons

* Your Nov. 14 editorial “Win a Few, Lose a Few” correctly concluded that once voters are convinced that a school bond is needed, they will vote for it.

The failure of the Irvine parcel tax is an example of a case that was not convincing.

On the face of it, the parcel tax appeared to have had wide support. Like Capistrano, the voters’ guide did not have an opposing opinion, and like Huntington Beach it had the support of the business community. Yet it failed for several reasons.

First, the school district chose an expensive special election instead of waiting for the results of an independent audit and then placing the measure on the ballot at the time of the March elections, only four months away.

Second, many objected to the regressive nature of the tax, in which a 700-unit apartment building would be assessed the same amount as a single home.

Last, the school board and the trustees failed to alert the public, years ago, when it first realized that a crisis might be brewing.

Instead of treating the crisis as an unavoidable force of nature, the board should have initiated a letter-writing campaign to Sacramento and to Washington.

This way the public would have been involved, been better educated and might have agreed that a parcel tax was the only remedy.

Demanding a two-thirds approval is not unfortunate, as you claim. Since school bonds tax property owners for 25 to 30 years, including many who cannot vote yet, it behooves the proponents to make a compelling case.

As the recent elections showed, well-presented cases do get the votes.

HANNA HILL

Irvine

* The Huntington Beach Union High School District trustees and their administration need to realize that the failure to pass the bond issue is not because the public doesn’t understand the maintenance issue. It is because the public has lost faith and trust with the trustees and administration.

The trustees furthered that loss of trust by manipulating the election and moving it a week later than all other elections in order to receive the lowest possible turnout.

If the school districts were truly interested in reeling in costs, meaningful discussions would take place concerning unifying or consolidating all the districts into one--thereby saving millions of dollars, which in turn could be spent to repair and modernize.

Until that happens, bond issues will continue to fail.

BOB BIDDLE

Huntington Beach

* Voters have denied the Huntington Beach Union High School District its needed funds for our schools’ rehabilitation.

Normally I am one of those Orange County voters who reject most bond issues, with my cynicism greatly increased by the Orange County bailout tax increase attempt, which was apparently not needed.

This time I, as a senior citizen, very much regret that in an era of great prosperity we seem to be avoiding our responsibilities to our children by depriving them of the upgraded facilities necessary to provide quality education at a rather modest individual cost.

My sons both graduated from Huntington Beach High School in the mid-1980s, and I can attest that this school was in dire need of a rehab then. Imagine it now.

The district needs to promptly try again, perhaps from a wiser perspective, as these improvements appear absolutely responsible and necessary.

DARRACH G. TAYLOR

Huntington Beach

* In her Nov. 14 letter, Leslie Alden-Crowe puts a nice spin on the failure of Irvine’s Measure B, the parcel tax for schools, but it doesn’t wash.

She laments the low voter turnout. The truth is that all of this month’s bond and parcel tax measures were put to the vote in special elections precisely to take advantage of low voter turnout.

Political consultants recommended this strategy so the campaigns in favor a parcel tax or bonds could best mobilize those most likely to vote yes. They said this would give the highest probability of passing.

Assuming the campaigns were successful, as Alden-Crowe seems to think Irvine’s was, it’s plausible, had the turnout been over 50%, the measure might not have garnered even a simple majority.

Her vindictive solution, however, calls for an end to the two-thirds requirement to increase taxes so the majority cannot be “dominated by the minority.” Tyranny by the majority is no different from tyranny by a monarch, emperor or dictator.

Alden-Crowe must consider what might happen were the tax threshold to be lowered and the political winds were to shift.

She might not get just a tax increase for Irvine schools. She might also get increases in her state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and excise taxes, all to be spent on purposes she finds objectionable.

BRUCE CRAWFORD

Fountain Valley