An Argument Against Measure M

Originally appeared in the Elk Grove Citizen on October 26th, 2016.

On November 8th, residents of the Elk Grove Unified School District will vote on a $476 million ballot measure, Measure M, which aims to pay for updates to aging facilities. Although well intentioned, Measure M lacks several key elements of a good bond and has serious flaws in its structure and language, specifically with its lack of prioritization for older schools and facilities, its poor development, and it’s incredibly long time frame of thirty five years.
First, Measure M has serious issues with regards to its disbursement of funds. The bond doesn’t seem to have any preference for aging facilities that need the money most. Twenty four schools constructed in the past fifteen years made the list to receive money from Measure M. Consumes Oaks High School and Elizabeth Pinkerton Middle School, both built in 2008, will receive funds from this school bond. In fact, the new Dillard Elementary constructed just last year will also get money from Measure M. Is this a fiscally prudent way to spend money? A good bond would have a laser focus on the neediest and oldest facilities in the district. It would have a specific list of primary and secondary projects and a schedule for construction and development. Unfortunately, Measure M has none of this.
Second, the school board developed Measure M in an extraordinarily convoluted way. Earlier this year, they hired a consultant to come in and do a poll to see how much money they could take from the voters. The poll turned out some interesting results, specifically the fact that voters in the area could begrudgingly accept a tax increase of $38 per $100,000 in assessed value, but if the school board raised it any higher than that the chances of a bond measure passing would fall dramatically. So the board took that tax rate and stretched it out to a period of thirty five years in order to get the highest dollar amount possible. $476 million ended up as the result and that’s how Measure M made its way onto the ballot. Is this a responsible way to put together a bond measure? The district should’ve first identified its most pressing capital needs, determined funding and construction costs, and then crafted a bond that specifically addressed them. Unfortunately, the school board built Measure M completely backwards.
Third, taxpayers will make payments on this bond for the next thirty five years. That’s correct. Thirty-five years. Our children will continue paying this thing off. Is this a good way to borrow money? Interest payments stretched out over such a long period of time will cost the district hundreds of millions of dollars, ballooning the overall cost of the measure to over $1 billion. The final cost of this bond will be several times the original principle. A good bond measure would have a short time frame and quick repayment scheme so that it can save taxpayers money in the long term. Unfortunately, Measure M does not.
Over the past month or so, supporters of Measure M failed to address any of the concerns and issues we laid out. They insulted our intelligence, questioned our motives, and demeaned our integrity. They dismissed our objections over the spending structure, claiming the bond had all the prioritization it needed. They scoffed at the tax rate and implied that we should have gratitude that the board didn’t raise the rate even higher. And they bragged about the all the established elites that threw in their support behind Measure M. Well, although we lack political connections and big names, we are a passionate group of homeowners, taxpayers, parents, businessmen, teachers, veterans, and voters. We stand firm in our opposition to this measure. This bond is a bad deal for students, a bad deal for taxpayers, and a bad deal for Elk Grove Unified. We can do a whole lot better than Measure M.