Election Coverage - Measure Y
Making sure we don't forget the local measures, here's your thread for Measure Y. Stay tuned for updates throughout the day.Mayor Sam opined here previously, and I can't echo loud enough my endorsement of his decision as well - NO ON MEASURE Y
Posted by Anonymous @ 11/08/2005 08:00:00 AM
15 Comments:
I voted NO on Y.
fulldisclosure.net, consider going to this site if unsure on how your tax dollars are mismanaged by Huizar and other school board members.
What has happened to the other billions of dollars we've already given through bonds?
I voted no as well. I have lost confidence in the District to do anything right.
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/2005/10/news-black-out-on-school-bond-vote.html
Los Angeles, CA. Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has raised the possibility of a legal challenge for the misuse of bond funds by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) on the latest Full Disclosure Network™ video blog to be launched on the Internet website http://www.fulldisclosure.net/
David Tokofsky: L. A. School Board Member reveals the LAUSD undisclosed plan to use proceeds from the $3.95 billion bond (Measure Y) to pay off non-voter approved bonds called COPS, Certificates of Participation. (These little known bonds were used to build the now $400 million Belmont Learning Complex after the LAUSD Bond oversight committee objected to using the BB Bonds for the controversial Belmont project.) Also he describes how the District intends to “swap funds” to free up money for salaries and benefits, books and supplies where COPS cannot be used
Tokofsky plays a great Chicken Little. And, he'll never go beyond the Board because he doesn't have solutions to the District's intractable policy problems.
Y is a HUGE NO.
I voted NO for Measure Y aka, Y am I going to give these Assholes at the LAUSD more money to waste?
you said it, brother or sister. The District needs to be broken up. Stop the UTLA.
Who on the School Board vociferously opposed Romer's placing of Prop Y on the ballot, arguing that there was plenty of money in the pipeline to complete the existing projects and that LAUSD should prove that they could efficiently use what they had before asking for more money? Could it have been Jose Huizar? Why yes, it was.
4;17
If that was the case, How come Huizar hasn't shown a backbone and came out DURING this Campaign and said that?
Bunker:
Here he is quoted in the LA ALternative Press just, well, this week. But who needs to read the papres when they have the blogs?
LAAP: On the ballot with you are at least a couple education initiatives. One is Prop. Y
Huizar: Let me tell you about Y: I actually was opposed to putting the bond on the ballot initially because I think the timing is wrong. In fact the L.A. Times came out with an editorial a couple of days ago for which they had spoken to me and pretty much agreed with what I said, it’s what they wrote in their editorial. Which is, right now, if we could avoid it for another year or so to find out the demographics — get better numbers on our demographics. Second, I think our superintendent and the board members — the leadership of this district — are distracted right now, and we don’t really need this bond right now. Yeah, we have money in the bank. We could continue building schools and not be disrupted if we waited another year. In the mean time, instead of focusing on fundraising and getting the bond passed we could focus on more important issues, such as high school reform, dropouts. Secondly, it’s not going to disrupt what we have and we could have better numbers of demographics. Exactly how many new seats do we really need? Our numbers are dropping. We don’t have quite as many students attending as we expected.
5:06
One word popped out of that article:
"Huizar: Let me tell you about Y: I actually was opposed to putting the bond on the ballot initially because I think the timing is wrong."
Intiallly, Unless Huizar, an attorney with a law degree, a school board member, chose the wrong word in that sentence, then Intially I would be mad but then calm myself down and REALIZE THE CHANGE
My question is what is his opinion, Since that statement was made? Because the word Intially suggest a beginning hypothesis, also it suggests that some change in the end result. Has it stayed the same or did it change once Villaraigosa walked into the room?
He changed once AV came into the room.
WHY DO WE NEED ANOTHER BOND ISSUE WITH STUDENT NUMBERS FALLING? WE DON'T IT WAS A PLOY TO GET THE LIBERAL VOTERS OUT.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home