Here are some thoughts from neighbors about all that has been going on —
I don’t believe interest rate have any thing to do with it, most people (citizen of Orange)believe the OUSD is a money pit and have wasted a lot of money and time trying to get funds they don’t want the citizen to know about. Will this bond let them use money for other things that should have been used to keep the building repaired?
People or tired of school’s away need more money and government is taking more of our money everday.Mr.Surridge and Mr.Ledesma these two should not be trusted with any thing, they don’t understand they work for ‘We the People’
I general I agree with the above, I am more against bond than you appear to be because We (my wife and I) live on a fix income and have put our children thru school and don’t buy any of the ‘BS’ they have put out about their needs. Chapman College don’t need bonds to run their school why should OUSD need then.
I agree with most everything you said, especially about a school bond being voted on AFTER the Nov. 2014 election. I don’t want to entrust Surridge and Ledesma with any bond money. I think it would be spent recklessly and to funneled to mostly people they know and are friends with. That is not getting the best value for our money.
Thank you. I think you’ve stated this very well.
Thank you for your update . . . but count me OUT as a backer of any bond effort. We citizens should pour any more borrowed money down the black hole of ridiculous salaries and pensions for unionized government employees.
Read any one of the articles in Pension Tsunami, and you too will be become enlightened. http://PensionTsunami.com. Once this Peralta mess is killed forever, our community may have another political fight on its hands.
I agree with you!
I read your e-mail and i believe that you are doing a good job, but you should not deal with them by your self, I suggest that we have a neighborhood meeting to talk about what they are planning and to find volunteers to go with you when you are meeting with this business group. thanks
I basically agree with your thoughts on the sales and bond issue. They should be separate issues and this Nov. is too close to float a bond issue
I was relieved when the OUSD Board said that they did not want to pursue a lease with Fairfield. I agree with you, though, that we can’t really be sure the plan is dead until the vote is taken.
Selling the Peralta site, though, will be like starting all over again, just with different people to deal with. If the property is sold to a developer (Fairfield?), they can do whatever they want with it (including putting up 380 high-density apartments), and they won’t have to worry about re-election if the neighborhood is unhappy with their plans. Of course, they will have to get zoning changes made, plans approved, etc., but all that means is that we will have to start fighting again. In that case, our only hope will be to influence the City Council, and I don’t think they are against high-density apartments.
I guess a school bond is OK, but borrowing money to run a school district is not good financial policy. It is no better than using a credit card to finance home upgrades that you cannot otherwise afford. I think most people would agree that that is a bad idea. Before voting for a bond issue, I would like to see the district solve the root problems in its finances. Why are we in a position that the district cannot save up money for facility upgrades? I suspect this has to do with the influence of the teacher’s union in our district, but I am not sure about that. In any case, I would like to see the district putting away money for upgrades for a couple years before we agree to take out a loan through a bond (which we taxpayers will be obligated to repay).
Also, some of the comments I have heard from school board members in the past implied to me that they are interested in upgrading the schools mainly to keep up with other school districts. they have justified the need for upgrade money by comparing our school buildings with those in other districts. I have not heard, though, of any specific teaching activities that are being hampered by the current facilities. It makes sense to upgrade our facilities if they are hampering teaching, or if the upgrades will reduce maintenance costs significantly, but not just so they look nicer or compare more favorably with the facilities in other districts.
Thanks for all the information. I agree with you and your opinions.
Also, I heard some information at a OPA meeting I went to a couple of months back. I’ll try to relay this to the best of my memory, but it went something like this…when the Board developed the General Plan and/or received help in developing the General Plan they were told (or it was decided) that if they ever sold off any of their land, they should never sell the Peralta land. It was too important and it was needed too much to part with.
Additionally, at the meeting they said if the Board decides to sell Peralta, then the government gets to decide what is put there. One of their number one priorities is to do subsidized housing (low income or Section 8…).
Thank you for the very informative email regarding the upcoming board member election and issue with the surplus properties. I just wanted to let you know that my husband and I agree with your concerns and we stand with you. Unfortunately, it may not be a popular stance, especially with the strong desire to see this all end…We see the pitfalls in attaching ourselves too quickly to this new plan. It is always wise to take the time to consider all options and make a solid decision that we will not regret.
MOST DEFINITELY! We need new leadership, to be sure.