DIANA JANNUZZI
Staff Writer
Recent inflammatory letters to the editor of Malibu newspapers have stirred up the controversy surrounding the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s $268 million bond measure that will go before voters in November.
Several outspoken Malibu residents have rallied against Measure BB, which requires approval of 55 percent before any money is issued. Meanwhile, prominent leaders in the community have signed their names in favor of the measure, citing the need to repair aging schools, update computer technology and reduce overcrowding.
The Board of Education drafted Measure BB after evaluating school facilities and heeding teacher and community input. Members of the Board have begun the task of prioritizing what it considers critical and urgent safety, maintenance and construction needs.
If approved, the measure would generate $268 million over approximately 11 years to fund the projects included in the district’s “Facilities Master Plan.” The FMP, which depends on citizen participation and calls for a “Student Task force,” would guide facility improvements over the next 20 years.
If passed, homeowners can expect to pay an annual sum of $30 for every $100,000 of assessed property value.
Measure BB clearly states that the bond money would be used exclusively for the improvement of school facilities. The money could not be used for any unauthorized expenses, including teachers’ and administrators’ salaries.
Rather, board members say the measure will provide the district with adequate funds to create safer learning environments by removing hazardous materials and ensuring that classrooms have proper protection from earthquake risks. In addition, the funds will allow the District to update classroom technology so that students can acquire the tools needed to excel in today’s competitive job market, proponents say.
Concerned residents have expressed their thoughts concerning Measure BB by submitting letters to the editor of the Malibu Times and Malibu Surfside News.
Pro-BB residents, including the co-chair of the measure, Laura Rosenthal, have included facility improvements in their arguments. “Some of the things that will be accomplished with Measure BB are unglamorous, such as mold and asbestos abatement or fixing school traffic problems,” Rosenthal noted. “We will also be able to modernize our high school library, get rid of portable classrooms and expand playing fields, needs identified in our Facilities Master Plan.”
Furthermore, Laura Rosenthal insists that Santa Monica and Malibu have a “mutually exclusive relationship,” noting that the City of Santa Monica has donated a minimum $6.5 million annually to the SMMUSD. The District, Rosenthal reports, uses these funds to the benefit of all the schools, including schools in Malibu.
“The reality in our state is that we are often asked to pay for educational necessities that the state won’t provide,” Rosenthal stated in a recent letter to the editor of the Malibu Times. “School bond measures are the only way we have of taking care of school facilities.”
In response to critics, Rosenthal addresses the complaint that the tax money collected from Malibu homeowners will not impact them personally. The co-chair insists that Measure BB serves the best interest of the Malibu residents.
“We have enjoyed the benefit of increased property values that are a direct result of our outstanding public schools,” Rosenthal states. “Our schools need repairs, upkeep and maintenance, just like our homes.”
In her concluding remarks to the editor, Rosenthal notes the urgency of the situation. “We must pass this bond now in order to be able to qualify for state matching funds,” she warns.
Opponents of Measure BB include Malibu residents who have routinely opposed previous school tax measures. Doug O’Brien and Tom Fakehany have taken charge of the anti-tax campaign. Both men have expressed their complaints publicly by writing letters to the editor of the Malibu Times.
In a recent letter, Fakehany denounces the Santa Monica City Council’s “thievery concealed in School Bond Measure BB.” In his rebuttal argument, Fakehany attempts to clarify the facts behind, what he terms, the “complex nonsensical language” of Measure BB.
Fakehany cites that the Santa Monica City Council has voted to enlarge its population by increasing rental living space throughout the city. Consequently, Santa Monica schools are anticipating increased student enrollment. Most of the money accrued from Measure BB, Fakehany suspects, will be used for construction of new classrooms to accommodate the influx of students.
“Again a district wide educational Blank Check will enable the renters of Santa Monica to harness the income of Malibu homeowners with years of additional bond obligations,” Fakehany stated in his letter.
Furthermore, opponents, including O’Brien, criticize the School Board for not pursuing alternative financial sources. “When will the bureaucrats figure out that you don’t help a community by laying the entire burden on its homeowners?” O’Brien implores. “Contrary to the beliefs of Santa Monica elitists, Malibu is not affluent nor can many of us afford the sacrifice they keep asking of us.”
O’Brien points to reports of decreased enrollment in local schools as evidence that families increasingly cannot afford to live in Malibu. “Keep raising property taxes like this and we’ll have the most pristine, empty schools in America,” O’Brien concluded.
The USMMD hired an independent firm in Santa Monica to conduct a detailed, 25-minute telephone survey of 500 likely voters. According to district reports, an overwhelming majority of local residents contacted said they would support the bond as long as the tax level does not exceed $30.
However, only district voters in the November election can determine the fate of Measure BB.
Fact Box
-Measure BB requires 55 percent approval from district voters.
-The measure would generate $268 over approximately 11 years for facility improvements in the Santa Monica-Malibu School District.
-Measure BB would cost homeowners an annual sum of $30 for every $100,000 of assessed property value.
11-03-2006