Monday, May 3, 2010

Court Rules that Los Angeles Unified School District is Entitled to Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in Redevelopment Funds

Now here's a story you'll probably never see covered in the Pasadena Star News. Or at least not until after May 4th when all the Measure CC ballots are due in. The few dependable enabling financial constituencies they have left might be angry if they did. "News" only being convenient when it fits in with an overall voter marketing strategy.

Pasadena Sub Rosa has a new story up on their site regarding the use of redevelopment money to alleviate the Los Angeles Unified School District's pressing need for cash. Apparently a State Appellate Court has now ruled that City of Los Angeles redevelopment funds can be used to help pay for public education. The amounts of money involved are staggering, and it is potentially a huge win for the public school systems that have borne the brunt of Sacramento's indifference to one of its most important responsibilities, the education of children. Preferring instead to spend our tax dollars on things like personal automobiles for legislators so that they can drive in comfort to functions put on by lobbyists hoping to influence their votes.

Look at it this way, when is the last time Sierra Madre Elementary bought Anthony Adams tickets to a Kings game? Like maybe never? Back of the line, kids.

So if LAUSD is now able to get their hands on that kind of dough, shouldn't the Pasadena Unified School District be heading to court to get their fair share as well? PSR has this to say:

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that a State Appellate Court has ruled that the Los Angeles Unified School District is entitled to $600 million in redevelopment funds from retroactive property taxes going back to 1994, equating to $873 per LAUSD student. PUSD might realize $16 million if it is entitled to a similar proportion of Pasadena redevelopment funds as LAUSD.

Here is how the Los Angeles Times broke it down:

A long running legal battle over local property taxes has ended in a court decision that will mean a multimillion-dollar windfall for the Los Angeles Unified School District. But estimates of the amount vary dramatically - from about $20 million in the near term to $1.14 billion in years to come ... "It's very significant," said John Walsh, assistant general counsel for L.A. Unified. "It's a source of revenue and we can use it for schools ... He estimated a gain of $600 million to $1.4 billion over the next 40 years and "multimillions" in reimbursements going back to 1994.

Now this Appellate Court decision applies just to LAUSD because they're the only ones so far to have filed and won such a lawsuit. But what this means is that Assembly Bill X-4-26, which theoretically forces cities to relinquish a portion of their redevelopment money to impoverished public school systems rather than using it all to build high density mixed use housing and other taxpayer funded welfare projects for needy developers, can work here in California. It looks like the requirements of schools are now being prioritized by the Courts over the needs of local real estate and condo hustlers. Which is, of course, the way it should be. You can only wonder why it took so long.

So why hasn't this become a much bigger deal, and why isn't it being talked about as a possible salvation for our very own troubled Pasadena Unified School District? This, to my way of thinking, has all the earmarks of a suppressed news story locally. And perhaps even more troubling, why hasn't PUSD filed a similar suit in court? Nobody is in greater need of that kind of funding.

My guess would be it is because the money, once they win it, would be coming out of city redevelopment funds. Something PUSD's traditional allies in the development and realty trades would find to be quite troubling should it occur. After all, redevelopment money has traditionally been for their pleasure alone, and the last thing they would want to see happen is it being spent on a bunch of kids, teachers, and public schools.

Which leads to this interesting theory on the genesis of Measure CC. Could it be that PUSD and its allies foresaw this situation with redevelopment funds as a distinct possibility? And perhaps they cooked up this parcel tax initiative as a way of relieving some of the anticipated pressure to spend Pasadena (and perhaps even Sierra Madre) redevelopment money on schoolkids and teachers?

But wait, there's more!

The Sacramento Bee is reporting that anti-AB 32 forces (operating under the rubric of "California Jobs Initiative") will turn in well over the 435,000 signatures necessary to get this issue on November's ballot. Which pretty much guarantees that the matter will become an important debating point in November's gubernatorial election as well.

Those who support AB 32 have been bellyaching loudly about how this ballot initiative has been funded by both Valero Oil and Occidental Petroleum. Which I guess is a fair tactic in politics. But has anybody noted that the Building Industry Association and California Association of Realtors are big proponents of both AB 32 and the special apple of their eye, SB 375? The so-called anti-sprawl element to fighting greenhouse gases, to be done through massive building programs in transportation corridor cities such as ours? While I'm not crazy about big oil either, I don't recall Valero sending envelopes stuffed with cash to the "No on V" people here like the BIA and CAR did.

My dog in this fight is that by knocking down AB 32 for hopefully more than a few years, its evil twin SB 375 will be equally set back as well. Which would take away a lot of the juice behind SCAG's draconian efforts to turn Sierra Madre into just another over-built and generic loserville.

77 comments:

  1. I wish the Pasadena School Board would BALANCE their budget, then give us an honest number of what they need in the way of revenue BEFORE they keep throwing out TAXES at us.

    Actually, I wish the county of Los Angeles would do that, I wish the state would do that, and the United States government would do that.
    But they won't.........SIGH

    ReplyDelete
  2. Everything is just smoke and mirrors. Endless appeals to emotion, very little in the way of concrete facts. I hope PUSD goes after city redevelopment money. After all, it is a property tax. But I suspect they would much prefer to tax us even more. That way nobody on the gravy train gets inconvenienced.

    ReplyDelete
  3. School Funding is corruptMay 3, 2010 at 8:19 AM

    Is this redevelopment money assigned specifically to school property and campus improvements, rather than education funding? Measure CC is for funding education and programs, not facilities. That was covered by Measure TT because the earlier campus reconstruction money, Measure Y, did not go far enough to repair the campuses. That actually worked out OK because the schools that didn't get the repairs and expansions were later closed (like Linda Vista Elementary, which is now a public park).

    So where would this funding be directed? The schools need more maintenance, but not expansion. And the school supplies, programs and teachers need at least minimum support until this entire crooked system can be rebuilt. The whole state has educators and contractors feeding at the trough, I've seen it up close and ugly; we can't afford that any more.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If Sierra Madre turned over its redevelopment fees to PUSD, would the City need to repay that money back to the redevelopment agency?

    Vote NO on CC. IT IS A LIE. THEY DO NOT NEED THE MONEY. It is too late to mail you ballot. You can turn it in tommorrow at the library. PUSD DOES NOT NEED THE MONEY.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm afraid I have to agree with our esteemed editor about taking down AB 32. It should stand as policy, but since the voters won't be able to overturn SB 375 because the Counties and COG's all over the state have bought into it to generate revenue, it's probably the only option.

    No other way to stop the over development and depletion of resources, as well as environmental destruction, because SB 375 busts CEQA and leaves communities defenseless.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Exactly Laurie,

    Our slow growth people here in Sierra Madre lost the last election, one of the main reasons was the people just didn't understand the complexity of these SB and AB's. They are issues that can and will destroy our communities, and the BIA and the CAR and crooked politicians in Sacramento will get away with complete destruction of California, unless people wake up.

    MaryAnn MacGillivray tried to warn the people, she has been closely following this issue and will continue to do so.

    People in Sierra Madre will figure it out, soon enough just what MaryAnn and Crawford and Watts and Alcorn were trying to protect us from.

    ReplyDelete
  7. NO on CC. This hasn't passed the smell test from day one. Why an expensive mail in ballot? Cynical at best.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There is never enough money for these school bureaucrats. They are educated, but not in basic financial planning. Why should they when there is a bottomless money pit (taxpayers) to save their overpaid rear ends!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Return you No on CC ballot to the Sierra Madre Library. Total cost of Measure CC for you is $600.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Are you saying, 10:13 am, that the cost of a mail in ballot is $480? Or that the $10 per month (equals $120/year) goes on for five years?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Partition Attorney's Taste like ChickenMay 3, 2010 at 11:24 AM

    Dear Editor, I am glad your dog has teeth enough to at least bite the other cur beast of AB 375 and while it may not be the death grip of the throat, it is enough to send the other dog running back to its den to heal it's wounds before it can strike again.

    The link you post for the bee is saying not found, but I found a good link under "suspendAB32.org" it has a good link to the April 10 story of the votes you are referencing at SAC Bee but lots more links all lined up in blue underneath it too.

    I say CC is now fraud and if it perpetrated to vote in the light of the recent ruling now should been considered excess usuary in the eyes of the law.

    NRDF is mentioned in the Dulce book, it is Rockefeller save the world, UN sustainable, too many humans, most of you can go now, well you know sighhhh.

    We got the Rothchild Builders Aerospace own the newspapers group sell your soul for a bologna sandwich today and don't worry about anyone else but you get the money.

    But both have oil interests, both have energy interests, and the South Coast Air Quality Management has already reduced our emissions in the eighties, big business flight then, and yet the screws on the press are being wrenched down further, as I try to defend my property from cities, developers, and still try to make a living where you must be bi-lingual, and there aren't enough jobs to support a 39 million population count, then these darn bills and it has been proved global warming is a contrived farce. Yet we have these stinking bills from "its good for ya" purgatory of monied interests. Sighhhhhhh

    ReplyDelete
  12. 11:24, was with you until you claimed that global warming has "been proved" any which way.
    There is genuine disagreement in the scientific community, and we are stuck with battling experts.

    ReplyDelete
  13. support public education but...May 3, 2010 at 12:40 PM

    Tattler, sure sounds plausible that PUSD and its allies saw the redistributing of redevelopment money coming and took steps to "mitigate" the impact. Exactly what we've come to expect from these administrators. CYA & make as much money as possible. And, oh yeah, the children, yeah, the children are somewhere in the picture too. That's right, they will be the future tax payers who make sure all those administrators have their nice retirements.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't get why there isn't a big celebration at PUSD - or is there?
    Have the apologists got their campaign for why this won't be enough money ready?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The fact that there isn't a big publicity release coming out of PUSD is very telling.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Partition Attorneys Burp (excuse me) taste like chickenMay 3, 2010 at 2:17 PM

    anon 12:30, was simply speaking of the disclosed emails, were were covered in the media as to the scientists in charge of the studies were found to be tweaking them, right about the time of the global climate summit.

    Consider this, there was a video on you tube by nyc812, and it was about Nasa discovering we aren't really part of the Milky way galaxy. (Reflect all pictures of we have shows us up above and looking down on the milky way) The video, shows a smaller galaxy which we are a part, and it is now merging into the milky way galaxy, it is likened to a small car getting on a highway of fast trucks, so that might be a reason for the acceleration and rapid earth changes, versus, global warming as in taxing us with a carbon foot print.

    But also the most foulest of bad carbons come with the installation of new concrete, and whose federal assets is the Department of transportation intent on repairing?

    Thanks for being with me to a point.

    ReplyDelete
  17. PUSD is keeping quiet about the redevelopment money. If CC passes they will get the redevelopment money and the CC money also. They don't want people to know the CC money is not necessary.

    More money to waste.

    ReplyDelete
  18. After the last campaign here in Sierra Madre, I don't know how to believe any campaign materials. The smear campaign against Mayor MacGillivray was incredibly orchestrated. The attacks are ceaseless, not dying down at all, and the praise for Mayor Mosca is deafening.
    This town is upside down.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Or, or...maybe just maybe.......THE TOWN IS RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Very Happy MayorMay 3, 2010 at 4:15 PM

    Has anyone seen the very longwinded more than I wanted to know about him ever story in the SGV Tribune and Pasadena Star News about San Gabriel Valleys first & only very happy mayor? If you want to comment, you have to go to Topix Sierra Madre news and do it there for some reason.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I believe I did see that story... didn't mention how the very happy mayor played the homophone card in his recent re-election...

    ReplyDelete
  22. 4:06, you mean the % of the registered voters who voted for the Mosca/Walsh/Moran slate, rather than the whole town. Don't forget how many people who live here are completely disconnected from the politics - like the majority.

    ReplyDelete
  23. That is a logical assumption, until you remember that our new mayor is a known liar.
    Don't have to believe me - watch the Neuroblast on Joe's reversal.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think what we are seeing now are pretty standard tactics for a town that has been defeated and is about to be folded into the reginal system. Independent small city government is pretty much dead in California.
    Sierra Madre was a holdout. But no longer.

    ReplyDelete
  25. What do you think the happy Mayor meant when he said, "It's more expected to be involved in regional organizations that are going to help us out."

    ReplyDelete
  26. Oh, yeah, regional organizations are going to "help us out" because it makes them so happy to help. Naw, it is because it gives them power over us. Just you wait and see.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The regional organizations will help us realize ever greater RHNA numbers, and the trolleys to go with them, and give us all permission for an endless supply of magic water.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Carnak the Magnificent sees it allMay 3, 2010 at 6:53 PM

    Envelope, please

    He meant that very large new developments will go in whether folks want it to or not, trot on over to Pasadena and see what's coming down the pike.

    There's lots of Federal dollars and housing money set up to build this stuff even if it never gets sold or leased. Then the developers can take their money and dump the property; leave it like the SNF is now.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I haven't seen the actual court decision, but I'm reading between the lines that the schools are as entitled to redevelopment as any other use. This ends up saying a lot about how redevelopment money has been misused -- it certainly has been in Sierra Madre. Why are we talking about using redevelopment money for private projects when schools are going hungry? Pretty disgusting priorities-but what can you expect from the BIA?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Great comment from L. Barlow:
    "SB 375 busts CEQA and leaves communities defenseless"
    and it brings to mind a stunning moment from the candidates forum when Councilman Moran said that SB 375 strengthened local control.
    That was a wacky good laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  31. What "PUSD's traditional allies in the development and realty trades"? do you mind being a bit more specific Tattler? you are implying here, afterall, that PUSD would ignore a potential large funding source because of "allies" in the development industry - something they would NOT do, but Wayne Lusvardi might say so.

    He has said a lot this campaign, too much, too much that is baldly inaccurate, not to mention his trolling.

    But back to your post, Tattler. This is very assuming of you: "perhaps they cooked up this parcel tax initiative as a way of relieving some of the anticipated pressure to spend Pasadena (and perhaps even Sierra Madre) redevelopment money on schoolkids and teachers?"

    Oh yeah, PUSD has "cooked up" the parcel tax "scheme" to save developers money. HARDLY!!

    Hardly Tattler! - you know, you are almost always dead-on, except when it comes to PUSD, and then the blinders go on.

    Instead of going to a reliable source - Scott Phelps, the Sierra Madre school board rep, who is excellent, honest and smart - you go to Sub Rosa blog? I am sorry, I just don't get it, Tattler.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 5:21......a phrase comes to mind......"No man is an island"....I'm confident you can use that saying in regard to a small entity such as Sierra Madre in relation to the megalopolis in which we . I would have to agree with Mosca on that.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous 8:24: "Vote NO on CC. IT IS A LIE. THEY DO NOT NEED THE MONEY."

    That is NOT true. Your comment is a lie. These budget cuts are unprecedented, they most certainly do need this money and desperately.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Happiness is a seat on the council after only one year of residenceMay 3, 2010 at 8:05 PM

    careful reader, I think he meant him, they are going to help him out, after all he never attended the regional meetings he was suppose to, but we want him to be happy and let him believe his relationship is the only special one.

    Gag me with a spoon

    ReplyDelete
  35. Public school teacher who has to put up with themMay 3, 2010 at 9:09 PM

    One of our great American Authors Mark Twain said:

    "God made the idiot for practice,
    Then He made School Boards."

    ReplyDelete
  36. oh yeah, the School Board are "idiots" - Scott Phelps, Cal Tech grad, is an idiot. Bob Harrison, owner of Green Street East, idiot also. Tom Selinske, one of the sweetest most decent of men, an idiot. Ed Honowitz, selfless public servant, idiot - all idiots.

    Wayne Lusvardi, that genius. Who needs a school board when we've got Wayne? he doesn't go to meetings, he doesn't do anything for the schools but gripe - suspiciously concerning the parcel tax - but according to the Tattler, he is the voice of reason.

    Since when did the Tattler step through the looking glass and enter upside-down land?

    "All you need is ignorance and confidence and the success is sure." - Mark Twain

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ms. Hoge's loyalty to the solons of wisdom on the PUSD Board o' Ed aside, why haven't they haven't gone after the kinds of redevelopment money the LAUSD went after? Why leave all that money on the table, instead opting to guilt trip the tax payers all over again? It doesn't make any sense.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I guess we know who they really care about, 7:12.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Who knows if they have gone after it? Anon 7:12, and 8:22 - I count you in too.

    Who knows?? did the Tattler call one school board member in researching this artice? Nope.

    I suggest he ask them, I mean just going to Wayne's blog is not enough to gets the facts straight.

    Meanwhile, this New York Times article brought me close to tears this morning, 300,000 teachers are being laid off nationwide. These attacks on public education, like Wayne's, are seeing their wished-for "reward", 300,000 jobs:

    "Secretary of Education Arne Duncan estimated that state budget cuts imperiled 100,000 to 300,000 public school jobs."

    "In an interview on Monday, he said the nation was flirting with “education catastrophe,” and urged Congress to approve additional stimulus funds to save school jobs."

    Districts Warn of Deeper Teacher Cuts
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/education/21teachers.html

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hopefully those school districts will go after redevelopment funds rather than allowing them to be wasted on developers.

    ReplyDelete
  41. For those of you still in attack mode, it is clear, as it has always been, that you haven't lifted a finger or stepped foot inside a PUSD school to help a child in a very long time, and that's a shame. If you had, you would have seen how much the money is needed, and how much these budget cuts have caused teachers to spend more of their precious time on things other than teaching. You would have seen how committed the parents are in most schools (Sierra Madre's schools have great parent volunteers!). You would have seen how very good the administrators are, and how committed they our to our kids. If you had been paying attention, you would also have seen how hard the administrators at the District level are working, how much progress they've made, and how that progress is reflecting very well on our communities.

    And for those of you who still haven't voted...
    There's still time. Please vote YES on Measure CC, and bring your completed ballots to the Sierra Madre Public Library until 8pm today.

    ReplyDelete
  42. support public education but...May 4, 2010 at 11:38 AM

    You have to stop throwing the children around to garner pity, and spell out the money trails.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @ 7:20 PM
    Even a clock that doesn't know is right twice a day.

    ".......you go to Sub Rosa blog? I am sorry, I just don't get it, Tattler......."

    The Sub rosa is the only entity reporting on the redevelopment funds. Turns out CC is superfluous.

    TURN IN YOUR NO BALLOT TODAY!!!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Thanx 4 Nothing PSNMay 4, 2010 at 1:01 PM

    http://www.topix.net/forum/source/pasadena-star-news

    Too late to help now!

    ReplyDelete
  45. I would not defend school funding cuts especially when the cuts start with Arts, Music, Physical Education, Special Ed, Title IX (?), etc. Long live Math & Science. However, my Grandfather farmed 40 acres and taught for decades the kids in a small rural Indiana Town. His year end pictures show about 40 students, one teacher, one room, all grades, many of which went on to IU or Indiana State, Perdue, DePaw along with other Universities. Ag schools had not yet taken hold. In that environment you were not taught you learned, and you had better have been serious about it. Money makes little differrence in learning, attitude does.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Gin Knee- This middle school bullying crap has gotten old and is making you look stupid. Either you have something to say or take your troll money and buy a new name.

    It is certainly a good idea to follow money trails, and the kids do need our help and if you're not helping, you're hurting. In a really good letter to the Pasadena Weekly, one voter laid out the obvious- that really good schools raise the property values of a community, while a properly funded PUSD will create more gainfully employed citizens who will help out by creating jobs and paying taxes. It's a win- win, unless you actually want to create a permanent underclass that you will have to pay much more in taxes to maintain.

    Yes on CC- please drop off your votes at the Sierra Madre Library until 8pm today!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Check out Fox Sports, ESPN I & II and Network Sports Events. The Industry Pays well, millions in fact. Yet the announcers cannot conjugate simple action verbs and fail at comparisons. The athletes "you know..you know", from the moment the mouth starts are the paramount reason more money should be poured into their lives. TV is alive and our standard :)

    ReplyDelete
  48. Exactly, Anon 1:49pm, the middle school bullying crap does look old. And why has so much of the crap been used by the no on CC side??

    Why does the No on CC campaign think that troll bullying is a good idea? I mean come on, is it effective? No.

    What is with this no on CC campaign anyway? is it so important to discredit PUSD, because that is what they spend the most of their time doing, discrediting that and the CC supporters, is it so important?

    NO! because they put out lies and then teachers lose their jobs and students suffer.

    ReplyDelete
  49. So, should we just give up or should we give people other than the moneyed class a chance?

    Perhaps we should be spending more on academics and less on athletics?? But if we are looking to our ex- jocks to be role models or academics, it would seem that the problem is us.

    ReplyDelete
  50. This whole "us against them" conversation is baffling. Isn't the issue here the use of city redevelopment property taxes for schools? That to me seems like very good news. The courts are ruling infavor of education. What is the problem here?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anon 2:27pm: the problem is the Tattler didn't bother to ask a single school board member about this redevelopment money, instead, the sole source was the Sub Rosa blog which has been No on CC central for months!

    That is the problem. Sure, possible alternative funding sources for public education are very interesting, so lets talk to legitimate sources to get the truth out about this, I mean, is it for real or not?

    Because one thing I can vouch for, as can others, what Wayne Lusvardi puts out about PUSD is loaded with inaccuracies, he is not a trust-worthy source concerning PUSD, not at all.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Actually, the basis of this post was an article in the LA Times.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "Judge rules Calif. can take $2B from local funds"
    http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_15014529

    City of Pasadena must pay $13M + to PUSD by May 10:
    http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8589934954

    ReplyDelete
  54. support public education but...May 4, 2010 at 3:20 PM

    Another problem in communication on the topic is that the Yes on CC folks will not give financial details that counter the No on CC folks' information that "The annual growth in PUSD’s spending per student over the last 10 years has exceeded inflation by over 60%. There have been no reductions in spending per student."
    Proponents say oh that has been discussed, but let's hear it. Has it exceeded inflation by 60%. Yes. So explain the money. Everybody wants good things for kids, everybody wants good things for teachers, but everybody also wants financial accountability.

    ReplyDelete
  55. This would take some research to ferret out the why, but the short answer is that PUSD's service area is very complex, and there are numerous properties to maintain over a widespread area.

    When I see someone going negative on PUSD using statistics, it usually means two things. First, that the person has such a poor relationship with those in public education that they are reduced to looking at numbers rather than seeing what is really happening, and that they then use those numbers to justify a negative argument without making any allowance for the particular situation. That is exactly what we have here.

    The "No" people were comparing PUSD to San Marino and South Pasadena, and the difference in the level of complexity between PUSD and these two systems is so apparent as to make all but the most rudimentary comparisons look like a huge reach. That, of course, is another tipoff that those making the case have already made up their minds against helping those served by public education in Pasadena.

    ReplyDelete
  56. @ 1:49 PM

    Wow no reason to be rude. simply state your disagreement and chose a screen name. sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  57. As to the accountability piece...this is possibly the most competent administration that PUSD has had for quite awhile. At the same time, the Board of Education appears to be both competent and representative of the community, another plus. The Mayor of Pasadena, the Pasadena City Council, the PCC Board of Trustees all endorsed Measure CC. Now unless you are going to make the case that all of these elected officials are incompetent, that the leadership of the administration is not competent, you have to say that those whom we have elected to act for us believe strongly in this parcel tax and that should hold great influence. If you are in the "throw all the bums out" league, then you aren't really being sincere about the issue.

    Fyi, the Superintendent did agree to create a CC oversight committee. The Super even agreed to a pay cut as a measure of good faith. If you are looking for accountability on CC, it would be hard to ask for more. I say vote yes, and then let's help them be accountable by working with them and watching too.

    ReplyDelete
  58. 28 school districts are compared in the No on CC data. Twenty-eight, not just South Pas & San Marino. If you don't even read the material, how can you argue effectively?
    The thing that made me suspicious was the administrator sent to Sierra Madre to argue for Measure TT. Once I saw that slick sales job it put me on alert, so I paid attention to the data.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Apparently only those who disagree with you are rude. As your screen name suggests (and half the local bloggers know the story), being rude seems to be how you make your living. Get off it already.

    ReplyDelete
  60. What about redevelopment funds? Why hasn't PUSD gone after them like LAUSD did?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Thanks 4:16. That's a great question. As such, it will probably be side stepped.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @ 4:14

    Not to belabor the issue I have merely pointed out that the Sub Rosa seems to be the only entity pushing the issue. How can that possibly be construed as middle school bullying. Odd.

    The PSN hasn'r mentioned the funds until today, the last day of voting.

    BTW "know the story"?. What are you talking about Anonymous?

    ReplyDelete
  63. I agree about PUSD going after redevelopment funds. I think that they should also sue Sacramento for unfunded mandates, but what good would that do, as the SAC is broke! Can't hurt to sue, though.

    I dont believe that they won't go after the funds. If it is obvious to you good people, it must be obvious to them as well. This Admin has, in general, been proactive about finding money where earlier admins may have missed similar opportunities.

    ReplyDelete
  64. What you dont read about much in these parts is that PUSD has actually done a better than average job of managing in the economic downturn than many neighboring districts, giving out fewer pink slips and finding funding that has held the fort over the past couple of years in spite of their complex operation (while posting academic gains at rates ahead of those same neighboring districts, yes). While it is great that LAUSD found redev money, they are also about $650m short for next year. If we are going to start comparing LAUSD's actions with those of PUSD, let's set the foundation. How much is LAUSD getting?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Yes, but why hasn't PUSD gone after redevelopment money like LAUSD did?
    It doesn;t make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  66. It's worth investigating.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Why not wait until after CC is approved and then take both.

    ReplyDelete
  68. PUSD hasn't gone after the money because their mayor isn't Villaraigosa, former Speaker of the House in Sacramento...

    ReplyDelete
  69. PUSD didn't go after Pasadena's redevelopment money because they're in the pocket of the developers.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Measure CC Election Results:
    http://rrcc.co.la.ca.us/elect/10051789/rr1789pa.html-ssi

    ReplyDelete
  71. I thought the Tattler was a no-troll zone? Then why has it published the comments of Gin Knee, the troll who persecuted me by authoring 17 attack forums on Topix and has persecuted me throughout my blogging in support of the parcel tax?

    Gin Knee is not only a troll, she is a savage bully-troll, and all of the local in-the-know bloggers know this, so why has she been given the privilege of being published on the Tattler, why?

    ReplyDelete
  72. For those of you who may have missed it, there is some good news this morning.

    Measure CC, the parcel tax, went down to defeat. The measure barely garnered a simple majority, nowhere near the 2/3 threshold needed to pass.

    THANK YOU VOTERS

    ReplyDelete
  73. Again, I thought the Tattler was a "no-troll" zone.

    The Tattler keeps publishing the All Stars from the huge Topix parcel tax blog war that has been going on since January.

    The trolls were out in force the whole time, and as I learned on Topix, the beauty of Topix is that the threads are like "flypaper" and all of the flies get stuck to it.

    I urge you, if you have not already, to tune in ot the parcel tax Topix threads which will stand infamous for ALL times sake, as evidence of brutal trolling behavior, and I mean brutal. It was a knock down, drag out fight the whole time - and the fight was in-balanced by the huge volume of troll commenting.

    In dire times like these, I always look to some of my favorite quotes, and here is one: "He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." — Edmund Burke

    Thanks Edmund, I really needed that.

    But come on Tattler, we don't need this Topix troll crap here! They have given their preview, now their fans can visit them over on Topix.

    And as to Measure CC not passing, I am heart-broken. The bad guys won.

    ReplyDelete
  74. The facts won.

    ReplyDelete
  75. @ 10:58 AM

    "...The Tattler keeps publishing the All Stars from the huge Topix parcel tax blog war that has been going on since January...."

    Actually since March of '09.

    This is why The Tattler Rocks, as soon as the troll-ing starts BAM! it's gone.

    Thankfully the voters didn't drink the kool aid on this one. I think the PUSD ploy of a mail in ballot back fired. How much money was wasted on that boondoggle that could have been put to better use?

    ReplyDelete
  76. According to estimates from the registrar, it cost an extra 530,000 for the mail ballot.

    Wouldn't that money be better spent on the schools?

    I wonder how many people threw away the ballot because they had to provide their own postage?

    ReplyDelete
  77. According to estimates from the registrar, it cost an extra 530,000 for the mail ballot.

    Wouldn't that money be better spent on the schools?

    I wonder how many people threw away the ballot because they had to provide their own postage?

    ReplyDelete