Grossmont College Library
  • Grossmont College Library
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

The Infrastructure PAC of the Associated General Contractors has been giving heavily to back some controversial school bond measures around San Diego County appearing on November’s ballot — with one glaring exception. On September 15, the group came up with $25,000 to oppose Proposition X, which would authorize new debt for the Grossmont Community College District. The San Diego County Taxpayers Association, the downtown business lobbying group usually allied with the contractors, warns that the plan is a black hole.

“If the District was unable to provide detailed information about the financials and management of its bond program for analysis despite numerous attempts to retrieve this information, it is also likely not to be transparent with the public about these details.” The contractors’ PAC gave $15,000 to Grossmont High School District’s Measure BB, backed by Taxpayers, and paid $10,000 to A Strong Mira Costa Sponsored by Mira Costa College Foundation, which is promoting Proposition MM, also supported by Taxpayers.

  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it


Visduh Oct. 5, 2016 @ 8:15 p.m.

It is hard to imagine the AGC ever encountering a school bond issue that it didn't like. Remember that most such borrowing propositions use the money for construction, and the AGC is all about building things. So, it is to the advantage of the industry to see many such bond issues approved. (There is one fly in the ointment today. "Technology" can consume some of the money borrowed. That means buying computers, and the darned things are obsolete about as soon as they are bought. After a few years, they need replacing, and the cycle starts again.)

The bond issues today are far too easy to pass. Before the law change, they were hard to get approved. Despite that, some years ago, the San Ysidro district did get its voters to approve a multi-year, half-billion dollar plan, even though the district had no immediate plans to borrow and spend that much. One can only assume that the voters of that small and poor district figured that "the man" (their landlords) would pay the resultant taxes. Or they thought they would not be around to have to worry about it.

District after district is putting such financing measures on the ballot. What ever happened to the notion that the state is paying for public education? The affluent districts and an occasional poor one can tax themselves to excess to pay for new schools, gyms, stadia, etc. and provide something that the poorer areas will never afford. Yet while the court decision that mandated equal funding for schools still stands, it appears to have no effect on these borrowing plans.


shirleyberan Oct. 8, 2016 @ 11:29 a.m.

Visduh maybe you can explain better - SD Unified does not oversee or protect school money. Look at millions that went to personal property project never investigated (Sweetwater superintedent Brand et al 2012ish) will never vote to for schools till there is transparent accountability.


Sign in to comment