Home » Headline, Island News


Submitted by on 1, March 8, 2011 – 8:47 pm15 Comments

UPDATED at 10:21 p.m.

Voters approved the Measure A school parcel tax on Tuesday night, with 68.43 percent of the 18,818 voters who cast ballots saying yes to the tax.

Some 45 percent of voters turned out for the special tax election, with two-thirds of them casting absentee ballots.

Measure A will cost property owners 32 cents per square foot of building on each parcel they own, with per-parcel caps of $7,999 and $299 for unimproved parcels like parking lots. The tax, which replaces the district’s existing Measure A and Measure H parcel taxes, is expected to earn the school district $12 million for each of the seven years it’s in place. Seniors and some disabled people can apply for an exemption from the tax.

Under Measure A, a homeowner with a 1,600-square-foot home will pay $512 a year in parcel tax for schools. That’s more than the $309 a year homeowners pay under the district’s existing parcel taxes, which are set to sunset in 2012.

Proponents of Measure A had said the tax is needed to preserve Alameda’s schools in the face of massive state funding cuts, and school district officials said that if the tax doesn’t pass, they will be forced to close school, increase class sizes and slash a host of programs.

Opponents argued that it unfairly gives bigger property owners a tax break while pushing their tax burden off on homeowners and small business owners, and they questioned whether the cuts school district officials said would come without the tax will be made.

Measure A is the third school parcel tax voters have been asked to consider in four years. Voters approved the Measure H tax in June 2008 by about 100 votes, with 66.9 percent of voters saying yes to the tax; in June 2010, voters said no to the Measure E parcel tax, with only 65.6 percent of some 21,000 voters who cast ballots saying yes – about 250 less than the measure would have needed to pass.


  • David Howard says:

    Michele – you are doing the math of the optimists, rather than the math of the realists, when calculating that Measure E was 250 votes shy of passing. That math assumes that 250 “no” voters could have been persuaded to vote “yes.”

    That would be a fine approach, if voter turnout was 100%, but it wasn’t. (And in fact, the number under your math should be 229.)

    However, because voter turnout was far less than 100% – 52.88% – one must assume that the additional ‘yes’ votes needed to make Measure E pass would have had to come not from ‘no’ voters, but from people who didn’t vote at all.

    Using that logic, the correct logic, one arrives at a shortfall on Measure E of 687 votes.


    14415 (yes) – 2 * 7551 (no) = 15102

    15102 – 14415 = (687)

    ergo, a deficiency of 687 yes votes on Measure E.

    Can we get the math right this time?

    • Moreland Drive says:


      What you just wrote is completely senseless.

    • david burton says:


      Moreland Drive is right. By that same senseless logic, can you tell us by how much you and your cohorts lost this time?

      I long for the day when this logic no longer darkens our town and we can get back to having debates based on real facts, real logic, and real information.

    • Moreland Drive says:


      We got the math right this time, and you got it wrong. Measure A passed. You are 500 votes short of winning.

    • Robert Bride says:

      Hope some of the money goes to the Math programs. Seems needed.

    • John says:

      Please drop it Mr. Howard.

      Please go out and do something good for humanity, like those of us who work for kids other than our own, who work against issues like prop 8 for people with sexual orientations different from our own, and vote to improve the chances of poor people and demographics different from our own.

      Please, please, do something fruitful, both for the city and for you.

      Please look at life from the perspective of others, not just your own.


  • Matt Parker says:

    Michelle, thanks for the updates. But, where are you getting these results data? The Alameda ROV site is only showing the absentee data, as far as I can tell.

  • Mark Irons says:

    CAMA’s truck loads of lies and misrepresentations couldn’t buy them a victory. The No on A campaign pulled out all the stops when it came to dirty tricks, about as bad as I’ve ever seen in a local election. No electoral college or Supreme Court to help them steal it.

  • tracy says:

    woo hoo!
    1. thank you for posting an update.
    2. i am so relieved this passed. a sincere thank you to everyone who voted in favor of the measure.

    ausd is not the best run district in the state of calfornia, that is for sure. however, in order to maintain any semblance of reasonable educational progress in this envronment, we needed this measure to pass. it will help our kids, our community, and ultimately, our property values.

    Woo Hoo!!!


    • Betty says:

      Let me see, since Alameda now has the highest parcel taxes in the state…do I want to live in Piedmont or Alameda. Sorry, Piedmont wins by me. This is going to hurt property values.

      • what? says:

        Betty have you calculated the cost of moving to Piedmont? I have a feeling it will cost you much more to move then what you will pay for the tax.
        Come on Betty….I think you are being silly. But if you are not being silly, good luck with the parking in Piedmont (I always find it to be a pain)

Leave a comment!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.