Oppose the $889M CUSD General Obligation Bond for Facility Improvements!
113 Comments
A
Anonymous
10 years ago
Strongly oppose
R
Rita Ilfeld
10 years ago
No!
A
Amal Elgamil
10 years ago
No, absolutely not! No GO bond
S
Sharon Campbell
10 years ago
This is a bailout of failed leadership. CUSD is still tying to work on why they need so much, but for now they just need our money and will tell us why when they get it (their words not mine). This is not fee money and after fees and interest it will cost nearly $2 billion and the taxpayers will be on the hook for decades. It will be mispent like the millions and millions they have misspent in the past, starting with the Mello Roos funds used to pay for the massive and overbuilt, taxpayer funded, district offices for the employees.
A
Anonymous
10 years ago
I oppose this bond imitative!
J
Jennifer Beall
10 years ago
Boondoggle billion dollar bond
K
Kristina Wade
10 years ago
Aging schools need repair, I agree, but those that live in that city need to pay for such repair.
K
Kim Studley-Ziegelmeier
10 years ago
Featured
I vote NO. A SFID is the only fair option, not a GO bond. This is excessive taxing for the homeowners that have CFD obligations that already pay additional monies into CUSD for facilities. Use our CFD monies appropriately and tax the local areas via SFID to have their school facilities improved.
K
Kim Studley-Ziegelmeier
10 years ago
I vote NO. SFID is the only fair option, not a GO bond.
L
Laura Ferguson
10 years ago
Vote NO on the billion dollar bailout of failed leadership at CUSD!
K
Kelvin McClaskey
10 years ago
SFID is the right path not GOB. New communities like Ladera Ranch are paying Mello Roos Bonds for the new schools we use. Sure older high schools like San Clemente, Dana Hills and Capistrano Valley need infrastructure investments but property owners need to pay more to get more. The Trustees just renegotiated employment contracts with unions with their general fund budget. Need more $ now, go to the voter ATM:
P
Philip luke
10 years ago
NO
K
Katie Crockett
10 years ago
I am against a general obligation bond for CUSD taxpayers. I believe taxes should be more localized. Additionally, any GO bond should be applied uniformly across the entire district. Since this one would not be, and since the area I live in is already being assessed Community Facility District bonds, and because the bond amount is very high, it places an undue and unproportional burden.
Strongly oppose
No!
No, absolutely not! No GO bond
This is a bailout of failed leadership. CUSD is still tying to work on why they need so much, but for now they just need our money and will tell us why when they get it (their words not mine). This is not fee money and after fees and interest it will cost nearly $2 billion and the taxpayers will be on the hook for decades. It will be mispent like the millions and millions they have misspent in the past, starting with the Mello Roos funds used to pay for the massive and overbuilt, taxpayer funded, district offices for the employees.
I oppose this bond imitative!
Boondoggle billion dollar bond
Aging schools need repair, I agree, but those that live in that city need to pay for such repair.
I vote NO. A SFID is the only fair option, not a GO bond. This is excessive taxing for the homeowners that have CFD obligations that already pay additional monies into CUSD for facilities. Use our CFD monies appropriately and tax the local areas via SFID to have their school facilities improved.
I vote NO. SFID is the only fair option, not a GO bond.
Vote NO on the billion dollar bailout of failed leadership at CUSD!
SFID is the right path not GOB. New communities like Ladera Ranch are paying Mello Roos Bonds for the new schools we use. Sure older high schools like San Clemente, Dana Hills and Capistrano Valley need infrastructure investments but property owners need to pay more to get more. The Trustees just renegotiated employment contracts with unions with their general fund budget. Need more $ now, go to the voter ATM:
NO
I am against a general obligation bond for CUSD taxpayers. I believe taxes should be more localized. Additionally, any GO bond should be applied uniformly across the entire district. Since this one would not be, and since the area I live in is already being assessed Community Facility District bonds, and because the bond amount is very high, it places an undue and unproportional burden.