Political Philosophy for Margret Buckley Schmidt

Candidate for
Governing Board Member; San Mateo Community College District

Why I am Running for Governing Board of the SMCCCD

The incumbent Trustees of the San Mateo County Community College District are asking local taxpayers to pay a surcharge on their property taxes for the next 25 years to pay for a new $148 Million bond issue. I, however, believe that all school districts should be guided by a "pay as you go" model, and not carelessly put our children into debt. Up until now the Community College District has been well managed--resorting to the use of debt financing only twice in the last 77 years . This proposed new debt (more than ten times larger than any previous SMCCCD bond) shows that the current trustees are no longer capable of responsible financial planning. It is time for new leadership.

Why I Oppose the $148,000,000 Bond

The official ballot statement by the San Mateo County Community College District claims they need 148 Million dollars for the following:

• upgrade computer and science labs
• repair leaky roofs
• remove asbestos
• make seismic upgrades
• retrofit classrooms
• improve disabled access
• improve safety on campuses
• make other real property acquisitions and improvements

• Roughly one-half of the money property owners pay in taxes for the bond goes to pay the interest, and will not go to repairs and improvements to the colleges. You would be helping investors as much as students. --That's not very efficient.
• As a resident of the District for 10 years and a former College of San Mateo student, I have NEVER received a fund raising appeal to support our Community Colleges. SMCCCD should first attempt to VOLUNTARILY collect money from the public before putting owners in the position of losing their homes if they fail to make the bond payment on their property taxes.
• It doesn't make sense to finance computers which last only two to three years over 25 years.
• If it is true that this bond is needed for repairs, then it shows that the existing buildings aren't being maintained with the current revenue stream of the District. That would mean that they don't have the cash flow to support any new acquisitions. Responsible planners don't borrow money to construct buildings they can't afford to maintain or repair. That's not fair to employees or tax payers.

ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE A

Pizza? Proponents soft-pedal the cost of making payments on this bond, comparing the tax to the cost of a pizza. However, if you own or rent a home assessed at $300,000 today, you can expect to pay an extra $600--$1,200 over the life of this bond.

Looking back: If trustees had set aside $2.7 million for each of the last 25 years--anticipating repairs--they would have had $148 million in the bank today (if invested at 6%). Every condominium association in California is required by law to plan this way. Responsible planners don't let property deteriorate and then ask residents to take out "second mortgages" after the fact.

Vote against irresponsible planning! Our community colleges are not presently encumbered with debt, and there is no reason to start down that road today.

Going into debt for 25 years to make repairs today is like starting a lifetime smoking habit to lose 10 pounds. --And once politicians get into the bond debt habit they never quit.

Costs: Bond advocates want to blow $148 million now, and then spend over $10 million annually thereafter on investor payments for the next 25 years (totaling over $250 million). Most purchases would deteriorate before they're paid for!

Because bondholders are paid interest of roughly 5-1/2% every year, taxpayers would spend almost twice as much money for the same purchases as under a pay-as-you-go discipline. Every American who has ever declined a credit card knows this. Why don't the incumbents get it?

Looking forward: If--instead of going into debt--we simply budgeted $5.92 million of current revenue for maintenance and upgrades each year, we'd spend the same $148 million in total--and some of the equipment would be new every year. That's fair to every generation.

SAY NO TO DEBT!

/s/ Margret Buckley Schmidt Candidate, Community College District Governing Board

/s/ John J. "Jack" Hickey Candidate, Community College District Governing Board

/s/ Lacy Nelson Chairman Pro Tem., Libertarian Party of San Mateo County

/s/ David L. Collins Resident, San Mateo Highlands

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE A

It's true! An "unprecedented" number of people have their hands on the public purse today. --Witness the politicians lining up to raise your taxes! They should be ashamed--not proud.

Where did the money go?

Since 1992, District property tax revenue growth far outpaced inflation: 70% to 22%. Bay Area sales tax revenue rose 36% from 1993 to 1997. County property tax revenue increased by almost 9% last year alone!

Taxes already on the books could pay for everything on the proponents' wish list, with only a minimum of patience. No increase in the tax rate is necessary.

Coffee?? They compare the cost of this bond to 170,000,000 cups of coffee. So what?! There are only about 250 thousand families in San Mateo County to pay for all that spending--$250 million in principle and interest. That's about $1000 on average per family in new taxes, no matter how you count it.

Forget something? The #1 use of Measure A funds--nearly half the total--would be interest payments.

This is NOT a referendum on the value of our community colleges. They will continue to be well funded by the taxes we already pay whether this measure passes or fails. Last year, SMCCCD got 8.7% of all property taxes collected.

This IS a vote on bonded indebtedness--passing costs to another generation of taxpayers, many of whom are too young to vote or haven't been born yet.

SAY NO TO DEBT! Vote NO on Measure A!

/s/ Margret Buckley Schmidt Candidate, Community College District Governing Board

/s/ John J. "Jack" Hickey Candidate, Community College District Governing Board

/s/ Vi Gotelli Former Mayor, Pacifica

/s/ Christopher R. Inama Economics Professor, Attorney

/s/ Wayne Harter Tax Preparer