 |
CAMPAIGN FOR EXCELLENCE |
|
|
|
Advocates launch parcel tax campaign
The Palo Alto Unified School District is using weekly phone banks to attract votes for Measure A, the district's revised parcel tax, which will be placed on the June 5 ballot. The new parcel tax will feature an annual $493 tax per parcel of land for six years. If passed, it will go into effect July 1, 2005. Measure A would replace the current $293 parcel tax, which was placed in June 2001 and is soon due to expire. After Measure I, the most recently-proposed parcel tax, failed to pass on the November ballot as it narrowly missed the 66.7 percent it needed to pass, many changes have been made to the parcel tax to ensure that it passes. "You have to live within your means," Palo Alto School Board member Mandy Lowell said. "Palo Alto has to either cut costs or find a new source of money. So, we need to increase support for Measure A." Every Monday through Thursday night in March, an average of 30 Palo Alto volunteers conducted phone banks in an attempt to attract support for Measure A. According to Claude Ezran, head of the phone banks, volunteers have conducted 12 calling nights during the first phase of the phone bank. Each night has had an average of 24 volunteers. Volunteers met at the Alain Pinel offices in Palo Alto and called thousands of Palo Alto residents. "I think the phone banks have been very effective," Palo Alto School Board President and phone bank participant Cathy Kroymann said. "We informed many people about the parcel tax and identified thousands of supporters." The volunteers phone Palo Alto residents whose names they find on lists of people who would be most likely and most probable supporters of Measure A, according to Jennifer Kleckner, a phone bank volunteer. Of the recently-called 18,000 people, 19 percent of the calls resulted in a "yes" and three percent resulted in a "no," according to Ezran. However, many of the people who were called claimed to be "not home." Phone bank volunteers have succeeded in getting the support of 14,000 people, but their work is not yet over. The next goal of the volunteers is to get the supporters to vote in June. "I think the phone banks have been successful thus far," Kleckner said. "People are much more informed and interested." Volunteers say the goal of the phone banks is to inform people about the new measure and its differences from previous parcel taxes. Some believe that this spreading of information will educate voters and keep them from voting "no." "There was a lot of misinformation in the last election," Kleckner said. "Uninformed voters will always be more likely to vote no on something, especially when it is something that involves money." As the state of California battles severe budget cuts, the parcel tax is seen by many Palo Alto residents as an important way to ensure a quality educational experience for students. "Some money we are using now to fund our Palo Alto schools comes from a reserve of money," Lowell said. "It is important that we do not keep deficit spending." According to Lowell, the Palo Alto district has been cutting expenses in education and yet the district has increased by 600 students in that same time. The new parcel tax would give back smaller class sizes and an average of $25 per student. Many blame the tense conditions of the November elections for Measure I's failure. One big fault during that time was the attention the Presidential election received. Thus, many argue that a great deal of focus was taken away from Measure I. "When people do not know about a certain measure, people will vote no on another tax," Lowell said. "Many of Palo Alto's biggest proponents who would have drawn attention to the parcel tax were in Ohio and Florida campaigning for the presidential election." Supporters have been working on this redesigned parcel tax since November, when the last parcel tax failed to pass, according to Kleckner. Many supporters of the Measure I parcel tax were disappointed in November and have been working in phone banks and other organizations in hopes of securing the passage Measure A in June. "It is kind of an undemocratic thing when the majority of the town favored Measure I, but we could not get 66.7 percent," Lowell said. This story originally appeared in The Campanile on May 2, 2005. http://voice.paly.net/view_story.php?id=2923
|
|
Send mail to
webmaster@campaignforexcellence.org with
questions or comments about this web site.
|
