'Share Cubberley,' advisory committee says Schools & Kids, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on Mar 11, 2013 at 11:04 am
A new high school -- as well as a comprehensive community center -- at Cubberley are possible if the Palo Alto school district and city governments work toward a common vision, a community advisory committee says.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, March 11, 2013, 9:50 AM
Posted by dean, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 11, 2013 at 11:04 am
It would be interesting to know how many of those named on the committee are Cubberley graduates.
Most of us (and again in the interest of full disclosure I am a former Midtown resident) who are Cubberley grads live in other cities for work and economic reasons.
BTW, I recently rented from Amazon "Lesson Plan", the award winning documentary by Phil Neel, Cubberley '69 about the Ron Jones "Third Wave" dust-up. It definely was the incumbator for the United Student Movement Jones kicked into high gear. Would highly recommend the film to anyone interested in the roots of Palo Alto and Cubberley.
Posted by Palo-Alto-Can't-Afford-Itself!, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 11, 2013 at 11:35 am
It's interesting that a number of names associated with PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) are on this committee. Wonder how many people were rejected from serving on the committee because they didn't support the continuation of poorinng vast sums of public money into this site?
Will be interesting to read the report and see just how "fair and balanced" it is. Given that several of these people pushed the Library Bond (Measure N) through, even though the sift from paper-based information distribution digital information distribution was clearly under way--these people used their wealth, and social standing, to marginalize those who believed that this huge library complext was unneeded. Now, just a couple of years later, they are back--pusing another $150M-$300M bill on the table for a huge expansion of the community center--which is used heavily by non-residents (Foothill and non-profits).
The so-called Infrastructure BRC focused heavily on the Cubberley Center in its report—while generally ignoring the rest of the low-level infrastructure needs that the City will have to deal with in the coming decades. The Cubberley rehab price tag now jumps from $40M (2000s approx.) to perhaps $300M (cited by Daily Post). This amount needs to be added to the $500+M that the City has previously identified, and the 100+M (cost to be shared jointly with several parties), and operating the Palo Alto Airport primarily for non-residents, and the golf course, also for non-residents.
The School District has well over $400M in Measure B and Measure A (some debt not yet incurred) that must be paid off. Additionally, the District has previously claimed that it has another $375M in spending that it would like to take to the voters.
How much does all of this come to, once financing charges are added in? We have to be looking at well over $2B—which will have to be paid for with 20,000-25,000 parcels of Palo Alto taxpayers, and 3,000 to 4,000 additional PAUSD taxpayers (LAH and Stanford). And this $2B is just an estimate, because there is no obligation for either the PAUSD, or the City, to provide the taxpayers will all of their proposed projects for even the next decade.
Somewhere between 15% and 25% of the joint City/PAUSD properties are paying less than $1,500 a year in taxes. The rest of the newer property owners are carrying the burden of property taxes that are generally 10x more than their older neighbors. Paying for all of these grandiose ideas will become quite a burden on the newer residents.
It’s really time to have a moratorium on all of this “planning”, and spend some time coming up with a sound financial plan for both the City and the PAUSD.
Posted by palo alto parent, a member of the Palo Alto High School community, on Mar 11, 2013 at 2:05 pm
For all those criticizing the volunteers - the reason you see the same names on this committee and many others is that these volunteers are willing to spend their time working on City and School related issues. (Remember, they are volunteers as in they don't get paid for this).
As in any community, a small number of volunteers show up for most of the work. Unless you are willing to put in the time, don't criticize people for volunteering.
Posted by NO MORE BRICK AND MORTAR, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 11, 2013 at 7:21 pm
I have always liked the idea of the online universities, free education for all. Why not online high school? Then the poor kids could get the sleep that teens need before starting school, since they have later sleep patterns than most of us. For once, let PA lead the way....why is it always Europe.....what happened to Yankee Ingenuity?
Posted by Disappointed teacher, a member of the Jordan Middle School community, on Mar 11, 2013 at 7:48 pm
As a PAUSD teacher, I am disappointed that the CAC committee was chaired by Mandy Lowell. Ms. Lowell and her husband, Charles Munger, Jr., contributed $35 million to oppose Proposition 30. If Prop 30 had failed schools in our state would have been devastated with the cost here in PAUSD at least $5 million annually. The CTA had to spend $12 million to respond to Ms. Lowell and Mr. Munger's expenditures to defend public funding for education here and statewide.
There are many possible people who could chair the CAC. There is no reason for the district to provide Ms. Lowell an opportunity to pose as a friend of public education in our community and our state.
Posted by Palo-Alto-Can't-Afford-Itself!, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 11:01 am
>As a PAUSD teacher, I am disappointed that the
>CAC committee was chaired by Mandy Lowell.
>Ms. Lowell and her husband, Charles Munger, Jr.,
>contributed $35 million to oppose Proposition 30.
It’s called “democracy”. Ever hear of it?
>If Prop 30 had failed schools in our state
>would have been devastated with the cost
>here in PAUSD at least $5 million annually.
What a crock!!! The District’s yearly expenditures have been slowly moving up to the $200M per year level. At best, a $5M reduction in State provided funds would have come to only 2.5%-3% of the yearly budget. How in the world can anyone be teaching our children who can not perform simple arithmetic, and understand the results of those calculations. There is no way, in this life or the next, that a 3% reduction in spending would “devastate” the PAUSD.
Most school districts spend about 85% of their budgets on salaries and benefits. At the worst, some people in the publicly-funded education industry would not see bigger raises in the near term. A lot of unnecessary State-mandated instruction could be terminated with absolutely no impact on the quality of the schools academic performance.
This poster has proven once again, that too many of the unionized educational professionals in this country don’t understand what America is all about.
Posted by Pro-democracy, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 9:52 pm
I agree with the teacher about Mandy Lowell. It's a free country, if she wants to spend $35 million trying to defund public education in California, no one can stop her. (Anyone forgetting the impact, it was $6 billion annually to education). Palo Alto doesn't have to help her launder her reputation though.