Referendum 52: $500 Million for School Energy Efficiency

hourforum said on October 10, 2010 at 3:20 PM

can someone say NO that is spelled NNNOOOOOO! The fact- The Gov has raised taxes on smokes,soda, candy- over and over saying " it is for education". We do not need more money going toward education. We need to use the Money "earmarked for education" by these higher taxes. Now if people say yes to this- I want my tax dollars back I paid for smokes. I want back what the state then "stole" from me. On the backs of Children, Colleges etc-raise this raise that, raise another thing- for education. Well, not one cent so far has gone to it. If it had, we would not be in need to boost up our states school system, education system. Money is there- but Oh no, Olympia needed a new party, new cars, and waste on the water. Thats it. Waste on the land.

icainc said on September 4, 2010 at 5:54 PM

If you approve this measure, you will be giving the school district money to give the administrators a raise. Most of these administrators make more than the President of the United States and they do nothing to earn this. If you’re willing to throw your money away for nothing and have plenty of money to do this, just donate it to the school and get a write off on your taxes, but don’t hook others as well as myself for something we can’t pay for because we are already strapped with debt to live, basic services taxes, energy taxes, consumption taxes, transportation taxes, sin taxes, and hundreds of other taxes that employers and consumers already pay.

icainc said on September 4, 2010 at 5:53 PM

This will cost more than it will save. Solar panels are expensive. The return on investment will take 30 years, by the time the solar cell panels are paid for, these solar cells will lose their efficiency, and it will be time to buy new ones. Read in to this, don’t be fooled, there is plenty of proof of this on the internet. This also will not create many jobs at all for any length of time and the cost of labor and the solar cells or other efficiency improvements like this will eat this money up in no time. The only way for solar to be efficient is to build these panels yourself and install them yourself, but no one is going to do this for free, that’s where you will lose your money and there will be no savings at all. School janitors and maintenance people are already working for the school and can make improvements with the money the school receives already for maintenance.

laestes said on August 2, 2010 at 7:37 AM

One thing the public should look into is the cost of the labor to do the work on the buildings.Im all for family wage jobs but when labor gets 50 to 60 dollars an hour to work on these projects.That 500 mill will get used up pretty quick on just labor.The wages the workers get is far above the teachers wages that will be teaching in those schools and have gone to college to get their schooling. I think the wages should be looked into like king5 did on the ferry system.For instance if a sheetmetal worker works 2000 hours which is an avarage if someone works all year with out a layoff on a public works project he will be paid approx $120'000.00 is that fair to the tax payers.

lorand said on August 1, 2010 at 11:41 PM

Ref 52 ? No. Buildings are not education. Quality teachers are education. Smaller class sizes [15 - 20 max] are best education so the teacher can address each student. School supplies and up-to-date technology equipment improve education. These are where I think education money should be spent. I'm sick and tired of seeing voter supported education funds being deployed for buildings instead of the above. [I taught art for many years]. Besides - we don't have the money. What moneys are available should be spent on the critical areas that will be short of funds. Water should not be taxed - bottled or otherwise.

razzle00 said on August 1, 2010 at 11:09 PM

I don't support the tax on bottled water - this is NOT a "luxury" item, esp. at the airport or at sporting events (can't bring your own in these places). I also don't support the school system spending money on things that are not mission critical during this time of budget cuts and financial difficulties.

tlmbrt said on August 1, 2010 at 11:09 PM

I would vote against Ref 52. It is another ill-conceived, partisan idea that will cost more tax money and not produce the desired result. The jobs argument is a deceitful red herring. When are we going to SLAM THE DOOR on the tax-and-spenders? Is anyone really surprised that once the state got a new tax revenue source (candy/gum/water) established that they would attempt to bootstrap onto it? The same thing will happen if we allow the state to institute a "high earners income tax"! The definition of "high earner" would inevitably creep downward as they attempt to add more spending. When does government ever lose its appetite for money? That's right, NEVER.

scottyes said on August 1, 2010 at 5:34 PM

I will vote for the Referendum, teaching's a tough profession, much harder than others (kept me out of it.) I like the bottled water tax, I pay that candy tax every day, and the bottled water tax nearly every day (eating four peanut butter cups on the way home from work.) At this time.

foureasts said on August 1, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Referendum 52 is a bad idea. While I don't usually agree with the evergreen freedom foundation, they have this one right. If financing energy savings was going to pay for itself, then the schools should be doing it now. Schools need to make sure they keep their no. 1 priority - educate the kids. Everything should focus on that. I live in the Lake Washington School district, and they've torn down and replaced two schools that were barely 30 years old near our home. By those stds, I should be tearing down my house this year. Hmmmm - makes you wonder???

silkeej said on August 1, 2010 at 9:46 AM

I would not vote for Rederendum 52 at this time because the money is not there to be spent, their arguement that it would cut down on operating expenses and put more into education is something we hear eveytime they need money. I don't think the state should take on any more debt , it would not create that many jobs to help our economy. The fact that someone threw in to keep the tax on bottled water permanent also would not get my vote.