Arra to the Rescue?
I mentioned it yesterday, there are some people out there trying to stir up trouble for the school district. It would be incredibly distasteful, if it wasn’t so stupid.
The argument that a couple of people are trying to make, is that state law allows redevelopment areas to spend their money on schools. So far so good. But they take it a step further and say that the district should be receiving additional funds from the redevelopment tax increment spending (see: Redeveloping Our Schools Take 2) in order to close the budget gap that is currently being discussed.
What they are not saying (and I’m pretty sure it’s because they don’t understand the issue) is that if the city adds money to the AUSD budget, the state would remove an equal amount from the state’s contribution. It’s like this:
Ed-Data’s website breaks it down quick and easy:
The California Legislature set revenue limits for each district in 1972, roughly according to the district’s expenditures on general education programs. The variation among revenue limits was great, and the Serrano v Priest court case eventually required the state to make districts’ general purpose money more nearly equal per pupil. By 2000, 97% of the state’s students were within a band (known as the “Serrano Band”) of about $350.
The Legislature and governor almost always provide inflation (cost-of-living) adjustments to revenue limits. However, neither the school board nor local voters can increase the revenue limit. If local property tax revenues rise within a district, the increase goes toward the district’s revenue limit. The state’s share is then reduced by the same amount.
If the Alameda Redevelopment Agency gave the school $4 million dollars, the state of
So the idea that redevelopment in
People need to see this for what it is. Small-minded bitterness about the Alameda theater project, not an issue of school funding.
Popularity: 7% [?]
anybody but you
February 29th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Are you lying or just lowd and ignorant?
Are you trying to say extra tax $ can’t be raised for schools?
Are you saying our development fees for AUSD is illegal?
Are you saying the 1991 Agreement funding $ to AUSD housing is illegal
Stop wasting readers time with your ignorant make-believe and outright lies.
What a f***** waste of time SDR is.
John Knox White
February 29th, 2008 at 6:12 am
I’m not in the habit of answering anonymous leading questions that suggest I’ve said something that I haven’t and won’t begin now.
I will however ask you to refrain from cluttering my site with foul language. I would email you directly, except you are hiding behind a fake email.