George Laase

After the School District completed its comprehensive needs assessment, it gave us an estimate on how much work was needed to be done and its cost--$165M. We also knew the other important factor in figuring out the size of a bond measure: How much our community’s assessed valuation was worth—approximately $8B. Our $165M in needs and our $8B assessment were not financially compatible. Our needs were more than ...

The City Council on Monday night passed a resolution in support of the School District’s Measure CC, the School Board’s $106M bond measure. It seemed Mayor Jeff Cooper seemed somewhat surprised when member Mehaul O’Leary said he wanted to comment before they voted on it.

The School Board’s proposed Prop. 39-type financial structure used to repay for its Measure CC bond over the next 30 years takes away too many of the financial safeguards homeowners would want to know before signing long-term mortgages: Fixed payments, and knowing the total cost of their loan. Homebuyers can look around at different home-mortgage lenders for the best financing available. In the June 3 election, however, we have but one choice ...

Sometimes having transparency is good. Other times, it is…you be the judge. The illusionist and the salesperson use transparency to gain advantages. Both perform their feats right before our eyes. Some use manual dexterity, others, the subtle art of verbal persuasion. Sometimes we willingly pay the price of admission to be deceived. Other times, we are deceived and end up paying dearly.

During the earlier fact-finding phase, interested community members were shown how our Measure T (a Prop. 46-structured bond) repayment schedule was set up. It was compared with the estimated repayment structure of the School Board’s proposed $106M Prop. 39-type bond, Measure CC, which is on the June 3 ballot. At no time were we shown a side-by-side comparison of how a $106M Prop. 46-type bond would compare with the School Board’s proposed $106M Prop. 39-type bond. Why?

Financing for the School Board’s proposed Measure CC is quite different from Measure T, the $40M bond we passed back in 1996. In the next few weeks, when neighborhood bond supporters come to your door seeking your vote and support for the School Board’s $106M Measure CC bond, don’t be shy about asking questions. Ask them how much the bond will cost the community. They probably will say it’s ...

Of course School Board members and their supporters want you to stay focused on their $106M Measure CC. They don't want you thinking about or comparing it with our earlier, fiscally straight-forward Measure T with its sound financing and simplified repayment schedule. That’s because, their Measure CC’s repayment schedule is much more convoluted.

Since the Culver City USD and the city of Culver City have the same congruent boundaries and share the same tax base, what affects one will have an effect on the other. At least Paul Ehrlich and I can agree that ...

If Paul Ehrlich and I were to continue, on a bi-weekly basis, to work through the facts on the School Board’s $106M bond, maybe by June’s election our community would have all the pertinent facts to make an informed decision. Are you up for it, Paul?

Paul Ehrlich suggested this morning that I should be more positive in writing about the School Board’s $106M bond measure. There is no question he wants to fix our schools. So do I. I am not thinking just of the School District. I am more concerned about our community’s future, the effect the Board’s large bond measure will have on it.