On the June 2 ballot, voters within the Redwood City School District (RCSD) will decide on Measure C, a parcel tax initiative designed to bolster funding for local elementary and middle schools. The measure aims to address budgetary pressures caused by declining enrollment and inflation, focusing on staff retention and academic programs.
Here is a breakdown of the pros and cons of Measure C.
What is Measure C?
- Tax Rate: 17.5 cents per building square foot annually on improved parcels (e.g., a 1,000-square-foot home would pay $175 per year).
- Unimproved Parcels: $25 per year.
- Duration: Eight years, starting July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2034.
- Revenue Generation: Estimated $12.2 million annually.
- Exemptions: Senior citizens and those receiving SSI for a disability can apply for an exemption.
- Vote Requirement: Needs two-thirds approval to pass.
Pros of Measure C
- Local Control and Retention: All funds stay within the RCSD, preventing them from being taken by the state or federal government. Funds are designated for teacher retention, science, music, and art programs.
- Addresses Staffing Shortages: Supporters argue the funds are critical to offering competitive compensation to retain experienced teachers, counselors, and aides in a high-cost area.
- Provides Stability: As a “basic-aid” district facing declining enrollment, this measure provides predictable, long-term funding (eight years) to help avoid further significant budgetary cuts.
- Accountability Measures: The initiative includes an independent citizens’ oversight committee, annual audits, and a prohibition against using funds for administrator salaries.
- Equitable Structure: The square-footage calculation ensures that larger commercial properties pay more than smaller residential properties.
Cons of Measure C
- Increased Tax Burden: Property owners would face an additional tax during a time of high living costs.
- Length of Tax: The measure locks in the tax for eight years, which some homeowners may find too long without a chance to re-evaluate the district’s performance.
- Opposition to Oversight Legitimacy: Some argue that, despite the promise of an oversight committee, the actual control of funds is too broad, and accountability is not guaranteed once the vote is cast.
- Controversy Over Tax Type: Unlike bonds, which pay for capital improvements, this is a special tax on all parcels, which can be seen as less equitable for property owners without children in the district.
Measure C is viewed by advocates as necessary to maintain the quality of education and support staff amid financial constraints. Opponents, however, focus on the strain of additional taxes and potential lack of oversight.
No no no
“They just can’t handle the money “
How much more ?
The assertion that this tax will be used to retain teachers and counselors is not at all guaranteed. Cash is fungible so they can redirect money they currently spend (without this new parcel tax) towards administrators and then say this money will go to teachers. To make this clear: assume for illustrative purposes they spend $100 today without this new tax, with $60 going to teachers and $40 going to administrators. They can shift how they spend money they currently have, so maybe make it $50 for teachers and $50 for administrators. Now they add the parcel tax and say “see, we are spending the extra $10 on teachers). Yet in the end the new math is still $60 on teachers and now $50 on administrators. Just like a shell game. This concern was raised to the district yet they don’t want to address it. Don’t trust them.
Absolutely NOT! How about we CUT, there’s a novel idea! “The measure aims to address budgetary pressures caused by declining enrollment and inflation, focusing on staff retention and academic programs”…well if enrollment is declining, cut teachers and close schools. Are you going to have highly paid (and benefited) teachers standing in empty classrooms? Staff retention = more pay in already underperforming classrooms. I say we cut and close. Then stop offering defined benefit retirement programs! Make them invest in their own retirements and benefits like the rest of us. This is a total joke on the taxpayers.
Vote No on C. New Superintendent, and this parcel tax should not have been placed on the ballot without a clear plan for how RCSD will move forward to right-size the district to address academic (Reading!) needs given the areas of shrinking and growing enrollment, notably Mandarin Immersion Pre-K where the high SES parents like to switchover to North Star at 3rd grade which sinks MI’s enrollment. Supt. Baker knew in 2019 that RCSD would leave LCFF and become Basic Aid funded, but he decided to simply close the four smallest campuses and ‘punted’ on the equity issues, and fortifying MI and NSA post-pandemic. So give me a break over the tired old argument that surrounding districts pay more so C is needed to pay the teachers: you have fewer students to teach and Basic Aid funding. Now the MI parents have brought back tracked ELA (more lanes to come?) to middle school, while the high school district has only defended Honors for Carlmont which no-one in RCSD can attend even by lottery because it is full. M-A and Woodside try to integrate students from the poorer parts of Redwood City, when RCSD has done everything to segregate. No on C to make RCSD focus on restructuring instead of continuing and deepening its segregation via “Schools of Choice.”
I’m excited to vote Yes on this. Our school has lost several important staff positions over the past couple years that will be restored with these funds, and that’s true across the district.
I hear the concerns of these comments, but they are uninformed on the current situation in RCSD it seems. Every school site has already cut one entire administration salary from every school. School sites have been shut and condensed. Eliminating school choice, doesn’t fix segregation unless you fix housing segregation and leaving it to school sites to do their own PTO funding is what deepens the inequality in our schools. This parcel tax, which sends hundreds of thousands to schools sites each year, directly, away from the district, plus allocates based on students with higher needs, ell, low income, foster etc. is the best option for helping out RCSD students improve. We pay less than all our neighbors. Why would kids in San Carlos, Belmont and Menlo Park and Palo Alto deserve more. Redwood City kids deserve support in improving their access to quality schools. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Vote Yes on C
Carson, have you questioned why there is no ACTUAL middle schoool (only grades 6-8) that White/White Adjacent Asians want to put their kids in? “Neighborhood School” K-8 configuration maybe keeps kids living in the same neighborhood together in Belmont, but that doesn’t happen in RCSD with magnet schools, longtime pattern of white flight to private, and charter schools for the poors. When Roy Cloud loses families to North Star, it creates openings for non-neighborhood kids to attend. Henry Ford might look like an expensive neighborhood but look at who actually enrolls (hint: “People in the know” go to St. Pius or temporarily park for a bit till a spot opens up at RC or NSA). Not all Whites/higher SES are afraid of Kennedy, but MIT is a huge NO for most if you’re being honest. Yet NSA shares the campus with MIT, but it’s a separate school — they like to emphasize that, that it’s not an academic program but needs to be a school. Traditionally magnet schools bring higher performing kids back to lower SES campuses but RCSD does it exactly wrong and gives cream of the crop students separatist schools (MI, and ‘elementary school funded’ NSA where parents pay up to make it look like it has middle school enrichments). Baker kept Clifford open though it was practically empty, geographically very isolated for transportation, he redistricted to fill it up and justify keeping it open. Oh BTW when Henry Ford and Hawes were merged, HF was overfull and the district was calling and begging for wealthier HF parents to commute their kids across town to Clifford where there was space. Historically NSA was set up bc MIT was becoming too Hispanic, on the argument that “gifted” kids need acceleration or they act out in class… NSA used to offer their kids to take geometry at Sequoia… what has happened to all that? Today as it stands, the PTO’s try to raise money to cover what K-8 (elementary school level funding from the state) does not, for instance K-8 kids get funding for one day of PE only whereas state middle school funding would provide for 4-5 days. Why is it acceptable that NSA and Clifford share a half-time music teacher? It’s bc higher SES families have already largely paid for private lessons if their kid showed interest in music, so they don’t fight for it… and anyway with K-8/PTO funding the system is set up to build “enrichment” programs at the “good schools” on the backs of parents so if the major contributing families graduate and there isn’t some other family to hand the ropes to, then it dies and whatever the next PTO leaders care about is what gets funded by outsourcing it. Hence bullying in PE, and lack of continuity in arts education. Parcel tax is not going to address the work environment nor teacher pipeline. Packing kids into larger campuses is a policy choice. K-8 configurations mean state funding for grades 6-8 is lost. With smartphones in school, parents get more concerned about K-5 ages being around 6-8, if kids aren’t “safe” then you get more high SES flight out. BTW NSA might look full now post-pandemic, but when Baker closed the schools RCSD was LCFF and 1/3 of the NSA seats were filled by students from outside the district = there were not enough takers coming from within the district to fill NSA. Menlo Park rejected the proposal to create MI, but RCSD took it because at the time it made sense to bring more butts to full seats (LCFF). But now that RCSD is Basic Aid, when you have fewer students then you have more money bc there would be fewer students/campuses to educate. So now you have families signing up for free pre-K but RCSD has to find Mandarin-qualified teachers. So far they haven’t expanded NSA’s size but you could argue the ‘acceleration program’ should be open to all who qualify. The TL;DR is, there is nothing in Measure C to address middle school grades 6-8 equity. Hoover K-8 doesn’t even have a PTO. How about have ONE FUND instead of separate PTO’s, to fund *programs* not *sites*? Commonsense tells you the donating parents will close their wallets if the money isn’t going directly to their kids school/education. Look deeper. Measure C is not good. It is throwing good money after bad, and only serves to allow RCSD to continue paving the cowpaths.