Editorial: Vote no on Measure F
Publisher’s note: Lake Tahoe News convened an editorial panel of seven community members to come up with this endorsement.
For 40 years, Lake Tahoe Community College has served the needs of the community through excellent programs, outstanding educators and what are now adequate or subpar facilities.
But we believe the leaders need to go back to the white board, crunch the numbers again, perhaps even take an analytics class to come up with another bond.
It’s great to dream, have aspirations and a vision for the future. But if they are not shared dreams, aspirations and visions, then they likely will never come true.
Lake Tahoe News dreams of a successful, viable two-year institution that continues to thrive in South Lake Tahoe. We want students to have state-of-the-art equipment and roofs that don’t leak. We want the college to be a centerpiece of the South Shore. We want the college to succeed and even be more than it is today. But Measure F is not the way to get there.
The $55 million bond on the Nov. 4 ballot is the gold-plated version. It’s a pie-in-the-sky approach to getting things we are not convinced the college or community need. We don’t believe that just because you build it, they will come.
There is more than $5 million in the bond project list for an environmental studies and sustainability center. Clearly, the environment is a big deal here – so is studying it based on all the agencies that call the basin home. But where is the proof that this discipline needs its own multimillion-dollar facility? (The total price is nearly $16.8 million; with the rest of the money coming from the state.) Where are the statistics to prove we are losing enrollment by not having it or the figures that show LTCC would gain enrollment by having it?
If the college wants $5.7 million of bond money to be spent on an $18.5 million regional public safety training facility, maybe it should be working with the Legislature to get some of the fire tax money that was hijacked by the state. Maybe the college should explain how its much heralded fire academy would benefit. And with the city of South Lake Tahoe recently upgrading its emergency operations center and the ability to use the police station (which is across the street from LTCC), the need for such a facility has not been demonstrated.
With online education growing, do we need more brick and mortar?
LTCC has many wonderful programs. Enhance and grow what is working before becoming more than you are. There is room for improvement for what exists today.
Officials say they want LTCC to be a destination college. How is this even possible when there is no housing for students? Student housing is not part of the bond despite the fact that in September 2013 during a daylong visioning session dorms were at the top of the list of desires from the community.
We are not convinced more buildings and programs will bring more enrollment. And if enrollment doesn’t increase, what would be the point of such a significant outlay of money?
It’s alarming that $2.25 million of bond funds are allocated toward planning, including state and federal documents, and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency permits. Bond management is another $1.75 million. We realize there is a cost to doing business – especially here – but that is 7 percent of the bond. And that $4 million doesn’t even account for the bond financial advisory services and bond legal counsel.
We believe the college should come back to voters with a downsized bond that looks less like a wish list and more like a needs list. We want to know our money is going for substance and not fluff.
We know the college needs to upgrade its technology, science lab and work on safety issues. These needs we believe are things the voters should invest in.
While getting matching money from the state is great, sometimes it’s OK to say no thank you.
We can’t justify spending more taxpayer money on facilities when the college has clearly demonstrated it cannot maintain what it has. The college needs to get its house in order before it starts building new facilities.
For these reasons we urge voters to vote no on Measure F.
Well said.
Good editorial on Measure F! I could’nt agree more. OLS
Thank you. You said it well.
Thanks for getting the facts out about Measure F. Has Measure G increased enrollment in our local schools?
The way things are thrown in here like the expanded child development center(is this some sort of daycare?) The university center, and other things it kind of remenids me of what goes on in Washington where they would add things into a bill that is a hot point for a certain senator in order to get his vote. IE environmental center for environmentalist, child center for parents, saying it will bring construction jobs for construction workers(though I am not convinced that those jobs would go to locals) a fire station when we already have 3 with no more than 3 fireman at each station at a time. Where will we get the extra firemen to staff this? Was the idea to throw enough things in some that it would get enough votes to pass(at least 55% of voters should like one of these things.)
I agree upgrade the school for basic needs no need for a show place, with not enough students to fill it.
who makes the money for the bond management?
same old same old phony krap.
swindled should be the slogan from the people in charge.
Great piece. When LTN puts their head to it they do some fine writing with a substantial amount of research behind it. This editorial and the one on the city council candidates on Sunday were worthy of any
national newspaper. Congrats editorial panel.
This is the second post from a “convened an editorial panel of seven community members”. I believe we should all be privy to a list of who these community members are.
We would have not moved to Tahoe if it were not for the decent schools. I repeat, without decent education I would have not come here. So yes measure G has worked.
Investing in education is always, I repeat, always a good idea. I’m at least glad you stated “we believe.” Putting a negative twist on public research does not constitute research.
Your beliefs are not a reason to keep this community in 70’s and 80’s purgatory.
This editorial stinks, and people like OLS who say they want to improve Tahoe go against something that will help our community. This college needs to be a big part of OUR community I say vote YES on F, get the facts right and you will feel the same.
Someone obviously has done their homework. One can only wonder what a costly “sustainability center” is. Thank you.
Steve The Plan is on LTCC’s website.
Strong educational institutions draw from students that are not just in their own geographical area. With the new law that allows community colleges to offer four year degrees, this could easily become a reality in an area like Lake Tahoe. Of course measure G did not bring many more students into the schools because the pool for K-12 is defined by the families that exist, not a greater pool. If you want the community college to remain “just for the locals” and then send students away to finish their degrees, then yes, this measure makes little sense. But, if you want a highly desired and ranked educational institution that will attract students, it makes total sense.
Reloman,
The new fire station will probably be a state of California facility, not a city station. Cal Fire has no station at south shore. Apparently they respond to incidents on federal, and state roads at minimum that can lead to catastrophic fire.
Excellent well-reasoned article. All forms of government must learn to live within their means and budget. That would do much to revive trust in government, IMHO.
Just so people are aware. My wife and I are fairly new to Tahoe. We moved here with our daughter. We would not have even considered coming here if there wasn’t a great school system in place. So yes, measure G has drawn family’s to Tahoe.
I would have moved to Tahoe in my early 20’s if the community college had better transfer programs in place. 7 years later it does. My point is, with an upgraded college I would have jumped at the chance to live, work, and study in Tahoe.
I know there are others like me.
well written editorial, although I do not agree with it.
And yes, Measure G has brought new kids to our high school, including several from the Nevada side who either moved to CA to enroll their kids at STHS or who pay tuition to do so.
Reloman,
The new fire station will probably be a state of California or federalfacility, not a city station. Cal Fire has no station at south shore. Apparently they respond to incidents on federal, and state roads at minimum that can lead to catastrophic fire.
It is time to hear the opinions from all of the candidates, including all city council, county supervisor and STPUD candidates. Okay candidates, Yes or NO and why on Measure F? Also let’s hear from the two Chambers of Commerce.
Rebel with a cause, the city counsel unanimously passed a resolution to support Measure F.
Also for everyone’s edification a link to all the information on how LTCC would use the money: http://www.ltcc.edu/web/ltcc/measuref
I was stunned when I got the county’s mailed election materials that neither Measure F or measure H had any arguments against either.
I could not believe one group or another would not have analyzed the obvious downsides of such a large bond issue with so little hard backup.
Have the big dogs intimidated all reasonable people into submission?
I am disappointed in myself for not getting involved earlier.
There are many in Tahoe who are college boosters who still do not blindly approve anything submitted just because it (arguably) all has to do with education.
Thank you LTN for this distillation of the issues on Measure F.
Clearly this plan needs to be reduced to reality as opposed to dreams before being resubmitted for approval.
Cranky Gerald…
I’ve done my research. I’ve read up on it. I’ve even spoken to members of the college to get information and have had my questions answered.
I don’t blindly support education, I’ve done my research. My research lead me to deciding to vote Yes on Measure F. Don’t act like the other side is ignorant or using intimidation tactics to silence people. Don’t insult people.
Lisa-
The “new law” you reference is a time limited trial program that allows a limited number of community colleges to offer one 4 year degree, a degree limited to one the locality arguably needs.
The chances that LTCC is on the list to try it is certainly less than 50 percent, given that only 15 out of over a hundred colleges will get the nod.
The college makes a big deal over a “University Center” where extension 4 year degrees could be earned in conjunction with other existing California state 4 year schools.
Roberta Mason wrote that if LTCC was not chosen for the SB850 trial that it could “SIMPLY” (emphasis mine) use an extension program to do the same thing. My question is, if that is so simple, why was SB850 needed?
This is a prime example of the rhetoric vs fact that clouds so much of what Measure F really is about.
The often referenced colleges website provides little more that a bunch of numbers which are questionable estimates at best, and a wish list with very little factual backup as to the real needs.
Remember that permits, environmental studies and specific planning comprises MILLIONS of dollars out of the $55 million in the bond request. The planning and permitting processes could be 5 to 10 years before new construction could begin. Whereas
necessary remodel/repair could begin very soon.
Sounds like a “full employment act” for consultants to me.
Observer, you are absolutely correct, SB850 is a pilot program. If things go well. will hopefully be extended to all community colleges.
LTCC might not be selected, this is true, but it isn’t a valid reason not to vote for Measure F.
Nothing ventured nothing gained.
Well written article Kay. Nice to see it being debated on this site without name calling. It seems like the existing facility did a sufficient job when the area had a much larger local population.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained?
Pretty big gamble with other people’s money.
Well. In this town and region, if we just want more “enrollment,” then simply expand the Organic Chemistry, Botany, Herbology, Horticulture and Inside Lighting & Design classes. I would think that would attract a crowd of “students.”
Again I will remind this “news outlet” and this “panel” that Jefferson was criticized by the Federalists for purchasing the Louisiana Territory (the howling wilderness) from Napoleon for $15 Million, that Johnson was laughed at for purchasing Alaska from Russia for $7.2 Million (Seward’s Folly and Johnson’s Polar Bear Garden it was called in the newspapers) and that Teddy Roosevelt’s building of the Panama Canal was called “the greatest blunder” of all time at a cost of $375 Million.
Yes, sometimes things cost money; Mount Rushmore for example cost $1 billion to construct and both Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt are immortalized on it.
Um and by the way… Forty years ago (actually 39), the “collage” was in an old motel. The College “moved” to the new location in 1988 – twenty six years ago. I suppose if “we” really wanted to save money “we” could sell off the current Campus and move back into that motel.
Perhaps with a stronger Environmental Program at Lake Tahoe Community College, WE could take over the Lake Tahoe monitoring studies from UC Davis; since that College is in the valley.
Dogula, as a home owner I’d be out $75 dollars per year. Amortize that over a year and thats $6.25 per month. So no, it’s not a lot of money to “risk”. My $75 investment per year to create a much better community college is completely worth it. Sure I won’t use the community college much other than to take a few courses for fun, but others will. I’m willing to give to others for the good of the community. After all, all boats rise together no?
Also 50 million is a drop in the bucket when you look at the best community colleges in the state and how much they spend on facility improvements (Foothill/DeAnza/American River College).
LeanForward perhaps you missed my post on the subject of such ‘drops in the bucket’ a few weeks ago. Here is my extensive list of drops that I am already paying. I cannot afford another drop, nor can many of the people who live and work in this town. We are being ‘dropped’ to death.
LTUSD bond 1992: $35.25
LTUSD bond 1999: $73.22
LTUSD bond 2008: $193.00
SLT Recreation: $18.00
S Shore Snow Zone: $20.00
Ambulance S Shore: $24.60
Mosquito Program: $6.00
Litter Abatement: $6.00
Hazard Waste: $3.00
Library Tax: $18.50
Lake Vly Fire Meas. M: $20.00
Those are all on top of my General Tax Levy.
In addition, Lake Valley Fire wants us to vote in another $120 tax to support them. With all these worthy causes, we might as well just give ALL our money to the government and let them divvy it up as they see fit. After all, we don’t need to eat, feed, dress ourselves or our children….
Lean. Just a reminder that Dogula “hates” the government in it’s current form; yet continues to stay. My quess is that “progress” to Dog might be some sort of time tunnel back to the 1930’s but even that would not work because Dog does not believe in Science either.
Dogula I’m still not seeing a whole lot of taxes there. On a side note we can’t agree so why even bother? I don’t feel the same way you do. I realize that the taxes we pay go into paving our roads, providing education for our children, protecting us from criminals and natural disasters, and taking care of our poor. Guess what, I’m ok with it! You are not. Our ideology is obviously different.
Still waiting on true transparency here. Who was on the panel of community members that crafted this and the city candidate endorsements? How were they invited to participate? What were the criteria? Did they attend the informational sessions about Measure F sponsored by the 2 chambers? Did they participate in some other informational session that made them truly able to analyze this bond measure?
I’m asking because I do not see much done in terms of research on this issue beyond the very basic information that has already been addressed in many other forums.
Rock, do not pretend to know what my idea of progress is. Deal with the issues.
We are overtaxed and over regulated and there will be no end to it as long as we allow government to take more from us every time they want it. We live within very tight budgets here in the private sector. Let government live within ITS budget.
it is not my job to provide for everybody’s every wish. No matter how much we give, it will never be enough. They keep proving that to be true every election cycle.
(Leanforward, those are the extra fees paid on top of the $4500 general property tax bill. If you don’t think that’s very much money, you must be in a much higher income bracket than we are. Good for you. But remember that a lot of us barely scrape by in this town, even if we are fortunate enough to own a home.)
$75 a year in 10 short years is $750. And that’s after-tax money, requiring even more to actually earn.
That’s a lot of money… even for a millionaire.
Dogula:
I’m having difficulty counting just how many times you’ve posted that list of itemized taxes for K-12 education, recreation, snow removal services, ambulance service, mosquito/litter/hazard waste abatements, Library services, and fire protection in addition to that annual $4,500 general tax levy on your property and home having a homeowners net value of $422,000 and a gross value of $429,000.
I am in complete agreement with LeanForward, and I too am willing to help create a much better community college for the advancement of society as a whole, for the good of others in our local community, and to elevate our community.
You stated that “a lot of us barely scrape by in this town, even if we are fortunate enough to own a home”, and I am truly sorry that paying your taxes is the financial hardship you’ve repeatedly shared it as being. But for me, just because some people have difficulty paying their taxes is not a good enough reason to abandon societal obligations that improve civilization as a whole. If I were in your situation I would likely solve my financial problem by selling my relatively new home while the market is good and then purchasing something I can afford, then perhaps the “burden” of paying taxes wouldn’t lead to your needing to post your tax obligations for the public to view.
Spouse – 4-mer-usmc
Dogula states the facts well. But I’d like to expand on the subject. You people who support this are not being considerate of the average citizen here. We are not a community made up of high income citizens. If you are paying attention to the way government operates here, and Dogula is paying attention, you will see government constantly spending beyond its means. Then, when the funds run low, there is a bond measure that requests more money, always accompanied by the pitch, ” it’s for a good cause”. In the case of the last election the pitch was for the library. Now the pitch is for the college. Next year it will be for another good cause, and it will not end until the voters refuse to cave to these ploys. Dogula has done well pointing this out to everyone. And in addition to these bond measures, some of us cannot afford them. When they are added together on our property tax bill, they create a serious financial burden. Dogula lists the additional tax burdens that appear on our property tax bills presently. Just looking at the list confirms what Dogula is saying.
Tahoe Pizza Eater: While “We are not a community made up of high income citizens” I doubt we’re made up of only paupers either.
I’m not a high income citizen and I live in a very modest home that was purchased in 2001. $75 per year for me to have the opportunity to help young people who reside within our community or come from outside the community to attend a 21st century college and advance their education, intellect, learn new skills, learn a trade, or obtain what’s needed to transfer to a 4-year institution is the least I think I should give back to society. I’m old now, but there are many young people with their lives stretched out in front of them and they need a chance.
Not everyone needs to agree with me and I don’t need to agree with everyone else. That’s what makes it a democracy. You must do what you believe is correct for you and I must do what I believe is correct for me.
Spouse – 4-mer-usmc
Perry, there is a CalFire station at the South Shore. It is on the corner of Lake Tahoe Blvd. & Boulder Mountain.
I’m not high income. I aspire to be one day, but we really don’t make much at all right now.
$417.57 in additional yearly taxes isn’t what’s causing my family stress. Amortized over a year is $34.80 per month.
34 bucks isn’t going to break my bank each month. If your not saving more than 34 dollars per month you need to take 4-mer’s advice and sell your home and move into something more reasonable.
Taxes happen, and it’s ok.
To Spouse of 4mer : You missed the point. The point is that it’s not just $75 a year, it’s all of the bond measures combined. They all count towards relieving us tax payers of our money. Go get your tax bill and look at it. There are ten payments included, beyond the basic property tax. They all add up. And not all of us can afford this. It’s like a person earning low income going out to dinner ten times a month. Not any one dinner is a back breaker by itself at $15 . But combine ten nights, and that $150 is a budget breaker to the low income person.
By the way, if measure F passes, I believe we’ll be stuck with the bill for several years.
Scadmin, The station was a joint venture of STPUD and Lake Valley Fire. Not sure what Cal Fire’s roll is there but they didn’t pay for it.
Societal obligation???? To provide a college education for anybody who wants it?? Since when is that a societal obligation??? I had to pay for mine. Why do I have to pay for everybody else’s?? Half the people who take classes at the college are doing it for fun. Why must we subsidize that?
Like I said, people want stuff, they ought to pay for it themselves instead of insisting everybody else pay for all their stuff for them.
You’re going to run out of other people’s money damn soon enough.
All-
To cut to the chase, the biggest complaint I see and I hear is not that Dogula is a govt hater and objects to everything, but that this college bond issue is based on opinion, not facts and given the size and sweep of it should not be instituted until some basic trends and truths are produced and understood.
In order for this entire dream to come true, will require a much larger population base to support it than we currently have. The population of the Tahoe area is shrinking not growing, and having a bigger college is not going to reverse that trend.
LTCC has had a tremendous problem keeping a student count at even a break even level. Not even the 2000 student level has been breached on a regular basis.
A bigger college is not likely to attract sufficient students to make a difference in SLT except during construction when the fast food restaurants feed the workers from out of town to build it.
What a joke for lean forward to compare the funds spent on facilities at DeAnza and American River colleges. Does Lean not understand that both these institutions serve a population base of multi- millions, and practically an unbelievable taxable number of properties. De Anza is in Silicon Valley. It has parking structures bigger that LTCC.
The tax bite for each of those areas is minimal compared to the population and tax base for the LTCC district.
People come to live in Tahoe because it is not like most other places. It is hard to get to, the winters are worse than Wyoming and Montana, you can’t buy everything you want within a 5 mile circle, and you can’t get a four year education in town.
Many of us like it that way. It eliminates a lot of the effects of uncontrolled growth.
If SLT turned into Cupertino or San Jose where De Anza college is,or East Sacramento/Auburn where American River is how great a place would that be to live?
I can’t believe no one has addressed the fact that you CAN get a four year degree on the North shore at Sierra College, or at UNR in Reno…only 60 miles away. Both with established, well deserved reputations. UNR has a full fledged Medical school.
In summary, we cannot afford, and do not need another institution on the south shore which has to compete with and duplicates other established, better, bigger and older school facilities so close.
Measure F is ill advised and not backed up by established engineered facts, will benefit the few at the cost of the many.
If LTCC cannot find a way to survive under its original Charter as a small California Community college asset, it should be allowed to die a natural death.
Times change, economic conditions change and building a huge school in a town of under 25,000 people is insufficient to turn it around.
Cranky you made probably the best argument I’ve seen. Even better than the editorial and it’s mystery panel of citizens.
If I’m not mistaken the numbers for enrollment for LTCC have not really been increasing or decreasing. If you look at enrollment for the last two years it’s been going up, if you look at it over a period of a few years its been going up and down between 1,500-2,000 people.
1500 was the loss of the good neighbor policy and budget cuts. All this information is available on the college website.
UNR isn’t close to South Lake Tahoe, and its prohibitively expensive for Californians to attend(20k not including room and board). Sierra College is a very expensive and specialized private college. 47k a year for a school with little to no reputation? No thanks, I’ll go to LTCC and transfer to Berkley or Davis and save thousands of dollars. This is why we need a good community college (cost less than $1,500 a year for a full time student). We don’t need a massive college, but we need a good one with updated facilities and great programs.
No one wants to turn South Lake Tahoe into the Bay Area so don’t even go there. We all live here for the same reasons. FYI bond measure for Foothill was 500 million. 50 million is a drop in the bucket as it should be since we are a much smaller community.
Thanks for the information, Lou. I did not know the purchase history of the facility, just know that when I drive by the building, I see that all of the equipment has the “CalFire” logo. My point was just to note that they do have a station/physical presence here in the basin.
The evolution of our community college has continued for 40 years and it was done with some individuals fighting it yet more working hard to make sure it happened. I am hopeful that EVERYONE will take the small amount of time to VOTE YES on Measure F. The educational system provided in grades K – college are what will help to draw families into Tahoe. Measure F will move LTCC into the next needed phase. This along with other essential items such as a REAL Emergency Operations Center where Tahoe can be a leader in emergency planning and procedure implementation not just for our local agencies but as a training draw for others. YES, build it and they will come. Vote YES on Measure F. For Pete’s sake………at least VOTE!!!!
I’m in agreement with the editorial in that this measure bond is way over the top for this college.
Bond measures shouldn’t become a competition every election. Just because the high school was lucky to get their over the top measure passed doesn’t automatically mean the college deserves it.
Everything with “education” stamped on it doesn’t necessarily mean we all need to do our “community responsibility” and accept it to prove our intellect. Education is a great thing but family planning also means having children and educating them should primarily be burdened by parents who created them.
This college is what it is “a community college” and we simply have the responsibility to maintain it – not dump countless millions into exorbitant dreams by it’s officials for it to become something it never will be.
I vote no on this Measure F and hope they come back with a dramatically downsized bond that takes care of necessities and a few reasonable improvements.
The analysis put forward by Lake Tahoe News is flawed and lacks any sense of balance and is certainly devoid of vision and the potential of what could come of this investment. The analysis is quibbling about costs they know nothing about. The cost of consultant studies being too high, welcome to the world of development in Lake Tahoe, bond management costs, really maybe you know someone who can get it cheaper. Suggesting to go to the legislature for funding get real. This analysis focus nothing on the upside potential for the community. It seems like a one sided cost focused analysis, definitely not an analysis by anyone with vision.
I attended one of the information meetings about Measure F and want to comment on what I learned:
1) The tax rate of $25 per $100,000 assessed home value is NOT A FIXED RATE. This percentage can change, as in go up. Also, the assessed value of a home can change. Mine just increased through no action on my part.
2) The tax from Measure F will be assessed on homeowners for the next 30 YEARS OR LONGER.
Which means, on a $300,000 home assessment, the homeowner tax over 30 years will be at least $75 x 30 = $2,250.
I do support the community college. But I am voting NO on Measure F as I do not support what the money will be spent on. I agree with this article that the proposed new programs are a wish list with little data to show how they will impact enrollments. We already help pay for LTCC through our high California state income taxes.
@Cranky Gerald – you hit the nail on the head.
excellent analysis by you and LTN.
PORK PORK PORK
About 10-15 times in cost with what would be needed or acceptable. Where ARE the no growth folks, TRPA,League,( wake up — this is Lake Tahoe- and this HUGE expansion would affect the lake).
No more taxes – VOTE NO ! MEASURE F
I just got a robo call from the college on Measure F. The college just lost my vote.
reza
I agree, the college lost my vote due to a robo call.
Funny, I just got it maybe half an hour or so ago, too. Stupid move. Everybody hates robocalls. Though it WAS pretty creative to have the guy identify himself as a physics student, instead of the usual recreation major.
I’m a big proponent of improvement in the area but this money that is being attached to our property taxes could be better spent on other things elsewhere that are in need need of repair.So I say no to F!!!
Too much money to be spent on this when there are so many other things that need to be taken care of.
Overlaying our crumbling residential streets, more parks, fixing up the rec. center, continue the paved walkways meandering thru towm so they all connect,and so much more!
Vote no on F! OLS
‘
How about we vote yes! :)
How about No?
I agree with Dogula, Toxic and Pizza Eater on this one. I received the similar property tax bill as Dog.
We are being taxed/fee’d to death already.
Seriously, there is a death/burial tax. In additition to a few other taxes that come to mind are: inheritance, royalty, luxory (if you’re fortunate enough like me to own a 1999 18 foot Bayliner), gift, capitol gains, social security, medicare,……..Let’s see, gasoline, highway, toll road, customs, excise, import/export, tobacco, alcohol, entertainment=”sin taxes”, TOT/resort, vehicle registrations, professional license fees, dog/cat license, hunting/fishing license, general sales, and many other forms of taxes and fees that I have not listed or you may be able to apply.
Remember, we pay for most of these with our gross earned income dollars that are already taxed at the federal AND state levels, thus, we pay for all these other things with already double taxed funds.
Sorry Measure F and H, both very good causes if the climate was right. However, it is not. They both carry significant financial burdens for many years into the future to folks in our community that simply may not or cannot afford it.
No more taxes right now.
Taxing yourself is like beating your face into a brick wall, it’s dumb!
The state should pay! We already pay them enough in taxes and they just waste it. If it wasn’t for wasteful spending we would have plenty of money for a lot of things we don’t need.
Who is the State?
Don’t libertarians argue that most government (meaning control of expenditures and revenue intake) should be handled on a local level?
Tada!
Taxing your self is like beating your self in the face with a rock?
Do yourself a favor, don’t drive on our roads, don’t call our fire department, don’t use our sewers, stay out of our parks, stay out of the lake, don’t go fishing, and don’t get a high school or community college education, don’t drive a car because you are not entitled to any of it.
Listen here old folks, I’m not interested in inheriting your legacy of a gambling ridden roach motel Tahoe. I believe and have seen that Tahoe can be much more. Starting with a well educated community is a great first step.
Vote yes!