By John Cummins
I am writing in opposition to Measure S. I am strongly in favor of good public schools offering the best possible education to the children of California. However, I believe Measure S is grossly unfair and, therefore, should be rejected by the voters of the Santa Monica-Malibu school district.
Here are some of the reasons for my opposition: 1) More than 20 percent of the students of Santa Monica-Malibu schools live outside of the district. Thus, their parents will not be impacted by Measure S and will pay nothing regardless of their incomes. This is unfair. 2) Measure S calls for a flat $225 per parcel tax. This means that a homeowner of a small bungalow in Santa Monica will pay the exact same amount as the owner of a large shopping center, hotel, or mansion in Malibu. This is unfair. 3) Measure S is unfair to renters in smaller units. If you live in a duplex, the $225 is split between the two occupants. However, if you live in a 100-unit apartment building, each unit only pays $2.25 because the $225 would be split between 100 occupants. This is unfair. 4) If you are a wealthy senior citizen who is a homeowner, you pay nothing because there is an exemption for property owners over age 65. However, if you are a senior citizen renter (regardless of income), you must pay your share of the tax. This is unfair. 5) All children in California deserve the best possible education and this should be a state government responsibility. The children of the inner city or rural districts in our state are just as deserving of a quality education as those living in wealthy areas like the Santa Monica-Malibu School District. Since Measure S only applies to the residents of Santa Monica and Malibu, it only adds more resources to the schools in this district. This will widen the gap between rich school districts and poor ones. This is unfair.
Again, I strongly support quality public schools for all of California's children. However, Measure S is unfair and I encourage all voters in the district to oppose it.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on May 23, 2003. Read the original PDF.