WEATHER »
Santa Barbara City College

Paul Wellman

Santa Barbara City College


City College Needs Measure S

Upgrades Needed for Leaks, Safety, and New Technology


Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

Improving Santa Barbara City College is vital for local students and to maintaining the excellent education offered by SBCC. Improving City College will also boost our local economy, improve skills of our workforce, and help sustain property values.

Our top-notch community college is the primary higher education option for local high school graduates — especially as the cost of attending other colleges and universities in California has skyrocketed to six times or more of that of community college. Almost half of all South County high school graduates rely on City College for higher education or career preparation in the years immediately following high school — and 2,000 Santa Barbara high school students are enrolled in City College each semester while still attending high school.

Local employers rely on City College to train skilled employees for good jobs — and SBCC is also increasingly important for veterans returning home and preparing for the next phase of their lives and careers.

SBCC is a critical resource for students and families, and for businesses seeking skilled employees — and we must keep classrooms, instructional facilities, labs, and technology up-to-date.

That’s why Measure S is essential today: Many classroom buildings are 40-80 years old and suffer significantly from decades of wear and tear: Roofs, floors, and plumbing are leaky and deteriorating; vital safety upgrades are needed; wiring is inadequate to support modern technology; and many vocational labs and other classrooms lack current technology needed for 21st-century skills and career training, especially in health care, science, IT (information technologies), and other growing, technology-intensive fields.

We recognize that there are housing concerns involving students, who often live away from home after graduating from high school. SBCC is exploring all options for contributing to meaningful solutions, including close partnerships with local governments and property owners; transit improvements including coordination with MTD; and strengthening SBCC’s internal support for smart student housing choices.

However, there is no connection between our area’s housing challenges and Measure S. Measure S is for modernizing and improving the educational facilities we already have, not for growing student enrollment. We’re fortunate to live in a uniquely beautiful part of the world, and housing in our area will always be challenging as long as our quality of life remains high. Our great area schools — from kindergarten through higher education — help sustain our property values, local businesses, and our rich cultural resources. While fewer than 6 percent of SBCC students are international, their presence contributes meaningfully to local students’ educational experience. It’s certainly in everyone’s interest to tackle our area’s housing challenges, but Measure S is not related to these issues, and opposing critical upgrades for City College based on housing concerns would make no sense at all.

Just as it has always been, City College will continue to provide the best education possible — as good as or better than any in the United States — to tens of thousands of local students. SBCC continues to be perhaps the single-most-important institution that keeps Santa Barbara affordable for middle-class families, by offering high-quality, affordable higher education and career preparation and training — a critical and essential resource for those who are aiming to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

Measure S is needed today, and it is essential to the future of SBCC and our entire community that we approve it. Our community has always received tremendous value from City College, and it’s time to invest in some much-needed improvements. Voting yes on Measure S is an important choice and will have a profound benefit for students and our entire community.

Please join us, and vote Yes on Measure S.

Peter R. MacDougall is president emeritus of Santa Barbara City College; Michael Bennett is the mayor of Goleta; and S. Monique Limón is a boardmember of the Santa Barbara Unified School District.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

I'll likely vote YES on S, but am wavering. Peter et al. you focus so much on BUILDINGS and display an unseemly reverence for TECHNOLOGY, when you write [I captitalized for emphasis] -- "Many classroom buildings are 40-80 years old and suffer significantly from decades of wear and tear: Roofs, floors, and plumbing are leaky and deteriorating; vital safety upgrades wiring is INADEQUATE TO SUPPORT MODERN TECHNOLOGY; and many vocational labs and other classrooms LACK CURRENT TECHNOLOGY needed for 21st-century skills and career training, especially in health care, science, IT (INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES ), and other growing, TECHNOLOGY-intensive fields."
What about TEACHERS, what about the HUMANITIES, what about FACE-TO-FACE education?! Sure, tech is very very important, but how does SBCC and the State plan to fund teachers/salaries/pensions??
Is it possible Measure S is simply a rewiring of SBCC buildings with all the fibre-optic/electro-technic/screen-happy gizmos the tech industry [read APPLE] can sell to the BS bozo voters??
You three will need to sell a lot better than you have done in this letter, or S is doomed (and you need 55%).

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2014 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Seriously, Ernie Salomon and Glen Mowrer will eat you up at the Sept. 25 debate on S if these bromides and old pablums are all you have: uh, we needa new tech stuff, ya know?! Educating for tomorrow... as if these kids aren't 15 months ahead of us and of the stuff in the upgraded labs?!

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2014 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am all in favor of measure S. City College generates a huge amount of economic activity and tax revenue. Education is one of the cleanest industries and I want Santa Barbara to remain an education center for decades to come.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2014 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pt. III -- "HOW MUCH DO WE WANT TEACHING AND LEARNING TO RESEMBLE A VIDEO GAME?" asks David Bromwich in latest NYRevBks [8/14/14; p50]. H-G you appeal ONLY to the material and to tax revenue benefits of SBCC; Peter Mac stresses the material and how we need BUILDINGS WITH FULL TECH all the time...hey Peter, what about all the $ for an aquatics center and sports pavilion embedded in S?
The model for recent education according to Bromwich "seems to be the elite club" -- but why can't SBCC students just swim/surf at the nearby beach? Learning about idea, high ideals, creative concepts, classroom dialogue and penetrating discussion...? All the buildings don't need so much tech. Bromwich continues about modern education: "...a club whose leading function is to house in comfort thousands of young people...while they form connections that may help them in later life." Civics, what?
No doubt SBCC generates what you say it does, H-G: what about EDUCATION, drawing the best forth from the students? Setting their imaginations loose? Helping them become better CITIZENS?? Are we just interested in producing technocrats, conformity, corporate slaves, hi-tech buildings, and tax revenues??

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2014 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dan calm down, better facilities lead to a better educational experience. They would attract better faculty members and better students. Swimming cannot be taught in the ocean. Santa Barbara needs to maintain its attraction as an educational destination. If the people against this bond measure are going to stress the material expense of this measure then it is crucial that the supporters stress the material benefits of the measure.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2014 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Measure V which passed only a few years ago and still needs to be paid off, brought ongoing SBCC major maintenance up to date according to reports made to the Measure V oversight committee.

SBCC needs to better budget their ongoing major maintenance needs since these are known recurring expenses. The administration's lack of planning should not be thrust up on local taxpayers.

Bond issues should never be used to make up for sloppy budgeting practices which is one more reason to turn down Measure S. Don't fund bad habits.

The campus itself lobbied to not build the promised Measure V technology center, which they insisted was elitist. If SBCC did not want a technology center then when they had Measure V money, why are they asking for it again now.

Peter, your heart does not really sound like it was in your arguments. I can understand why. Expanding SBCC beyond all recognition is not what our local community needs.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2014 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Swimming can be taught at Los Banos, right across the street from SBCC the same way it is being taught right now. Agree, SBCC does not need an additional $10 million dollar swimming pool.

But most of all SBCC does not need to maintain its "attraction as an educational destination". That is SBCC biggest problem right now. Too many students from out of district and demanding we pay for them.

SBCC only needs to provide lower division classes and vocational training for own own local needs and only for our own local students - all 5000 of them, max. Not 20,000 and growing to maintain being "an attractive educational destination". Is this serious!

Hershel, you just want a half billion dollar feeding trough for the building trades unions. Busted.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2014 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jarvis there are also students from outside of California that pay big money to go to a city college that they could attend for almost free in their home state / country. Jarvis if you are going to pose as a serious economic / business commentator, you have to factor in all variables, otherwise you come across as an opinionated jackass. Fall classes are starting soon at SBCC. They have a good basic economics classes; you really should register.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2014 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hershel, we know you represent the building trade unions Nuff said about your Yes on S crowd. Lists of Measure S supporters will be public information, no matter how hard SBCC administration has tried to hide them. If Measure S is so good for the community, why is SBCC spending quarter of a million dollars on marketing to convince us?

You do the math to determine how much SBCC's international students and out of state students would pay in higher fees if they were charged their fair share of this half-billion dollar Measure S bond for the next 30 years.

Right now these higher-fee students pay only the the direct costs of their instruction,. They are not specially assessed for SBCC bond measures on top of that. So no, their higher fees will not help local property owners one bit. But you have a good idea - get them to pay their share of the local bond issues too.

I know you see Measure S as a 30 year meal ticket for your union buddies but that doesn't cut it for the rest of us. What you are proposing in fact shocks the conscience. Follow the money remains good advice.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2014 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Can an itemized list be provided so we can exactly how much each improvement costs?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 1:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)


Dan calm down, better facilities lead to a better educational experience. They would attract better faculty members and better students. Swimming cannot be taught in the ocean.
Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2014 at 7:07 p.m.

That is pure, unadulterated, tomfoolery Herschel. How did WE learn to swim? There is of course, the pools at the high school, the YMCA, and any aquatic center. Do children not learn how to swim before going to SBCC? Have U not heard, Sir, the expression "a school of dolphins"?

U R a silly one today, and if you keep picking on Dr.Dan, we will poop in your rip tide.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 1:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There is another article on this site about all the out-of-town people going to SBCC.

Does it occur to people how this impacts the already deteriorated quality of life of an already overcrowded area?

Keep spending endless sums of money because we are told it will make people better educated, and live the delusion that you are living in paradise as you sit stuck in a traffic jam and wonder how it came to be.

Remember: People with vested interests will either make it about "education" or "the children".

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 1:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)


Dan calm down, better facilities lead to a better educational experience. They would attract better faculty members and better students.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2014 at 7:07 p.m

Some well-educated folks came out of some run-down drab looking edifices in days of yore, while today, we pour untold sums of money into nice, modern-looking buildings turning out many who can barely think.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 2:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

don't agree with Jarvis vs. Herschel, "Hershel [sic], you just want a half billion dollar feeding trough for the building trades unions. " I agree with H-G when he thoughtfully writes, "better facilities lead to a better educational experience. They would attract better faculty members and better students." And with all my living abroad, I think students here NEED more foreign-born same-age students learning with them (let's go to the 8% foreign student bar, we're only at 6%).
Unsure on Measure S, waiting for Sept. 24 debate. 55% will be tough to get. Jarv correct that MacDougal's heart wasn't really in this opinion, full of tired old cliches.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 4:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

and don't make me poop in your riptide

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 4:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, Peter, we'll vote NO on yet another tax. SBCC needs to get its budget under control and accrue for this sort of "improvement".

fredb93117 (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

More than half of Isla Vista residents are now students who move here from outside the area to attend SBCC, like Elliot Rodger. That is according to SBCC itself.

UCSB has responsibly built over 5,000 new dorm spaces in the past 20 years. Those students moved out of IV and into the UCSB dorms.

Who moved into the spots vacated in IV? SBCC out-of-area students, who are wealthy, young, and the hardest partiers of all.

The SBCC advocates have to come to grips with this reality. They have been utterly irresponsible concerning the impact of their students in IV for the past 30 years. Vote no until they show up at the table of those who are trying to solve IV's problems.

pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BillClausen, there is no itemized list, none, at least, publicly available. On the ballot measure itself there are a list of generalities of building upgrades, just as McDouhgall-Bennett-Limon say. One specific in the list of generalities are "modernize Schott campus" and "replace Wake Campus", followed by the catchall, that the Board may decide that "demolition of existing facilities scheduled for repair and upgrade" may occur if it seems more cost-effective. A major item on the list is also the replacement/rebuilding of the gym.

No one or few would be objecting to this bond if the 2008 one, Measure V, had been already spent; it hasn't and isn't paid off yet, with more than $100M owing. Or if this demand had not been so far-reaching, greedy-seeming, even.

I am all for education, have spent much of my life studying, sharing what I have learned, appreciating the skills of teachers, admiring, too, SBCC (as well as Allen Hancock), community colleges. But no more than clothes make the man do buildings make the education. This bond measure is all about buildings, not teaching, not students. It will be the largest school bond in SB County history, I think, and it is very unlikely that the people will be willing to vote for more education $$$ requests for anything. It will be interesting to see who's supporting this bond measure and how much they've paid to do so.

Although I always have voted for education, from what I've read that's not Measure S, and I'll vote against it.

at_large (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If school board member Ms Limon really wanted to help SBCC she would stop sending over so many SBUSD graduates who still need remedial math and english and now dumps this job on SBCC.

Ms Limon instead of shaking down local taxpayers put your efforts into getting Caifornia out of its #45 ranking in K-12 student outcomes. The fewer remdial students you send on to SBCC, the more class room space that does not need to be taken up finally teaching students their failed K-12 basics.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Who in the new administration at SBCC has any experience handling a half million dollar blank check for school construction? None of them. They are all brand new unknown and untested in the community, except for Marty Blum.

Giving Marty Blum a half billion dollars to spend on her union buddies is akin to giving a kid some matches and lighter fluid and telling her to go play in a fleld of dry grass. This crew burned out the last of Measure V with little to show for it. The mind boggles to think what they will do with a half bllion more of our tax dollars to play with.

Peter MacDougall who was known to be honest and tight fisted with our taxdollars is not running SBCC any longer. He is honest as the day is long but he is not in charge at SBCC.

You are handing a half billion dollars over to total strangers now at SBCC who won't even be around to see the last dollar spent. But you will still be paying for it. And they still have not even told you what they will be spending this money on. This is crazy.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't often agree with Jarvis, but his post above mine asking "Who in the new administration at SBCC has any experience handling a half million dollar blank check for school construction?" is spot on. A few years back an LA Community College bond of $5.7 billion became a nightmare for these several city colleges (including Pierce JC, my alma mater), with a lot of wastage and criminal corruption. How experienced are Gaskin and co.? For details see http://calwatchdog.com/2011/03/06/ano... and scroll down a bit.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's absurd that property taxes are funding the party. If the party tourists can afford rent in IV, then they should be able to afford tuition.

Also, has anyone noticed the astronomical cost per square foot when taxes fund construction?

random_kook (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They need to build student housing, not swimming pools that already exist down the hill by their baseball field.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Anybody see all the cool toys the Police are getting from the war manufacturers? Obviously we have enough to pay for so many toys they have to give them away to the police in order to keep us in check. I wonder how much crumbling infrastructure we could have paid for instead.

spacey (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Show me the Water, is not the silt bed known as Gibraltar Reservoir supposed to supply water to the Mesa Area? The Mesa is already over crowded, how about a sustainable level of Students instead of build, build, build. Follow the Money, its a scam.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As the names of the donors to the Yes on Measure S campaign are made public it will be easy to tell who really "needs" Measure S, because it is not SBCC and it is not the community.

Measure S is exposing a dark underbelly in SBCC operations today that never used to exist. MacDougall, I would not go out on a limb for this new group that is now running the college. But that is your call.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

howgreenwasmyvalley: SBCC offers programs that wouldn't exist if they were restricted to locals: Marine Tech attracts people from all over the US because, gee whiz, you can't teach hard hat and mixed gas ocean diving and rationalize the expense of a sat chamber in Oklahoma or Nebraska. Students from all over the US ; former special ops from all branches of the military, for exmaple, enroll in Marine Tech. The RN and other health professional programs are also regional programs that are unavailable anywhere within hundreds of miles.

spacey - the military war toys are Obama, fed financed, not local, and they're part of the NWO/Agenda 21 fascist/totalitarian takeover agenda.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

marine tech is esp'y good, and I'm all for out-of-towners getting to study here... other beefs with Measure S, but likely Yes here

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My guess is both Alan Hancock and Ventura have nursing programs so claiming there are no other nursing programs in hundred miles is a false claim. .

Marine Tech while a fascinating program trains only a few students at a time and curiously does not seem to attract many locals. So again, what is the local taxpayers duty to support programs for out of state and out of district students that our own local students reject?

A half billion property tax dollars is not needed to save either program and that is the point. Otherwise there would be grassroots groups backing Measure S, instead of only out of town building trades who expect to profit from this half billion blank check.

You put that much money on the table with the vague plans and poor leadership SBCC currently has and you just played your hand to those who know how to milk the system dry. They are already swarming at the mere scent of blood.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Message to SBCC's rumored $250,000 Measure S marketing team: don't dare claim SBCC will close down and deny local students their education if you don't immediately get this half billion dollar Measure S bond passed.

Come back smaller, more focused and get grass roots support first, instead of out of town builders who intend to feed off this overly large blank check.

Tell us where you want to take SBCC for the next 30 years and why before you try to put your vague and undisclosed plans on our property tax bills for the same amount of time.

Sure old buildings need attention. We get it. And the state needs to get this too, and stop dumping this burden exclusively on local taxpayers. SBCC needs to pressure the state to restore the former system of matching funds for community college construction. That is where SBCC's efforts need to be today.

Measure S is not just about old buildings. Measure S asking for exclusively local funding is far more sweeping and grandiose than any other bond issue the county has ever seen. Yet all we get are vague images of what it is supposed to do along with direct threats to pass it now or else.

Come back when you can make a better case than Measure S. Tone it down a whole lot and be partners with the local community instead of catering to complete strangers and taking the rumored quarter of a million marketing dollars from the building industry and friends to cram this tax bill down our throats..

You also need to heal your relationship with the SBCC Foundation before you go out for another smaller and more focused bond issue. When the SBCC Foundation rejected your demands for this immediate over-large bond issue, it was a good clue this was not the time for SBCC to undertake this effort.

With so little local support at the start you risked driving a wedge between SBCC and the community going forward on your own and that is too high a price to pay for the future of SBCC.

No, we are not going to put a half billion dollars on the table for you and your out of town building school construction industry buddies to play with. Not going to happen.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jarvis, sounds so rehearsed, you've stated this at least 3x: "you and your out of town building school construction industry buddies"

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

14noscams,

Sustainable Student body is an important issue for the area.

I have personally used, hardhat, rat hat, swindell mixed gas, kirby-morgan and some others, so I understand your concern but the maximum student body issue is real for the area. Student body should be capped as to fit within our local environment.

What courses of study offered or the student body makeup is not my concern, I will leave that to others but student body growth without looking at sustainability is ignorant, same goes for UCSB.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I used a Kirby-morgan once: what fun. Ah, good old Bev Morgan and that shop there on Haley... the old days.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At this point in time... SBCC and UCSB need to stop growing. Especially given the fact that IV has already reached the absolute saturation point in terms of population density. If SBCC and UCSB were to cap enrollment, this would have the automatic effect of making them both more exclusive, and desirable institutions to attend. SBCC wants to borrow another 1/2 Billion dollars from SB homeowners... That's Billion with a B!! $500,000,000. Don't be redonkeylous. Seems like the big bricks and mortar investments in education are giving way to online courses anyway... I got a call today from Cornell University which was touting a 12 week online course with a certificate, that didn't even require a visit to the physical campus in New York

BondJamesBond (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You can buy that whole multi-story office building near Whole Foods on State for $9 million dollars, which gives you a perspective of what SBCC wants to buy for $500 million dollars.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 9:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

UCSB was pegged at 20,000 students for 20 years. They do want to grow to 25,000… they built 5,000 units of student housing outside of IV. The unexpected consequence has been that SBCC has increased the out-of-area students who live in IV, who are 18 and 19, and who are like Elliot Rodger from 2,000 to 7,000. It is kind of a perfect maneuver on the part of SBCC: everybody loves SBCC because local students to get an excellent education there. SBCC expands into IV, gets new resources, and blames the irresponsibility of their IV students on UCSB.

pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Has anyone checked their most recent property tax bill if they live in SB County? Mine says I already spend about $65 twice a year for 9621 SBCC Bond 2008, so ~$130/year. SBCC needs to hit up the State… not us locals. I am not voting for this at all and while I love SBCC, it's time for them to come back down to earth and scale-back their ego.

maybeso (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Voting no on Measure S is a wise choice.

The state las long provided matching funds for community college construction, as the state should since these are state-regulated institutions that require all community colleges to accept across the state enrollment.

Only recently did the state withdraw their previous policy providing state matching funds for community college construction due to the 2008 state budget crisis. Jerry Brown was looking for money he could snatch back every where he could, and so he did.

Matching funds for community college construction was one state funding obligation he temporarily shifted to the local taxpayers who he felt could choose to support this local expenditure or not, soley on their own vote.

Local control to pay for college construction, but no local control over college enrollments. That was a lousy bargain, but Jerry Brown got his way.

Now that the state is through the worst of the former 2008 budget crisis, serious efforts are working their way through Sacramento right now to retore the former policy of state matching funds for community college construction.

Therefore, it is odd that all the sudden this year SBCC is asking local property owners to go it alone and fund this entire half-billion dollar SBCC construction bond.

There is no urgent need and no grassroots group demanding SBCC build and build now, and spend a half billion of local tax dollars in doing so. Measure S is a very oddly timed turn of events.

No on S now means two things.

No, we don't want this half million dollar bond on our own local tax bills for the next 30 years, but more importantly a no vote tells Sacramento they need to restore state matching funds for community college construction if they require SBCC to enroll students from across the state.

Once the state fully restores matching funds for community college construction, SBCC can come back with a far more reasonable proposition.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes on S!

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vote S for success!

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

City College bureaucrats and overpaid admin staff need Measure S.

And they need measure S paid for by someone other than the broke illegal immigrant students (or their kids).

What better way than to pass off the cost the rapidly shrinking, overtaxed middle class in SB ?

Maybe some in city college will be lucky enough to transfer to UCSB on a "Dreamers" tuition plan and take Professor Porn's class.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just curious, but why would I pay increased property taxes so a college-age person can learn to swim?

My position on Measure S is NO. Not that I don't believe we should have a thriving community college, but for the following reasons:

1. Any master plan requiring that much funding should also address housing, transportation and neighborhood impacts issues;
2. I don't think a property tax bond is a fair way to pay for improvements. Perhaps a local sales tax, or other means I could support, but it's simply unfair to burden property owners only;
3. Without a specific provision to only hire local architects, engineers and contractors, most of the money will leave the local area. I don't support that.

Indyholio (anonymous profile)
September 1, 2014 at noon (Suggest removal)

The only success in S is for the school construction unions and industry who are ones fully on board with this half-billion dollar tax boondoggle.

Something has clearly gone off its rails at SBCC and all you have to do is follow the money, conflicts of interest and potential poltical favors to understand why. This is SBCC lowest moment and least finest hour.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
September 1, 2014 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do believe the correct amount is $280,000,000 for the bond measure, I may have misstated above... Where does the $500 million dollar amount come from? $280 million is still too much...

BondJamesBond (anonymous profile)
September 1, 2014 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The correct amount of Measure S is the amount taxpayers will have to pay; not the amount SBCC will be allowed to squander on their school construction cronies and insider syncophants.

At minimum, this will be a half-billion dollar bond. $500,000,000 is the correct amount, not the $288 million they are claiming they want to spend. What we have to pay them back is the correct amount: the amount they spend plus the interest charged over the next 35 years.

However, no one knows if even a half billion dollars will be the final taxpayer burden because Measure S will be sold in four parts. No one knows what the interest rates will be on the last three bond roll-outs and right now it is only an estimate for the first one for this specious figure of $17 per $100K assessed valuation. Gaskin needs to come clean on this.

Taxpayers need only to look at the failed promises made by K-12 who just doubled the rates on their second stage bond issuances from what was originally promised. SBCC is selling you a similar tax free-fall.

At best SBCC should have gone out the first phase only, but with a far better explanation why this money is needed than this total nonsense campaign they are now trying to shove down.

Anyone showing this much recklessness up front about the financial realties of Measure S should not be handed a blank check now and well into the future.

A team of rookies now runs SBCC who are making irresponsible demands on the community and in the process have thrown away the formerly sound reputation of the school.

Measure S fails on three significant points: (1) Excessively high costs, (2) inadequate explanation of needs, and (3) incompetent college management and insider cronyism. Shoot this turkey down now.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2014 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: