LAUSD in the Residential Real Estate Biz?

I always feel like I need a PhD just to read through the propositions. But thankfully with LAUSD, if you read the paper, watch the board meetings on TV, and follow the politics, you can get the history and know what's going on.

I'm typically anti-bonds since people think of it as "free money," and I look at it as a loan my kids and grandkids will be paying off.

In this case, it's building a huge warchest, with no reasoning behind it.

See, I knew there was 'something' I didn't know. How sad to earmark housing for teachers that wouldn't qualify because they make too much! :(

Thanks for your thoughts on measure Q too. I've typically voted no on bonds in the past, no matter what they are for. Seems to me that in theory, bonds always sound like good ideas, but when you get down to it, seems they rarely go for what is promised. Thought I'd see if this was any different.

Seriously though, who has the time to read through all the props and measures this year. Mind boggling. I figured the ones I've read, I can make a more informed decision on, but if I haven't had time, figure I'll just vote no. These things have gotten out of control it seems.

Hi ChristineQ,

I understand how you feel on living in LA. Unfortunately, I see it as another have-have not situation where even what they're suggesting building wouldn't be available to teachers as they'd be making too much money to qualify for low income housing (teachers are poorly paid, but not by federal low-income guidelines). I think for now, I'd like to see them focus on the school projects and why we're losing kids every year rather than go off on a hundred different ways including housing. Why not partner in this downturn with some of the developers that already have built homes and apartments in beautiful parts of town and see if they can direct teachers to realistic housing prices, rather than build and own the housing?

As for Measure Q, I'm voting no (ok, I already did and mailed it in...). I've been part of LAUSD for long enough to have watched the previous bonds be passed to build new schools, then other bonds passed to fix the old and crumbling ones. Then when construction costs went up, they robbed the "fixer" bonds to pay for new construction, which is still being paid for. Now they're building schools in areas that are no longer deemed overcrowded, or are so close to areas that are underutilized it makes me crazy. There are shuttered schools on the West side of the SF Valley and yet no charter can take them over? Odd.

Parents are voting with their feet and leaving, but they're still building away.

Worse, the $7 billion dollars is only partially earmarked. A large portion of it ($3 billion) isn't spoken for, and will be utilized another day. I'm sorry, while I will pay for things the schools need, I'm not in the position to save money for a silly whim that might come up in a few years. The school board is too political now to risk that kind of "trust fund."

So I will continue to give everything I can in time, money, and talent to my neighborhood school, I'll continue to vote no on bonds.

I think it's a tough one. I think we need tons of space still to get more schools and replace crumbling existing infrastructure. BUT, I do understand how expensive it is to live in LA and I do kind of like the housing idea to attract faculty.

I think it goes to show that LAUSD is just lacking in money all over the place and no matter which financial hole you plug for now, an existing leak gets bigger.

I'm very new to the whole LAUSD, but I've watched on the sidelines for years. I really think that it's just too huge of a system and it could be better mananged in smaller chunks. Of course, after navigating it for a year or two, I'll probably form a different opinion, more informed.

I don't pretend to even know what the solution is though. UGH!!

Speaking of though, I'm torn on how to vote on Measure Q. Any thoughts?