.

Measure G Campaign Hits the Streets

Supporters of the parcel tax have begun placing signs around the city to spread the word about the Yes on Measure G campaign.

Supporters of Measure G, the San Bruno Park School District parcel tax, have recently begun to step up their campaign efforts to get the ballot measure passed.

Yes on Measure G signs can now be seen in different parts around the city. There are even bilingual signs posted to reach Latino voters.

So far, Measure G, which is expected to raise $1.9 million annually over five years through a $199 tax per parcel, has garnered 80 endorsements from key organizations, officials and residents, according to GreatSanBrunoSchools.com.

Some of those endorsements include the San Mateo County Democratic Party, San Bruno Education Association, San Mateo County Supervisor Dave Pine, Vice Mayor Ken Ibarra and three San Bruno Park schools trustees.

The Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association and San Bruno blogger Bill Baker have come out in opposition of the parcel tax. The taxpayers group said that the district wants to tax residents unnecessarily after already passing two bond measures in 1996 and 1998.

According to the school district, this is the first time that a parcel tax has been placed on the ballot for schools. Measure G needs two-thirds approval to pass.

For more election news, check out the San Bruno Patch election guide.

Correction: This story incorrectly stated that the San Bruno Education Foundation had endorsed Measure G. Rather, the San Bruno Education Association, the teachers union, has endorsed the parcel tax. We regret the error.

watchfultaxpayer October 21, 2012 at 05:10 AM
And so, that having been said, why should a property owner vote to tax themselves another $199 even spread out over 12 months time to hand over to the very same people who continually inefficiently and often stupidly spend what we already entrust to them??? That is what I think a lot of potential Measure G Parcel Tax payers are thinking. Renters may feel ddifferently but they will certainly see an increase should this go through. I don't believe there is an exemption for investment property. It is kind of like "Fool me once shame on you, fool me lots of times, shame of me." Whatever happened to that no confidence petition regarding Hutt??? Just curious. Perhaps if he had really cared about the 'children' he would have just resigned during that time and perhaps they might have gotten someone else and perhaps the property owners might have felt more confident in turning over more of their hard-earned $$$.. But then...we would have still had tthe same board. So, perhaps not. At any rate, thank you CK, for your always clear and knowledgeable explanation re:the source of this 'crisis.'
Joe Capote October 21, 2012 at 09:05 PM
Renters may very well see an increase simply due to the rising rental market. Plus strong schools will command greater rents as renters find the area desirable. (a boon for both landowners and prospective tenants). Measure G will levy $199 per yer per parcel - so multi-unit properties are hit in the same way that single family properties are. So for tenants of multi-unit apartment buildings, the risk that they will see sharp increase to rents simply due to measure G is far less likely.
Maria October 22, 2012 at 03:32 PM
Right on!
Chris Kiely October 25, 2012 at 03:20 AM
Daily Journal says NO on G http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=1756933&title=Editorial:%20No%20on%20Measure%20G
Chris Kiely October 25, 2012 at 03:29 AM
Crushing indictment of the SBPSD Board by SM Daily Journal

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »