They’re Talking Tax in Irvine

* Opponents of the Irvine parcel tax have made much of alleged waste in the Irvine Unified School District.

Of course, any large organization, public or private, has some inefficiencies; stick around long enough and you will find some.

But since most of us are not insiders who witness school administration on a daily basis, how can we tell whether Irvine Unified has more than a normal amount of waste or is already quite lean and efficient?

Let me suggest one indicator from my own recent experience. I visited a Midwestern college town, in some ways much like Irvine, where I have been offered a job.

The schools were comparable to ours--maybe a bit better, but certainly not by much. The property tax rates were dramatically different--roughly double ours. Sounds like we’re getting quite a bargain here, doesn’t it?

KENNETH POMERANZ

Irvine

* My wife and I bought our first home in Irvine in 1983. Five years later we realized substantial appreciation and decided to take all that equity and buy a new home in south Orange County, five miles from the beach, where you can get more for your money.

We bought a brand-new bluff-top view home with every modern convenience. Four children later, we decided to move back to Irvine in 1997, to a 15-year-old home, with no view, farther from the beach, for substantially more money.

Why? Because of Irvine schools.

The fact is that people pay more for Irvine homes because of the awesome schools.

Our kids deserve the greatest education possible! It’s a lot better than the alternative.

GREG MAY

Irvine

* The proponents of Measure A, another property tax, this time for an additional $95 per year for Irvine schools, keep telling us that house prices will fall if we vote “‘no.”

House values didn’t fall any of the last three times we voted down such tax increases.

I have a proposal. Let’s all vote “no,” and if house values decline as a result, I’ll lead the charge for a $500 tax increase next year.

JOHN JAEGER

Irvine

* As a next-door neighbor of the city of Irvine, I would like to challenge my fellow senior citizens to support the $95 per year parcel tax: $8 per month from their Social Security checks.

Who paid the taxes when their children were educated? Was it just those under 65? I think not.

To deny this generation exposure to art and music--always the first to be cut--is reprehensible. Please vote “yes” on Measure A.

HELEN BAZNIK

Tustin Ranch

* The seeds of Measure A, which attempts to raise Irvine taxes, were planted in 1994 when the Irvine Unified School District risked and lost $54.5 million of school money in a speculative scheme. Their poor management compounded through the years. The district resisted balancing its budget, resisted reorganizing its finances, resisted curtailing its spending.

Last spring they authorized a $3.2-million pay increase for teachers without having the money to pay for it. In November they called a special election to recoup; however, they said it was “for the children.” The district pays teachers more than any comparable district. More than a third of the teachers earn $65,563 plus benefits for a 184-day work year, yet one member of the teachers union compared working in Irvine to indentured servitude.

When this tax increase was defeated for the third time in November, they didn’t believe that no means no and called another election.

We are talking about a shortfall of $3 million in $142.6 million. That’s like panicking about $3 when you have $140 to make a $143 purchase. There’s probably $3 in change in the cookie jar. There’s plenty of money. The district’s total revenues this year are $8.36 million more than last year. California has a $6-billion to $8-billion surplus; the governor and Legislature agree a large chunk will go to K-12 schools. The governor’s budget includes a $268-per-student increase for Irvine’s 23,082 students, and a cost-of-living increase.

There is a bipartisan bill pending in the Legislature that will give Irvine equalization in state funding. The city of Irvine has a multimillion-dollar surplus. We’re talking big numbers. And we’re talking big numbers with the proposed $95 tax increase. The 38,837 parcels in Irvine from small condos to large apartment complexes all get taxed the same $95. This tax is not necessary.

EUNICE CLUCK

Irvine

* Irvine voters should vote “yes” on Measure A. It is about time we started paying for the quality education that our children are receiving.

The truth is that this financial problem began with the passage of Proposition 13 in the ‘70s. Property tax revenue was reduced and the structure for school funding changed. The result was a shortfall in the education budget.

This was compensated for by the risky investment scheme developed by former Orange County Treasurer Robert Citron. This funding source held up for a number of years until the investments failed, resulting in the Orange County bankruptcy in 1994.

While it is true that most of the money lost in that fiasco has been returned, it only makes up the shortfall for one year at most. That leaves us at least four years in the hole.

Alternatives to the parcel tax will not work. To talk about getting reclassified at a higher state funding level is unrealistic. No other district seeking reclassification has been successful for over 20 years.

There have already been major cuts at the administrative level. Now the only thing left to cut is programs. Without the programs that are under the gun, Irvine schools will become less than average, less than mediocre, somewhere on the order of substandard.

We cannot let this happen. Most of us know that there is no such thing as a free lunch, but we in Irvine have been eating off somebody else’s plate for years now. It is time to start paying for what we have been getting. People should vote “yes” on A on Tuesday.

SHARON McCART

Irvine

* I find it rather interesting that by endorsing Measure A, members of Irvine’s City Council believe in giving more money to our schools as long as it is not “their” money from the city’s coffers.

Perhaps they believe taxpayers can somehow better afford this $3-million tax increase to fund the schools than the city, even though the city’s revenues grew by $5 million this year, to just over $81 million.

Maybe I am wrong. Perhaps they are endorsing this measure because they are hoping we will be willing to pass a tax increase on ourselves, so that they will not have to step in with money, thereby altering their burgeoning spending and hiring plans for this year.

If the council members truly believe the 3% school budget cuts will have dire consequences on us all, they should prioritize the city’s finances and bridge the school’s budget gap until the state remedies the funding formula.

Until then, don’t ask me to vote for another new tax, when City Hall is sitting on a nice surplus and rapidly growing revenues.

STEVE YOUNAN

Irvine