Quantcast

School board OKs tax hike for tech upgrades

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 10:00 pm | Updated: 12:18 am, Thu Feb 20, 2014.

The Santa Fe school board voted 4-1 late Tuesday to approve a $55 million, five-year plan for technology upgrades at all schools in the district, and then voted 3-2 to fund that plan by raising property taxes.

The votes came after extensive debate about the pros and cons of the plan and the merits of taking advantage of a state law to impose the new 1.5 mill tax, which would raise about $11 million a year for five years.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

You must login to view the full content on this page.

Thank you for reading 5 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 5 free articles, or you can get complete access to the online edition for $2.49 a week. If you need help, please contact our office at 505-986-3010 You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

More about

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 No Alias Commenters must use their real names.
  • 2 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 3 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. and please turn off caps lock.
  • 4 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.

Welcome to the discussion.

19 comments:

  • Jennifer Bizzarro posted at 4:59 pm on Sun, Feb 23, 2014.

    Jennifer_Bizzarro Posts: 481

    BTW Cate,

    If you are still at the SF College of Art, Linda works right around the corner M-F:

    State Records Center (Gary Carrothers Library bldg)
    Deputy Administrator's Office
    1209 Camino Carlos Rey


     
  • Meredith Madri posted at 12:35 pm on Sun, Feb 23, 2014.

    FilmArtPhoto Posts: 34

    Amen!

     
  • Jennifer Bizzarro posted at 6:52 am on Thu, Feb 20, 2014.

    Jennifer_Bizzarro Posts: 481

    Exactly! Some questions for legislators, future office holders and school board members:

    1. Do any of the computer corporations have a plant here in New Mexico? (Business development)

    2. Does the state or any of its agencies buy computers directly from the manufacturer for the cost-saving measure that would result? (Financial responsibility)

    3. Will anything change while taxpayers are left uninformed and out of the decision-making process? (Communication and respect.) Taxpayers and property owners are not "special interest groups."

    4. What can be done to divert the cost from property owners? Is there an alternative tax (Starbucks coffee, sodas, vending machines) that could substitute? After all, if a grocery bag tax can be enacted, why not something like designer coffee? Trujillo might see the sense in this.

     
  • Pat Shackleford posted at 11:08 pm on Wed, Feb 19, 2014.

    Pat Shackleford Posts: 566

    I used to go to Starsucks about once a week when Ohori's would be closed on Sunday. I haven't been back in over a year now. Their smug indifference to making you wait until you had to ask if they forgot your order...no more!

     
  • Pat Shackleford posted at 11:01 pm on Wed, Feb 19, 2014.

    Pat Shackleford Posts: 566

    The Loyal Royals?

     
  • Pat Shackleford posted at 10:57 pm on Wed, Feb 19, 2014.

    Pat Shackleford Posts: 566

    I was wondering the same thing. There's no doubt that regular loss, theft, breakage, "dog ate it", etc will occur. How many times will it be replaced by Santa Fe tax-paying property owners, after a parent trades it for cocaine or oxycontin? Idiots at the helm, good money gone bad. Sayonara sucker.

     
  • Andrew Lucero posted at 9:29 pm on Wed, Feb 19, 2014.

    Andrew Lucero Posts: 128

    Sounds like nothing more than a BIG Pay Day for someone. In the end, it's just another fleecing of the tax payer that will have little or no impact on our city's dismal educational performance....There is no reason why every child should be provided with a free computer at tax payer expense. Yes, computers are a wonderful tool and every student should be taught how to use them.. But, they are not a substitute for the fundamentals of Reading, Writing and Arithmetic...

    Children in Europe, Singapore, Japan, China and India are not provided with free computers...Yet their kids bury ours in education...The priority needs to be placed on teaching our kids the fundamentals instead of providing them with shiny new toys each they are in school...

    Bottom line, it doesn't matter how great these computers are if our kids aren't educated enough to fully utilize them and only use them to play games...

     
  • Cate Moses posted at 9:04 pm on Wed, Feb 19, 2014.

    cate moses Posts: 40

    I think we should take up a collection: Starbucks for Trujillo. Kind souls should dog her throughout her week, handing her a cuppa Starbucks at random and inopportune public moments. We'd hate to see her go without.

    Too bad I don't shop there.

     
  • Jennifer Bizzarro posted at 6:53 pm on Wed, Feb 19, 2014.

    Jennifer_Bizzarro Posts: 481

    And who pays for the replacements when the kids lose the I-Pads or leave them on the bus or are bullied into giving them up? Poor planning.

    Pardon me if I still want coffee in the morning. I've done my parental (and grand-parental) duties and don't want to do anymore.

     
  • Jennifer Bizzarro posted at 6:48 pm on Wed, Feb 19, 2014.

    Jennifer_Bizzarro Posts: 481

    "Trujillo acknowledged the roughly $8-a-month increase for those with a $200,000 home will adversely impact some people — but for her, she said, it’s just fewer trips to Starbucks each month."

    Well, isn't that special? And just where in Santa Fe does one find a $200k home? Of course, Trujillo has more than one home and more than one income so "fewer trips to Starbucks" will not be necessary after all, at least in la familia Trujillo.

    Why not let the "Friends of Skandera" pay for extra technology? We know they have deep pockets. And thanks to Trujillo's support, Hanna's still here. Or let private industry pay for it? How many times can someone go to the same well? The taxpayers, the taxpayers, the taxpayers--hey, we're moving as fast as we can.

    How many of the kids will "lose" the I-Pads? Who is responsible for replacing them? The taxpayers? Again?

     
  • Donado Coviello posted at 3:47 pm on Wed, Feb 19, 2014.

    Cove Posts: 336

    Linda is on Javier's "Host Committee" for his shindig at at Bishop's Lodge with Bingaman. On the committee list you can find Linda Trujillo's name right under Valerie Plame's... I swear I can't make up this stuff. Other listed: Over-the-hill Earl Potter ,Carol and Morty of course, Billie Blair, stuck-in-the-60s Lisa Law, Flance, Wertheim, Jaunito Rios, Ken Newton and too many other loyalist (or maybe Royalist would be a better word.) to name.

     
  • Cate Moses posted at 12:58 pm on Wed, Feb 19, 2014.

    cate moses Posts: 40

    Starbucks? Even Trujillo's coffee money goes to an out-of-state corporation. Her cavalier "fewer trips to Starbucks" comment shows just how how of touch she is with working people. Remember that at election time, folks.

     
  • Matthew Ellis posted at 9:48 am on Wed, Feb 19, 2014.

    PumpTrolley Posts: 10

    ADDENDUM.

    Regrettably, I had to leave before there was a motion for a vote. I sensed it was inevitable that the Board would move ahead without a public vote and that the yeas would have it. I am emphatic about the point that unless we use the revenue generated by this tax as leverage and bargaining power with out of state (or local) tech vendors to provide some tangible ROI in the form of locating some aspect of their business in Santa Fe (ex an Apple store, call center, or commitment to hold conventions here - in our nearly dead convention center, creation of internships and funding merit based scholarships for our students) - then all of this amounts to more capital extraction from the community and us paying to educate another state's workforce, since we currently do not have an abundance of good paying tech jobs for our young people, (let alone ourselves as the revenue generators in the private sector). Unless some aspect of this tax has an implicit ability to recharge the funding well by creating jobs and attracting tech industries, then in the future there will be no well, once the middle class has been wiped out and the young talent has to move away for employment.
    I look forward to seeing how the board will make a case for using these advancements in tech education as an indirect means of creating more local jobs.

     
  • Michael Murray posted at 9:33 am on Wed, Feb 19, 2014.

    Mike M Posts: 62

    Great, more computers. Can the kids using the computers spell correctly, write a complete sentence, do simple arithmetic, or tell you the three branches of government? Are their parents (or parent) involved and able to tell you what their kids are studying? Of course more money and higher taxes will fix all that.

     
  • Cate Moses posted at 9:03 am on Wed, Feb 19, 2014.

    cate moses Posts: 40

    Whoosh. I hear the sound of taxpayer dollars flying into out-of-state corporate pockets. When Boyd, Duncan, Carrillo, and Trujillo said more, more, more, faster, faster, faster, a red light should have gone on, but not a single taxpayer showed up to voice opposition; at least that's what this article says.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics says no child under 18 should spend more than 2 hours a day in front of a screen. The average kid spends 7 hours. And Boyd wants them staring at screens in school all day. There is no evidence that more more more technology = better education. What Boyd and his lackeys on the board want is more factory curriculum and more surveillance and meaningless work for teachers. Mission accomplished.

     
  • George Raney posted at 8:23 am on Wed, Feb 19, 2014.

    Buffalogr Posts: 6

    This 12% tax increase was not voted by the taxpayers...it's just plain wrong to do that!

     
  • Jay Shapiro posted at 6:07 am on Wed, Feb 19, 2014.

    jayshapiro Posts: 28

    This decision is a mistake and has the appearance of an unregulated transfer of public resources into private hands. The chronic, systemic underperformance of the Santa Fe schools will not be solved by providing every student with a shiny new toy because the schools' problems are both longstanding and have nothing to do with a manufactured "technology gap." We can only hope that Mr. Wikle keeps his eye on this ball and continues to ask tough questions about how much money is being spent with which vendors and whether or not there are "sweetheart deals" waiting in the wings.

     
  • Donado Coviello posted at 4:50 am on Wed, Feb 19, 2014.

    Cove Posts: 336

    The turn-out for the last School Board election was less the 5% of the registered voters.
    Linda Trujillo ran unopposed ...and you think we live in a Democracy?

     
  • Pat Shackleford posted at 2:40 am on Wed, Feb 19, 2014.

    Pat Shackleford Posts: 566

    "— but for her, she said, it’s just fewer trips to Starbucks each month."

    These economically-comfortable simpletons should NOT be in a position of deciding how and when to spend our money. SHE, can just drop a few lattes per month (keep the cocktails coming). Other people have already cut-out the designer-cups, after the last property tax they saddled us with. We're lucky, I guess, that there's at least one person who is thoughtful enough to vote no. (no vendor's kickback for you, Wikle)

     
Loading…

Follow The Santa Fe New Mexican

Today’s New Mexican, July 23, 2014

To view a replica of today's printed edition of The Santa Fe New Mexican, you must be a subscriber. Get complete access to the online edition, including the print replica, at our low rate of $2.49 a week. That's about the price of a cup of coffee. Or get online and home delivery of our print edition for $3.24. Click here for details.  

Advertisement