Palo Altans have been generous with the school district over the years, approving the last three parcel taxes by wide margins. This time, with just days before ballots hit the mail, the Committee to Protect Palo Alto Schools has raised no money, according to the latest campaign finance reports. And a look around Palo Alto shows the campaign hasn’t put out any yard signs for the June 2 election.
During the last renewal campaign in 2020, the campaign had raised over $68,000 at the same point.
“It seems like the community is souring on the parcel tax,” said Todd Collins, a former board member who is opposing the renewal effort.
“The incredible drop-off in support between 2020 and 2026 is telling. With the district holding $100 million in reserves, many people don’t see why they should give the district another $50 million plus in special taxes over and above their property taxes,” said Collins.
Collins and fellow former board member Ken Dauber said they are running a barebones opposition campaign. They have intentionally done no fundraising, having spent just $30 to set up a website, www.no-on-B.org, Collins said.
“As former board members,” said Dauber, “we know what a healthy, community-backed campaign looks like. What we are seeing now is a historic lack of enthusiasm from the very people — parents and donors — who usually provide the backbone of school support.”
‘Yes’ campaign has pledges
Sarah Cornwell, a leader of the “yes” campaign, said several donors have pledged funds that will show up in the campaign’s next finance report.
“Lawn signs will be going up as soon as we ramp up our campaign before voters start receiving ballots in about 10 days,” Cornwell told the Post.
She said the “yes” campaign is a grassroots effort which has strong support from parents and teachers.
According to Collins, who co-chaired the 2020 renewal campaign, almost 300 signs were in place two weeks before ballots arrived six years ago.
“At this point, there don’t appear to be any lawn signs supporting the renewal,” he said.
Need for tax questioned
Dauber and Collins said they’re opposing the renewal because there doesn’t appear to be a need for the tax.
“With enrollment down by 20% and funding per student doubling in the last 10 years, we really don’t need the parcel tax any more,” said Dauber.
Dauber said that donors are looking at the district’s record-high $100 million reserves and 20% enrollment decline and concluding that the “financial crisis” narrative simply doesn’t match the math.
“It was a critical tool 10 or 20 years ago, when enrollment was rising and property tax funding was lower,” he said. “But things have changed dramatically, and the district no longer has a gap to fill to maintain its excellence — as shown by the $100 million in reserves.”
The school board says it has responded to criticism that the tax is too high by lowering it from roughly $941 per parcel to $800, and freezing that amount for four years. But they say that if the $800 tax isn’t approved, the district will be forced to layoff teachers and increase class sizes.
While the two sides disagree over how much support there is for a parcel tax this year, the district’s voters have routinely approved such taxes in the past.
• In June 2005, voters approved a $465-per-parcel tax with 73% of the vote.
• In May 2010, voters approved a $589-per-parcel tax with 79% of the vote.
• In May 2015, voters approved a $758-per-parcel tax with 77% of the vote.
• And in November 2020, voters approved a $836-per-parcel tax with 77% of the vote.
Be the first to comment