Tuesday, October 14, 2014


the county would come out and see the infringements.


J.C. Denton Orange Park Acres


Measure K is all...


Dear Editor: Recent editions of the Sentry


have included a guest editorial and letters voicing opposition to Measure K. Several speakers also voiced their opposition to the bond at the June 30 school board meeting. All opponents have had two things in common: Number 1 - None of the oppo-


nents have said that the current conditions are acceptable. Our high schools’ pathetic conditions can be dramatically highlighted by a visit to updated schools in neighboring districts. Number 2 – Opponents have


voiced varied reasons for oppos- ing the proposed bond measure, but none of them have presented an alternative to solve the current problems and bring the schools into the 21st century. Some blame past school boards or su- perintendents; some believe the state should supply the money, as California supplies matching funds to school districts that pass their own bond measures. Some say that the proposed $39 per $100,000 is a tricky or gimmicky number – voters are smarter than that. This bond measure will not complete the overall plan envi-


sioned for each school – that is true, and why I was hopeful that a larger bond measure would be proposed. However, $74 million “properly spent” at each of the four high schools should do won- ders. "Properly spent" are the key words. Thanks to the district for having a long-range plan for each school. It should facilitate an orderly approach to refurbish- ment and modernization. Protect and enhance your prop-


erty values. Attract and retain effective topnotch teachers and students. “Yes” on Measure K.


Alan Boyer Orange


Dear Editor: The high schools serving our community are in desperate need of basic upgrades. Do any of us really believe that Sacramento is going to fund major improve- ments to our local schools any- time soon? If you look at the school dis-


tricts around us and ask why they have modern schools, it’s because those communities took matters into their own hands and vot- ers approved locally controlled school improvement measures like Measure K. In fact, the only money avail-


able from the state for school fa- cility improvements comes in the form of matching funds. Over the last 15 years, the state distributed $35 billion in matching money


Foothills Sentry ... or nothing


to improve schools in other com- munities. We missed out because we have not passed a measure to provide the required local match- ing funds. Without Measure K, we will continue to miss out. If you believe in local control


and getting back our fair share of the taxes we pay to the state, then you should support Measure K. Please vote “yes.”


Joanne Coontz Orange


Dear Editor: As fiscal conservatives, we


learn to be wary of school bond proposals, but we also take great pride in spotting a wise invest- ment. I believe that a “yes” vote on Measure K is the fiscally re- sponsible and fiscally conserva- tive thing to do. Here’s why: Like many of your readers, I


own a home here. Capturing the full potential value of that home is an important part of my retire- ment planning. Also, like many, I bought my home here for the safe neighborhoods, high quality of life and good public schools. But young families looking for a home today see a different


reality. OUSD has 40 to 60-year- old high schools that have never been upgraded. By comparison, school districts all around us have approved school improve- ment measures like Measure K, and invested millions in updating their schools. When a family vis- its Foothill High School in Tustin and sees state-of-the-art class- rooms, science labs and learning technology, where are they going to pay a premium for a home? In Tustin, or here where we have classrooms that were last updated when Eisenhower and Kennedy were president? The simple truth is that schools


have a huge impact on property values. A recent study shows our property values falling behind those in neighboring communities that have invested in upgrading their schools. The very modest cost of Measure K will be far ex- ceeded by the growth in the value of your home by protecting the quality and reputation of our local schools. The problem is not going to fix


itself. I hope you will join me in voting “yes” on K.


Todd Spitzer OC Board of Supervisors


Dear Editor: I got my “voter guide” for the November ballot issues, and hap- pened to notice the “Argument in Favor of Measure K” states unequivocally “The entire cost is tax deductible.” I am not sure this is correct. Having spent 40 years in the tax advice and preparation arena, I revisited the regulations regarding what portion of the checks we all write to the OC tax collector are actually tax deduct- ible. If you live in a community that


has “Mello Roos” fees, most of those fees are not tax deductible as of this writing. Mello Roos fees are typically assessments that appear on county property tax bills, as do other special as- sessments to cover sewer, water, garbage, school bond measures and other personal benefit items. Many of the fees are based on flat rates, or for specific periods of time but have no relevance to your home’s property value (not ad velorem). Measure K is not an ad velorem tax based on your property value. The IRS says “under California


law ‘special assessments’ gener- ally are assessments against spe- cific properties based on benefits conferred upon those properties. IRC 164 (C) specifically denies deduction for a tax assessed against local benefits of a kind tending to increase the value of the property assessed, except to the extent the tax is allocable to maintenance or interest charges.” The burden is on the taxpayer


to show the amounts properly al- locable to maintenance and inter-


See "Letters" continued on page 17


The Orange Unified School District (OUSD) Board of


Trustees had done a right decision regarding the Peralta school 350 units apartment with 99 years lease last year. However, the District has yet to decide the future Peralta site land use or sell to other private land developers for single family residential. The controversy over zone change from school to residential zone will be continued. According to the news media, all 4 high schools


(Canyon, El Mondena, Villa Park and Orange) in the OUSD are old and need upgrade. The costs for the much-needed modernization and infrastructure safety for both students and teachers will be more than 200 millions and school bond be proposed in the upcoming elections ballot. The bond measure would increase in property taxes for several years. State law requires 55% voter approval for school bond to pass. Part of the funds will be available if the District can sell


the Peralta 19.6 acres and other vacant school sites. One of the options is to sell the Orange High (60 years old) 25.8 acres to nearby Chapman University and relocate 4 miles away to the Peralta site. The new high school will have modern and high tech


facilities for the 21st century as one of the top magnet schools in California. The new science labs and education facilities including art performance center and sport com- plex can be shared with other District high schools. In order to save the upgrade costs, the District may not have to duplicate the same high tech items at each school. The science teachers can be rotated from and to other three high schools. During the old buildings demolition and construction, without interruption and health hazard to the students, the new school at Meats and Canal can be acted as temporary classrooms from other three schools. It is noted that Chapman University main campus has


only 26.5 acres and needs the land for expansion to double the campus size to 52.3 acres (26.5ac.+ 25.8ac). It is good for the university and the City of Orange. It is a win and win situation for the community. Another option is to subdivide the Villa Park High


School 37.9 acres ( which is bigger than Chapman University 26.5 acres) into two parcels. VP keeps 20 acres and sells the rest 17.9 acres to the adjoining business owners including Villa Park City Hall relocation. This is a wishful thinking. However, we can only hope there are other options to raise the fund and reduce the school bond.


Advertisement Circulation … 43,400


Publisher/Editor Anita Bennyhoff 1969-2013


Editor Tina Richards editor@foothillssentry.com


Staff Writers Elizabeth Richell lizr@foothillssentry.com Kim Haman


Sports Editor Cliff Robbins


Graphic Design/ Advertising


Jackie Steward graphics@foothillssentry.com


Advertising Sales Andie Mills


advertising@foothillssentry.com


Office Manager Kathy Eidson


officemanager@foothillssentry.com • Published on the second Tuesday of


each month and distributed free of charge to residences, businesses,


libraries and Civic Centers within our circulation area.


• Editorial material is due six days before publication date.


• Ad copy and artwork is due by the 25th of the month prior to publication.


• Classified ads are due six days before publication date.


714-532-4406


Fax: 714-532-6755 www.foothillssentry.com


2592 N. Santiago Blvd., Orange CA92867 SuiteA


©Foothills Sentry 2014


Page 7


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24