No on Measure J

Another Ill-Advised School Bond Measure for San Leandro

It's 2024 and SLUSD wants voters to approve another set of tax increases. This is the sixth bond measure in recent years. Just three years ago SLUSD suckered voters into giving them $198 million. What did they spend it on?

  • $23.75 million on parking lots and landscaping
  • $6 million on 'pavilions'
  • $800 thousand on electronic signs
  • $67 million on one of the largest gyms in the Bay Area
And of course there is the $25,000 the SLUSD paid the former mayor to run a political influence campaign to convince San Leandro residents to raise their taxes again so they can hand over even more of their hard earned cash for SLUSD 'necessities'.

Measure J is a $174 million tax increase on San Leandro residents already suffering under the weight of years of record inflation. What does SLUSD want to do with the money? They want to get into real estate development. That's right. They want to add $174 million in new taxes so they can start building housing. This in a city that already has some of the highest taxes in the entire United States. At 10.75%, San Leandro's sales tax is the highest in the country. It is time to say no more. It time to expect the school district to do more with the already massive amount of tax revenue they collect.

Don't just take our word for it, read about why the Mercury News also says San Leandro should vote No on measure J.

No on Measure N

Another ballot, another school bond measure for San Leandro

SLUSD wants voters to approve another $198 million in tax increases. This is the fifth bond measure in recent years and would put San Leandro tax payers on the hook for the district's $515 million in debt. That puts the district's debt at an outrageous $58,000 per student. Even the East Bay Times is urging a "No" vote on measure N, saying that the district has run up too much debt per child. To quote the article, "employing an ends-justify-the-means mentality, [SLUSD] are jettisoning transparency in favor of political expediency. They understand that voters are more likely to support bonds if they don’t realize that they’re also approving tax increases." Measure N is the only school bond (tax) the East Bay Times is opposing on the upcoming March 2020 ballot.

If Measure N passes, it would increase school bond property taxes to $179 per $100,000 of assessed valuation to pay for SLUSD's spending. That means the average homeowner in San Leandro will be paying $642 a year in taxes to cover SLUSD's bonds. And renters, don't kid yourself that the new taxes from measure N won't be passed on in rent increases.

Parent Alert

David Kumamoto is a threat to your children

At the end of the 2017-2018 school year, David Kumamoto (Roosevelt Elementary's Principal) assaulted a 10 year old student in his office. When presented with evidence of the attack, SLUSD officials threatened to have the student's parents arrested. The SLUSD then spent untold sums of money on lawyers to protect Mr. Kumamoto. The district also faces a potentially very expensive civil suit. The district has yet to take any action against Mr. Kumamoto and has gone out of their way to keep the story quiet. Parents should be very concerned if their children have to spend any time alone with Mr. Kumamoto.

Vote No on Measure I

Enough is enough.

It's time to hold the San Leandro Unified School District accountable for their years of mismanagement and poor results. Every election year (and even special elections like last June), the SLUSD comes begging for more money. It is time to tell them no more (again).

SLUSD hires consultants to carefully craft their measures to gain support. They exempt some groups from their proposed tax. They say it's just an extension of an existing tax while downplaying that this new tax will actually increase annually (for cost of living adjustments). San Leandro tax payers are already on the hook for nearly $500 Million to pay for SLUSD's recent ballot measures. Measure B is $109 Million, Measure M is $50 Million, Measure J1 is $104 Million and Measure A is $53.8 Million.

Proponents of Measure I claim it will "protect the quality of education" in San Leandro schools. According to Education Week and the U.S. Census Bureau, SLUSD already spends more per student than the CVUSD in neighboring Castro Valley. Even though SLUSD spends more, standardized test scores are far below CVUSD's. We spend more, but get less. Why should we pay more to "protect" bad results? How will giving more tax dollars to SLUSD make this any better?

Coleen Palia, a director for SLUSD, feels that our schools are already great. When asked what metric she based this assessment on she replied that test scores aren't a good indicator. When pressed further on why she called them great, she replied it was because she has worked for the district for many years. She felt that she personally made them great. Ms. Palia's delusions of grandeur have left her in denial about the state of SLUSD schools. If the test scores don't matter to SLUSD, the 2 ratings at GreatSchools.org surely should. The administrators at SLUSD clearly have a high opinion of themselves and the value they add to making schools great.

Substandard performance is rewarded by SLUSD. Reading through the SLUSD Board meeting agenda from Oct. 9, 2018, you can see that the Assitant Superintendents just received retroactive pay increases. Assistant Superintendent Sonal Patel received a retroactive increase of 3.5% - taking her base salary to over $189K. You can read Sonal Patel's contract here.

SLUSD says Measure I is for the teachers and not administrators. What they aren't mentioning is that they already took care of the administrators before election day. They also don't mention that as of 2016, ~45% of SLUSD teachers were already making over $100,000. Visit Transparent California to see all of the 2016 San Leandro Unified School District Salaries. The median household income in San Leandro is $62,761. The majority of SLUSD teachers are already earning well above the families of the kids they teach - but still they are asking those same families to pay them more. It's not right. This November, vote no on Measure I.