[mike777]

The chairman of Intel lives in AZ not Calif. Intel builds its new plants outside of Calif due to high costs. Microsoft of course chose to not be based in Calif for many reasons. The fact that Gates grew up in Wash was one but far from the only reason to not locate to silicon valley. High taxes and the high cost of living in Calif was one major reason to not relocate there.

Numerous Aerospace and Defense companies have relocated out of Calif due to high costs. Even much of Hollywood has migrated away.

I guess I see one forum poster would not have a problem with sending their kids to school in LA rather than a private religious school alternative. I lived there for 15 years and knew no one who did not try and take drastic steps to keep their kids out of public schools. However I do know many teachers who love to teach in public schools outside of LA due to the high pay, generous pension plan and vacation time.

I note the news says the governator is trying to cut 5 billion in spending but no luck so far. Not sure how he plans to plug the remaining 16 billion shorfall but I assume massive tax increases and borrowing is one option rather than trying to cut services or paychecks.

Speaking of poor schools.

My Mom taught in a public school in the worst part Chicago. She loved her job but did get mugged twice taking public transportation to and from work. I went to a public grammer school on the South side of Chicago(Pullman, where they made the famous sleeper railroad cars). Now the School district has been taken over by the mayor since it became so bad. A couple of years ago I went back to my old stomping grounds. It looked like a war zone. CAtholic churches had closed, the catholic HS closed and my old apartment where I lived as a child was boarded up. The bank across the street had left as did the local grocery and department stores.

I post this because it showed me how people make a community and I am afraid many are thinking of leaving the community of Calif for cheaper housing/better schools and lower taxes.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Not sure how he plans to plug the remaining 16 billion shorfall but I assume massive tax increases and borrowing is one option rather than trying to cut services or paychecks.

I will be curious to see the ratings on those bonds, the interest rates demanded for the risk, and who ends up buying them.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on May 25 2009, 03:50 PM, said:

Quote

Not sure how he plans to plug the remaining 16 billion shorfall but I assume massive tax increases and borrowing is one option rather than trying to cut services or paychecks.

I will be curious to see the ratings on those bonds, the interest rates demanded for the risk, and who ends up buying them.

For the most part the vast majority buying/loaning money will be citizens living in Calif. They get a tax break that others would not. Granted it will be the richest of the rich who will end up with the tax breaks. Also, Calif tax free bond funds will purchase them to resell to the public.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on May 25 2009, 02:37 PM, said:

luke warm, on May 25 2009, 02:23 PM, said:

you're right, it was much the same when i was in school... at that time, the shop teacher had a paddle, a good size one with holes drilled in it... nowadays just having such a thing might get a teacher arrested... hell i read about a parent charged with abuse for spanking a kid (who was acting up) in a grocery store

My 6th grade teacher had a big wooden paddle with a handle, and he used it once in awhile -- particularly on one kid.

I never got hit with the paddle, but one time he stood me in front of the class and threw erasers at me over and over. I had accidentally hit Karen Holman when she suddenly stood up from her desk in the middle of an eraser-throwing fight among us boys.

It was embarrassing. I don't recall any eraser-throwing fights after that.

I am not particularly advocating paddling or, for that matter, telling a student to sit on his fat ass. My thoughts are more along the lines of someone has to be in charge, and we have to accept the practical implications of imperfect people.

For example, in my high school, we were not allowed to wear jeans. Why? Who knows. But consider the implications. On day one, every kid, if he is attending that school, has accepted that the principal has the right to tell him what he can and cannot wear. This is an enormous psychological advantage for the principle. If there is to be a battle over who is in charge, it is fought over blue jeans, not over the free speech right to display gang symbols. Later, if that issue arises, it seems clear enough that someone who can ban blue jeans can ban gang symbols, swastikas, whatever he finds offensive. That's the whose in charge part. The practicality part is this: The teacher, or principle, will not be perfect. Let it be. On balance, it's better to have teachers who make a few mistakes than to have teachers pulled in twenty directions by twenty parents. "Sit on your fat ass and shut up" may not be everyone's way of addressing kids. Not even my way. It's OK. They will live.


We did seem to be able to run our schools without guards or metal detectors. It's worth asking how this could be, even if you do not agree with my views. I doubt that the fundamental genetic make up of kids has changed that much.

[jdonn]

kenberg, on May 25 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

We did seem to be able to run our schools without guards or metal detectors. It's worth asking how this could be, even if you do not agree with my views. I doubt that the fundamental genetic make up of kids has changed that much.

The schools now manage to run without paddles and with blue jeans.

[mike777]

jdonn, on May 25 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

kenberg, on May 25 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

We did seem to be able to run our schools without guards or metal detectors. It's worth asking how this could be, even if you do not agree with my views. I doubt that the fundamental genetic make up of kids has changed that much.

The schools now manage to run without paddles and with blue jeans.

I do agree they do run. In fact a tiny fraction even do well.

I must admit the biggest issue I remember is when the girls in my High School Physics class started a protest against girls not being allowed to wear jeans in school, in winter. Of course they were all daughters of Univ. Professors if I remember. Of course this was inbetween all the marches/protests/teargas/etc against the War that we all bought into.

As for grammer school I do remember a few of the cool kids bringing a gun or big knife to school. At the time they were cool kids.

[mike777]

btw:


"Proposition 13, officially titled the "People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation," was a ballot initiative to amend the constitution of the state of California. The initiative was enacted by the voters of California on June 6, 1978. It was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article 13A of the California Constitution.

The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which capped real estate taxes:

“ Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed One percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties."


so prop 13 does not freeze taxes....lol......please.......you can raise all kind of taxes....and even increase revenue from prop...tax...lol.......just increase property.....

I grant if property values drop 50% then the property tax drops!



Proposition 13, officially titled the "People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation," was a ballot initiative to amend the constitution of the state of California. The initiative was enacted by the voters of California on June 6, 1978. It was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article 13A of the California Constitution.

The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which capped real estate taxes:

“Under Proposition 13, the annual real estate tax on a parcel of property is limited to 1% of its assessed value. This "assessed value," however, may only be increased by a maximum of 2% per year, until and unless the property undergoes a change in ownership. At the time of the change in ownership the low assessed value may be reassessed to full current market value which will produce a new base year value for the property, but future assessments are likewise restricted to the 2% annual maximum increase of the new base year value"



Note:
1) if property values fall
2) note if property is sold

[luke warm]

jdonn, on May 25 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

kenberg, on May 25 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

We did seem to be able to run our schools without guards or metal detectors. It's worth asking how this could be, even if you do not agree with my views. I doubt that the fundamental genetic make up of kids has changed that much.

The schools now manage to run without paddles and with blue jeans.

yes, and everything is so much better for it

[helene_t]

kenberg, on May 26 2009, 12:54 AM, said:

For example, in my high school, we were not allowed to wear jeans. Why? Who knows. But consider the implications. On day one, every kid, if he is attending that school, has accepted that the principal has the right to tell him what he can and cannot wear. This is an enormous psychological advantage for the principle.

I don't like this kind of reasoning. Children are curious by nature and that's a good thing. They want to know "why". Parents (or, in this case, school authorities) who answer "because I say so" seem to want children to be dump.

There must be rules and there must be some enforcement of the rules, but it doesn't help the respect for the rules if they don't make sense, which will be the case if they are just made up for the sake of making rules.

[kenberg]

jdonn, on May 25 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

kenberg, on May 25 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

We did seem to be able to run our schools without guards or metal detectors. It's worth asking how this could be, even if you do not agree with my views. I doubt that the fundamental genetic make up of kids has changed that much.

The schools now manage to run without paddles and with blue jeans.

Yes, they run, sort of. In quite a few large school districts people either move out (see Phil's note) or they send their kids to private school (as Mike has said).

Again comparing with my youth and childhood. The kids across the street, down a couple of houses, went to Catholic school. That was because they were Catholic. Their mmother tried to convince my mother she should send me to Catholic school. The answer was simple, we aren't Catholic. Now many people look into the Catholic school system for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. In the block where I used to live, a Jewish woman was looking into the local home school network. It's pretty heavily Christian, she was told. Hardly a plus for a Jewish family, but she was about ready to make the switch (in the end, she decided to live with the public schools). When people send their kids to a religious school that is not of their religion in order to get them taught, I would say that this is a strong vote of no confidence in the schools.

My granddaughter goes to a high school that is very good and I believe that she is quite safe there. Adolescent years are inherently dangerous, but she is safe if she keeps her head on straight. That's fine for her. But both her parents have Ph.Ds and can afford to live where the schools are good. I grew up in a different environment. My father finished eighth grade, about the standard for the neighborhood. Still, I went to a not great but definitely acceptable high school where I was safe (again, safe means provided I didn't do anything too stupid). There was not money to send me to a private school, but there was also no strong reason to do so. For kids growing up in modest circumstances these days, that has changed.


Jimmy Carter sent Amy to a public school in DC. It worked out I guess, but few people would willingly do so. Not the Obamas, not most people. And I am not so sure Carter would do so today. I am not saying the school system should accommodate presidential kids, but it should be good enough so that people don't gasp when they find out your kids are going to a public school.

Anyway, this all both is and isn't off the subject of California. Somehow things that once seemed simple now seem to not be. Both in Calif and nationally we need to understand why this is so.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on May 26 2009, 07:27 AM, said:

In the block where I used to live, a Jewish woman was looking into the local home school network. It's pretty heavily  Christian, she was told. Hardly a plus for a Jewish family, but she was about ready to make the switch (in the end, she decided to live with the public schools). When people send their kids to a religious school that is not of their religion in order to get them taught, I would say that this is a strong vote of no confidence in the schools.

Except for one Montessori primary school, we found both public and private schools unacceptable for our sons (albeit for different reasons). So we had a home school for them until their college years.

I can attest to the heavily (right-wing) Christian nature of the home school network, and we pretty much steered clear of that. We went to trade shows for folks buying text books and materials for home schooling, and among the materials available were wall charts showing the 6000-year history of the Earth, and so on. But good materials were available also.

One thing we found was that colleges have programs where students of high school age can take one or two college courses per semester. Through those programs our sons got to take courses difficult to provide at home, such as laboratory sciences and (for our young artist) life drawing.

During their high school years, each took at least one college course every semester and, in addition to what they learned, got a good feeling for what college life was like.

[hrothgar]

I find this all a bit surprising

I went to public schools
Almost all my friends went to public schools
The children of almost my friends and family are going to public schools
This is just what's done.

(The only exceptions in my circle o'friends are the folks with "Gossip Girl" type money. Moreover, I expect that their decision might be motivated more by the fact that they live in urban centers than income)

In much the same way, folks around here actually vote in favor of tax over rides, bond structures, and the like to fund said school systems. It's expected behavior.

I hear you all talking about guns, metal detectors, etc. None of this even resonates with me.

I don't know if this is a California versus Massachusetts thing or an urban versus surburban thing or what, but a lot of you are living in a very weird part of the world.

[jdonn]

luke warm, on May 26 2009, 05:10 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 25 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

kenberg, on May 25 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

We did seem to be able to run our schools without guards or metal detectors. It's worth asking how this could be, even if you do not agree with my views. I doubt that the fundamental genetic make up of kids has changed that much.

The schools now manage to run without paddles and with blue jeans.

yes, and everything is so much better for it

Yes I blame the schools for everything wrong in the world. We should go back to the good old days when you could beat students and there were world wars every third decade. But hey don't look at me, I went to a high school with such a good moral backdrop they didn't even have locks on the lockers (yes, really). And we didn't even need a religious affiliation to pull it off!

But maybe I'm wrong after all. I can think of plenty of adults who could have used some sense beat into them long ago. I'm not sure how the jeans are hurting but I'll think of something.

[helene_t]

Josh, you sound very old. This "it is all the school's fault" (or the parents' fault for that matter) went out of fashion when I was in primary school. The new hype is to blame all evil on our genes.

[mikeh]

helene_t, on May 26 2009, 09:41 AM, said:

Josh, you sound very old. This "it is all the school's fault" (or the parents' fault for that matter) went out of fashion when I was in primary school. The new hype is to blame all evil on our genes.

Yes, since we all know, now, that genes are selfish little buggers

Hey, I found a way to get evolution involved... ooops.

[hrothgar]

mikeh, on May 26 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

helene_t, on May 26 2009, 09:41 AM, said:

Josh, you sound very old. This "it is all the school's fault" (or the parents' fault for that matter) went out of fashion when I was in primary school. The new hype is to blame all evil on our genes.

Yes, since we all know, now, that genes are selfish little buggers

Hey, I found a way to get evolution involved... ooops.

Or "jeans", as the case may be

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9041502861.html

(the article is a real hoot)

[JoAnneM]

I don't know for sure which side was right in the last California election, I voted yes on all but one issue, but what to me was most distressing is the fact that this was the lowest % voter turnout I think ever. My husband is an election precinct volunteer clerk and they pretty much just sat around all day.

Usually when an issue is very controversial it is the naysayers who are going to turn out in numbers to support their position. The TV and radio advertising in these campaigns is emotional not informational.

It really bothers me that about 20% (+or-) of the population of Calilfornia has decided the fate of the rest of us.

I haven't read all the posts so if this is a repeat I apologize.

[kenberg]

I have mixed feelings about light voter turnout. If someone is totally clueless about the implications of the matter before them, it's best they don't vote. And of course then my vote is a larger fraction of the total vote.

Getting people to vote is a popular idea, but it seems like voting would be a natural consequence of getting people interested in the issues, so maybe that should be the goal.

[luke warm]

kenberg, on May 26 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

I have mixed feelings about light voter turnout. If someone is totally clueless about the implications of the matter before them, it's best they don't vote. And of course then my vote is a larger fraction of the total vote.

Getting people to vote is a popular idea, but it seems like voting would be a natural consequence of getting people interested in the issues, so maybe that should be the goal.

good luck with that... it's been a popularity contest for so long (i'm talking about elections for people here) that i doubt it ever changes... as far as issues, i have no problem with low turnout for those...

[Winstonm]

I prefer low voter turnout to ignorant voter turnout.