Meet the new tax, same as the old tax

Five years ago, you thought you were voting to spend $163 million -- $110 through the Measure A tax and $53 million in matching state funds -- to bring our schools up to the proper health and safety codes.

You now know, however, that the school board miscalculated; that it underestimated the amount that was needed to do all the work at all the schools. Of its list of seven priorities established through Measure A five years ago, there is only enough money to get through the top four.

In a spectacular attempt to revise history and cover up the blunder, the following was written into the language of the new tax, Measure F -- one of the many “whereases” that set up the reasons to ask you for even more money on Nov. 8:

“Whereas, the Measure A and the state matching funds were not intended to finance all of the current or future facility needs of the district and there is further need to improve, rehabilitate, repair, and renovate educational facilities within the district.... “

Yes, you read it correctly. The $163 million the school board asked for five years ago was never meant to finance all of the district’s current needs.

So why, you should be asking yourself, did board members not ask for what they really needed back then? Why didn’t they ask for the full amount five years ago and save us all the time, trouble and expense of floating more bonds? Why didn’t they ask for all of the money five years ago and allow the taxpayers to save through economies of scale, avoiding rising construction costs and the efficiencies of getting all the work done at once with the least amount of disruption to the education of our kids?

There are a few possibilities:

* That “whereas” entry in the new bond is not true and was included in an effort to justify your proposed new tax.

* The school board knew five years ago that the $163 million was not going to be enough but didn’t bother to tell you.

* This board, although wellmeaning, does not know how to manage this kind of money or these kinds of projects for you.

We should be willing to give this board the benefit of the doubt on the first possible answer. Although heavily involved in the debate over Measure A five years ago, I never once heard anyone say that the Measure A funds “were not intended to finance all of the current or future facility needs of the district.” A claim such as that is one I would have questioned. Still, we don’t want to believe that someone has made this up for the sake of covering up a massive miscalculation.

So, let’s move to the next possible answer. Would the board members really have neglected to tell us that $163 million was not enough? Why would it do -- or not do -- that? Maybe they all forgot.

Or it may be because if the board told you then that it was not enough money, you may have asked why we were spending about $2 million to fix up the football field and auditorium at Newport Harbor High School instead of using every cent on the brick-andmortar improvements you were promised.

Or you may have asked why, if $163 million was not enough, the board didn’t ask for more.

Then there is that last possible answer. It’s the answer I choose to believe, that they are well-intentioned but unable to manage a large project. I believe this answer because it is supported by the need for the new funds through the latest tax, Measure F.

Now that you know that the tax money from five years ago will not suffice, do you have any guarantees that the $282 million will be enough? No, you do not. If anything, you are less likely to see everything completed this time around than you were five years ago.

That’s because this tax contains some disturbing qualifying language -- a safety valve, so to speak -- that will excuse the board from having to keep any of the promises it is making, including the construction of new athletic facilities at Estancia and Costa Mesa high schools.

Here’s the exact wording from the tax: “Inclusion of a project on the bond project list is not a guarantee that the project will be completed.”

That’s about as ironclad a nonguarantee as you’re ever going to read.

There are a lot of very good people supporting this bond. Some of them have established Costa Mesa United to help raise money for long overdue athletic facilities at Costa Mesa High School, including a 50-meter swimming pool complex qualified to host CIF swim meets and water polo games, and an outdoor sports stadium with state-of-the-art lighting, nine-lane track and seating for 2,500 at Estancia High School.

Under Measure F, the funds required to complete these two facilities would be provided.

Unless, of course, they run out of money first.

If you want the pool and the stadium built, you should not think it’s too much to ask that these improvements at the two Costa Mesa high schools show up at or near the top of the list of priorities, just to be safe.

You should not think it’s too much to ask for the board to specify exactly what is going to be done at each school, how much it will cost, in what order each project will be completed and how long it will take.

So far, they have not told you any of this.

Whereas, unless they do, it’s: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

* STEVE SMITH is a Costa Mesa resident and a freelance writer. Readers may leave a message for him on the Daily Pilot hotline at (714) 966-4664 or send story ideas to [email protected].

20051026gzisd0ke(LA)