Big names emerge in push for new Sacramento arena

[Tetsujin]

And so the struggle continues.

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/12/22/3274807/big-names-emerge-in-push-for-new.html


Could there still be hope? Only time will tell.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

I'm really surprised at how little this article actually says. "A couple companies that have built arenas are interested in looking at Sacramento" is approximately what I get out of it.

I still say that they're putting the cart before the horse. Is the tactic to first build excitement? It looks that way to me.

They really do have to identify funding first. If they cap the public's portion at a specific amount and then stick with that, it could work. But Hunt is known (recently, anyway) for 2 huge projects: Orlando and Brooklyn. Those are billion dollar projects.

Note that "identifying funding" is how it's working in Las Vegas. I'm sure there are vague outlines of an arena there, but they're working on the funding before proceeding to the "artist's rendering"-phase. That's the way to do it; you first find out if the money's there, and if it is, then you let contractors know specifically how much money they'll be getting.

What we're trying to do is lure people into the Porsche showroom, getting them very excited with performance, reliability, sexy looks, and so forth, and then explaining that the Turbo we just let them fall in love with is about $120,000 over their budgets. It just ticks off the customers.

Our locals need to tell the public and the builders know that there is a set amount of money for this. There's a budget. If the builders don't like that budget, they shouldn't bother to get involved.

I see nothing like this in the article.

I still think we're on a mistake-ridden train to nowhere.

 

[ArcoKings]

This is positive news. There's interest but a funding plan still needs to be implemented (the hard part). Those construction companies mentioned, especially Turner Construction, are top notch companies with super deep pockets. Maybe one of them would like to get into the arena business and partner up with the Maloofs?? Still crossing my fingers for something to happen. (The Kings better start winning... but that's another story.)

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I read this earlier. If it weren't for the ineptitude of bungling Sacramento politicians and the refusal of bitter Sacramento citizens to approve even a TINY tax to help pay for it...I could almost get excited about it.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

This biggest problem for me, still, is what if something like Glendale, AZ, happens to us?

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2010/12/4368_glendale_votes.html

They need to build protections into this from the very beginning. Our own budget is in such tatters that something like this would do Sacramento in. We'd be bankrupt.

That new owner is getting a fantastic deal. But they just added $10M (or so -- I'm estimating, and probably low) in expenses to Glendale's budget, in exchange for an arena and a hockey team THEY ALREADY HAVE. Sorry for shouting, but that's not acceptable.

The fundamental disagreement I have is this: Some people seem to think that keeping the Kings in Sacramento is worth any cost. I don't. I think it's worth something, but that (for example) Q & R was too high a price to pay. TIFs are too high a price to pay.

I'd wager that only about 1 person in 30 in this area regularly attends events at Arco. We should make an attempt to not charge the other 29 for the 1.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I'd wager that only about 1 person in 30 in this area regularly attends events at Arco. We should make an attempt to not charge the other 29 for the 1.

That's not seeing the big picture. It isn't just about building an area to benefit the people who attend events there. The revenue a new arena would provide benefits the city as a whole because it would stimulate the local economy. Bars, restaurants, hotels, ect. in the vicinity of a new area would benefit big time. Not to mention the jobs building the arena itself would create.

 

[bajaden]

This biggest problem for me, still, is what if something like Glendale, AZ, happens to us?

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2010/12/4368_glendale_votes.html

They need to build protections into this from the very beginning. Our own budget is in such tatters that something like this would do Sacramento in. We'd be bankrupt.

That new owner is getting a fantastic deal. But they just added $10M (or so -- I'm estimating, and probably low) in expenses to Glendale's budget, in exchange for an arena and a hockey team THEY ALREADY HAVE. Sorry for shouting, but that's not acceptable.

The fundamental disagreement I have is this: Some people seem to think that keeping the Kings in Sacramento is worth any cost. I don't. I think it's worth something, but that (for example) Q & R was too high a price to pay. TIFs are too high a price to pay.

I'd wager that only about 1 person in 30 in this area regularly attends events at Arco. We should make an attempt to not charge the other 29 for the 1.

I've never used the public library, and yet my taxes support it. Get rid of the damm thing if I'm not going to use it. The fire dept. never came to my house and put out a fire. Get rid of it! I've only gone to the community center to look around. Who needs it, get rid of it.

I think you get the picture. Yours is a selfish attitude that a lot of people have. It stiffles progress and looses jobs that could have been created. The arena could have been built for with a 1/2 cent increase in sales tax. And amount I doubt anyone would have even noticed was gone. But no, that was too much. But you let politicians throw money away on projects you'll never hear about or see. All in the name of helping people you'll never know or see. In fact most of us don't even know what our tax dollars are being spent on.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I've never used the public library, and yet my taxes support it. Get rid of the damm thing if I'm not going to use it. The fire dept. never came to my house and put out a fire. Get rid of it! I've only gone to the community center to look around. Who needs it, get rid of it.

Awesome! I was trying to think of something similar to say but couldn't quite figure out how to say it. You got it spot on, though.

 

[kupman]

I've never used the public library, and yet my taxes support it. Get rid of the damm thing if I'm not going to use it. The fire dept. never came to my house and put out a fire. Get rid of it! I've only gone to the community center to look around. Who needs it, get rid of it.

I think you get the picture. Yours is a selfish attitude that a lot of people have. It stiffles progress and looses jobs that could have been created. The arena could have been built for with a 1/2 cent increase in sales tax. And amount I doubt anyone would have even noticed was gone. But no, that was too much. But you let politicians throw money away on projects you'll never hear about or see. All in the name of helping people you'll never know or see. In fact most of us don't even know what our tax dollars are being spent on.

well said.

 

[JB_kings]

I doubt only 1 person in 30 have been to an event in Arco. I know a broad selection of people and almost all have attended some events there. It's closer to 75-80% I'm betting attend something there. What percentage use the library, visit the Cocker Art Museum or use the airport? It makes a difference than just picking out the odd person that holds Kings season tickets or attends "regularly". Why? Because where does the family who wants to see Trans Siberian Orchestra go to see their show when Arco is gone? San Jose. What about Disney on Ice or any of the other concerts that come to town? Same thing. So those people are taking their money to the bay area, Stockton or some other place. We are talking about losing way more than the Kings here. Negative thinking is killing Sacramento far faster than any tax proposal could. We get it, nobody wants to give up the farm to keep the Kings. But I have yet to see a tax proposal for this that hurt anyone. I bet you have more loose change in your sofa or under your car seat than the taxes being frowned upon.

It's so easy to paint this as welfare for the millionaires. It works well, but it's disingenuous.

 

[folsomfella]

I've never used the public library, and yet my taxes support it. Get rid of the damm thing if I'm not going to use it. The fire dept. never came to my house and put out a fire. Get rid of it! I've only gone to the community center to look around. Who needs it, get rid of it.

I think you get the picture. Yours is a selfish attitude that a lot of people have. It stiffles progress and looses jobs that could have been created. The arena could have been built for with a 1/2 cent increase in sales tax. And amount I doubt anyone would have even noticed was gone. But no, that was too much. But you let politicians throw money away on projects you'll never hear about or see. All in the name of helping people you'll never know or see. In fact most of us don't even know what our tax dollars are being spent on.

I'm as a big a supporter of a new arena you'll find but that analogy doesn't work unless the new arena was free to use, like the library.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The big problem I had with Q&R was that it involved sales tax and I prefer other methods of taxation. I've got no problem with public funding that helps business and creates or keeps jobs in the area.

 

[bajaden]

I'm as a big a supporter of a new arena you'll find but that analogy doesn't work unless the new arena was free to use, like the library.

My friend, nothing is free. It can appear to be free, but there's always a cost hidden somewhere. But if you want to use that analogy, then why do I have to pay to see Phamtom of the Opera at the community center? The thing is, were not talking about the cost of an event, were talking about the cost of building a structure, whatever the use. As a matter of fact, maybe the library would have less economic impact on the citys budget if it did cost the user something. At least the community center and a new arena would eventually pay for its self and not be a continuious burden on the tax payer like a library is. The reason a lot of cities in this country are going broke is that there's too much free stuff being given away, and paid for with taxpayers money. And I don't mean to pick on the library.

 

[Mike0476]

My friend, nothing is free. It can appear to be free, but there's always a cost hidden somewhere. But if you want to use that analogy, then why do I have to pay to see Phamtom of the Opera at the community center? The thing is, were not talking about the cost of an event, were talking about the cost of building a structure, whatever the use. As a matter of fact, maybe the library would have less economic impact on the citys budget if it did cost the user something. At least the community center and a new arena would eventually pay for its self and not be a continuious burden on the tax payer like a library is. The reason a lot of cities in this country are going broke is that there's too much free stuff being given away, and paid for with taxpayers money. And I don't mean to pick on the library.

You hit the nail on the head.

The naysayers on the Bee complain all the time about their taxes being spent and how we need to spend money to fix our problems on crime, homeless people, schools, etc.

I agree with them, but the problem is those problems will never go away and will always burden us (especially crime, poor, welfare queens, homeless people, etc.).

I feel confident this will get done and when it is, those naysayers can come join me for a cold one at a bar located across the street from our new downtown arena.

 

[allrightythen]

My friend, nothing is free. It can appear to be free, but there's always a cost hidden somewhere. But if you want to use that analogy, then why do I have to pay to see Phamtom of the Opera at the community center? The thing is, were not talking about the cost of an event, were talking about the cost of building a structure, whatever the use. As a matter of fact, maybe the library would have less economic impact on the citys budget if it did cost the user something. At least the community center and a new arena would eventually pay for its self and not be a continuious burden on the tax payer like a library is. The reason a lot of cities in this country are going broke is that there's too much free stuff being given away, and paid for with taxpayers money. And I don't mean to pick on the library.

I would love to have a new arena in Sacramento for the Kings, but I'm not sure there has there been a publicly funded arena that has paid for itself. There is also little or no empirical evidence (at least thats reputable) that new arenas stimulate employment, income, tax revenue or any other economic indicator.

I'm fine with the idea that the Kings need a new arena and that if one were built it would add to the legitimacy of Sacramento as a "world-class city" as Mayor Johnson has repeatedly said, but its not a money maker and I think its either dishonest or just ignorant of him to maintain that position.

 

[Larry David]

The debate over public money has merits on both sides.

However, as to whether Sacramento gets something done - the debate that's starting here is moot. Other than the land, street, ect. and small small percent of the total project - public money isn't going to happen. It's a 3rd rail. KJ wants to put more in, but he doesn't dare talk about it right now.

Even if the pro public money wins the day - at most, you are talking about 25%.

I have my doubts that Maloofs can come up with 25% of the building costs - ie, not renting it. The cost of building it.

Even if you got both of those done - which would be huge wins. You are still 50% short and waiting for a 3rd party to have some reason to do the rest. I still don't know what that would be. The city will be capped and land out. The Kings don't turn a huge profit and a Maloof split would mean they just pay for more of it.

If you want to debate a moot point. Fire away. But its moot.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

First: Merry Christmas, everyone.

Second: Parks, roads, libraries, etc., are there to use for free. An arena is not. An arena is there for a sports team to play, and make money. Let me know the next time someone proposes a for-profit park or library.

It's not a good example at all to compare an arena with a park. It's not even close.

 

[cfechter]

The debate over public money has merits on both sides.

However, as to whether Sacramento gets something done - the debate that's starting here is moot. Other than the land, street, ect. and small small percent of the total project - public money isn't going to happen. It's a 3rd rail. KJ wants to put more in, but he doesn't dare talk about it right now.

Even if the pro public money wins the day - at most, you are talking about 25%.

I have my doubts that Maloofs can come up with 25% of the building costs - ie, not renting it. The cost of building it.

Even if you got both of those done - which would be huge wins. You are still 50% short and waiting for a 3rd party to have some reason to do the rest. I still don't know what that would be. The city will be capped and land out. The Kings don't turn a huge profit and a Maloof split would mean they just pay for more of it.

If you want to debate a moot point. Fire away. But its moot.

Even if I don't always agree with you - this is a great point. It doesn't matter who's involved unless where we know the money is coming from. Construction costs will probably be between 400-500 million, and that's on the cheap compared to some of the other newer arenas in the league. So before I get excited about the "big names" coming out, I have to know exactly where does the money come from?

As a libertarian the NBA frustrates me profusely because of its refusal to accept responsibility for paying for the projects on their own. Any business that brings in over 100 million annually per team (my college accounting book in 2001 had a P&L for the Celtics in 1996 with gross revenues of 65 million then - I"m guessing it's up over 100 million based on current salaries) should have the resources to finance this type of thing without help from the public.

 

[Warhawk]

First: Merry Christmas, everyone.

Second: Parks, roads, libraries, etc., are there to use for free. An arena is not. An arena is there for a sports team to play, and make money. Let me know the next time someone proposes a for-profit park or library.

It's not a good example at all to compare an arena with a park. It's not even close.

Many parks are not free, including campgrounds or recreational lakes. FYI

 

[kennadog]

Many parks are not free, including campgrounds or recreational lakes. FYI

No kidding. I'm old enough to remember what it was like before Prop 13 was passed in California. Many public things were free or very low-cost that now require you to pay for their use. "User fees" began to be charged for many things that used to be free to the public. Of course that also marked the slide into mediocrity for California schools.

 

[cfechter]

No kidding. I'm old enough to remember what it was like before Prop 13 was passed in California. Many public things were free or very low-cost that now require you to pay for their use. "User fees" began to be charged for many things that used to be free to the public. Of course that also marked the slide into mediocrity for California schools.

I'm on the finance committee of San Juan Unified and couldn't disagree with you more. The slide into mediocrity for California schools as you point out closely corresponds to collective bargaining by public employee unions. The SJTA runs this school district, and the needs of the parents, taxpayers and students are ALWAYS secondary to union demands.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Ah yes, union bashing! I wonder if the good schools in wealthy districts hire from a different union or something...

 

[cfechter]

Ah yes, union bashing! I wonder if the good schools in wealthy districts hire from a different union or something...

There are several different unions that members from each school district belong to -

NEA - National educators association
CTA - California's teachers' association
The teachers association from the local school district as well.

The goals of each are incompatible with excellence in education. They make it nearly impossible to fire the bad employees, set a rigid structure in advancement that the good ones can't be promoted easily and thus encourages them to seek other work, and utterly refuse to concede anything when times are bad (like now). Thus - the students suffer.

Most employees of SJUSD will receive a pay raise this next year while they'll be shutting down adult education for permanently disabled individuals (individuals with autism, cerebral palsy, down's syndrome, etc). Lunacy and an utter disregard for the public at its finest.

You also have no clue on how school districts are funded. Each district receives the same amount per student whether it's in a "poor" area or in a "wealthy" area. Wealthier enclaves (like Davis) have enacted parcel taxes, however, to achieve certain educational objectives. Whether those educational objectives are correct, well, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[bajaden]

First: Merry Christmas, everyone.

Second: Parks, roads, libraries, etc., are there to use for free. An arena is not. An arena is there for a sports team to play, and make money. Let me know the next time someone proposes a for-profit park or library.

It's not a good example at all to compare an arena with a park. It's not even close.

There's the problem. You think those things are free. Thats because people don't realize that their paying for it one way or another. Their not paying for these things by printing money. Its coming out of the taxpayers pocket. I know politicians think its free money the way they spend it.

Here's the part I don't understand. Everyone is just fine spending a lot of money on things that can be given away for free. But not on something that just might pay some of the money back to the taxpayer.

 

[kennadog]

I'm as a big a supporter of a new arena you'll find but that analogy doesn't work unless the new arena was free to use, like the library.

Use of the library is hardly free or any other publicly funded service. We all pay taxes to keep such services available. As a matter of fact, libraries produce zero revenue (unless you want to count paltry late fees, which many folks never pay), something an arena does. We also have to pay for damages to books, replacements and stolen books.

 

[kennadog]

There are several different unions that members from each school district belong to -

NEA - National educators association
CTA - California's teachers' association
The teachers association from the local school district as well.

The goals of each are incompatible with excellence in education. They make it nearly impossible to fire the bad employees, set a rigid structure in advancement that the good ones can't be promoted easily and thus encourages them to seek other work, and utterly refuse to concede anything when times are bad (like now). Thus - the students suffer.

Most employees of SJUSD will receive a pay raise this next year while they'll be shutting down adult education for permanently disabled individuals (individuals with autism, cerebral palsy, down's syndrome, etc). Lunacy and an utter disregard for the public at its finest.

You also have no clue on how school districts are funded. Each district receives the same amount per student whether it's in a "poor" area or in a "wealthy" area. Wealthier enclaves (like Davis) have enacted parcel taxes, however, to achieve certain educational objectives. Whether those educational objectives are correct, well, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

The fact of the matter is schools are not funded even remotely equally. If schools are located in wealthier areas, they have many more options to raise money to pay for programs. Not only that, but they attract the better and more experienced teachers.

I have a lot of teachers in my family and I've never met people more selfless. They spend summers bettering their teaching skills and improving their curriculum, they pay for many school supplies out of their own pocket and they are always very concerned about the quality of education they areable to provide. They are very bright, creative, patient and caring people. And many of them worked in those "good old days" of better education. They did not suddenly become poor teachers. In fact some of them have been honored for their excellence. I don't think I could do what they do at all. I agree that unions can be part of the problem, but they are far from the main or only problem. California lags far behind on per pupil spending compared to states where performance is much higher.

One of my aunt's stories is that her school district decided that any money raised by the school through fund-raising activities would go to the district to be divided equally among all schools in the district (e.g. all high schools). Guess what, the fundraisers at the wealthy schools quit fund-raising and tried to find ways around it. They weren't interested in the education of children, they were only interested in the education of their children. Talk about abysmal social conscience. These are children were talking about. Why should kids with poor familes be denied an equal education or at least truly equal funding?

Part of the problem is back when I was young, well over half of all households in the US had children 18 and younger. Today its only about 25%. Children have no political power, so when people target tax cutting and squeezing the life out of public financing, schools have been a huge target and available place to cut.

And since I was a State employee, collective bargaining came well after Prop 13. I know because it affected me directly and I had a lot of years of no pay raises, because of it. My salary didn't even come close to keeping up with inflation. Prop 13 passed long before I became a State employee and collective bargaining came long after I became a State employee (25 years in service).

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I have a lot of teachers in my family and I've never met people more selfless.

I honestly can't think of another profession that requires a 5 or 6 year degree minimum to get a job that averages around 40k a year, much less to start which is why so many burn out in 3 years. There is no reason at all to enter the profession unless it is your true passion and calling in life, I've got nothing but respect for those that do.

 

[cfechter]

The fact of the matter is schools are not funded even remotely equally. If schools are located in wealthier areas, they have many more options to raise money to pay for programs. Not only that, but they attract the better and more experienced teachers.

I have a lot of teachers in my family and I've never met people more selfless. They spend summers bettering their teaching skills and improving their curriculum, they pay for many school supplies out of their own pocket and they are always very concerned about the quality of education they areable to provide. They are very bright, creative, patient and caring people. And many of them worked in those "good old days" of better education. They did not suddenly become poor teachers. In fact some of them have been honored for their excellence. I don't think I could do what they do at all. I agree that unions can be part of the problem, but they are far from the main or only problem. California lags far behind on per pupil spending compared to states where performance is much higher.

One of my aunt's stories is that her school district decided that any money raised by the school through fund-raising activities would go to the district to be divided equally among all schools in the district (e.g. all high schools). Guess what, the fundraisers at the wealthy schools quit fund-raising and tried to find ways around it. They weren't interested in the education of children, they were only interested in the education of their children. Talk about abysmal social conscience. These are children were talking about. Why should kids with poor familes be denied an equal education or at least truly equal funding?

Part of the problem is back when I was young, well over half of all households in the US had children 18 and younger. Today its only about 25%. Children have no political power, so when people target tax cutting and squeezing the life out of public financing, schools have been a huge target and available place to cut.

And since I was a State employee, collective bargaining came well after Prop 13. I know because it affected me directly and I had a lot of years of no pay raises, because of it. My salary didn't even come close to keeping up with inflation. Prop 13 passed long before I became a State employee and collective bargaining came long after I became a State employee (25 years in service).

This isn't about teacher bashing - but consider this - the average cost per employee in the general fund of San Juan Unified school district has increased by an average of 10 percent per year since 2000 - and now that cost is north of $85,000. These are from numbers provided by internal management. And consider the cost per hour - current funding is $53 per hour for employees of the SJUSD general fund. $53 per hour! That's a lot of money!

It isn't about funding the schools. It's about using the resources provided to them more efficiently. And since unions effectively run every school district in the state due to their huge contributions in local elections, it's never, ever about the kids.

The funding mechanisms for the wealthier schools are exactly the same at poorer schools. But, the ponits you bring up are valid. "Wealthier" schools have wealthier parents and their booster clubs are far more active and well funded. In fact, the local PTA of a "wealthy" school in San Juan Unified put an ad in a local publication attempting to attract students to it - so it wouldn't be considered for a cut to 6th grade education. I thought it was kind of crazy, but it happens. Thta's off-point though - the general funding mechanisms are the same for each school. I would tend to think that performance differences are more due to parental involvement and resources available to the "wealthier" students at home as opposed to the resources available to the students at the schools.

That being said, I think you present a great argument for the utilization of charter schools - if a charter school has awful student achivement, the charter school dies. If a public school has awful student achievement, it remains open indefinitely.

 

[kennadog]

When I was young parents were hardly involved in schools much at all. And that's when a lot of mothers, at least middle-income and up ones, were not working. My mom went to PTA meetings, back-to-school night and parent teacher conferences. That was it, with a possible field trip or two. My parents were minimally involved in my schooling, same as the parents of my friends. And they had a lot more time they could've devoted to it, or at least my mom did. Yet education was much better then. The boomer parents also felt education was important. The GI bill allowed a lot of people to go to college that never would have otherwise. The boomers devoted a lot of money to K-12 education. A lot. They didn't mind paying taxes for that purpose. It was that important to them.

Poorer households are more likely to have parents that work low-paying jobs that provide no vacation or sick leave time. If they take time-off they lose wages, which they can ill-afford to do. How much can they be involved? A lot of poorer income families work multiple jobs, so they aren't much available in the evening either. Since poorer income parents usually have less education, they're less able to actually help kids with school work. That's even more true for parents with minimal English-speaking skills.
All they can do is try to instill the importance of education, discipline and responsibility in children, but they have formidible odds against them. Being born white, middle class in the USA of the 1950 was my hugest advantage in life.

Charter schools aren't an acceptable answer unless you require them to take their fair share of the special education, non-English-speaking and "problem" students. Because they don't have to accept them, public schools are left with the lowest achievers and the students that cost the most to educate, by far, like special education students. And if you're poor and the charter school is far away, how do you pay for the transportation, if its even available? And no matter how much of a voucher amount could be handed out to pay for education, the more elite schools will just charge more and eliminate poorer kids that way.

Our forefathers created public libraries and public education, becasue they understood that democracy will work best when everyone has access to education and knowledge. (Of course, they weren't worried, at the time, about non-land owners, women or blacks, because they couldn't vote.)

I won't post any more on this as its way off-topic and this may already get deleted for being to political. That's my fault. Mea culpa.

 

[cfechter]

When I was young parents were hardly involved in schools much at all. And that's when a lot of mothers, at least middle-income and up ones, were not working. My mom went to PTA meetings, back-to-school night and parent teacher conferences. That was it, with a possible field trip or two. My parents were minimally involved in my schooling, same as the parents of my friends. And they had a lot more time they could've devoted to it, or at least my mom did. Yet education was much better then. The boomer parents also felt education was important. The GI bill allowed a lot of people to go to college that never would have otherwise. The boomers devoted a lot of money to K-12 education. A lot. They didn't mind paying taxes for that purpose. It was that important to them.

Poorer households are more likely to have parents that work low-paying jobs that provide no vacation or sick leave time. If they take time-off they lose wages, which they can ill-afford to do. How much can they be involved? A lot of poorer income families work multiple jobs, so they aren't much available in the evening either. Since poorer income parents usually have less education, they're less able to actually help kids with school work. That's even more true for parents with minimal English-speaking skills.
All they can do is try to instill the importance of education, discipline and responsibility in children, but they have formidible odds against them. Being born white, middle class in the USA of the 1950 was my hugest advantage in life.

Charter schools aren't an acceptable answer unless you require them to take their fair share of the special education, non-English-speaking and "problem" students. Because they don't have to accept them, public schools are left with the lowest achievers and the students that cost the most to educate, by far, like special education students. And if you're poor and the charter school is far away, how do you pay for the transportation, if its even available? And no matter how much of a voucher amount could be handed out to pay for education, the more elite schools will just charge more and eliminate poorer kids that way.

Our forefathers created public libraries and public education, becasue they understood that democracy will work best when everyone has access to education and knowledge. (Of course, they weren't worried, at the time, about non-land owners, women or blacks, because they couldn't vote.)

I won't post any more on this as its way off-topic and this may already get deleted for being to political. That's my fault. Mea culpa.

You would greatly benefit from analyzing the finances of any school district for the past 25 years before claiming that we're seriously deriving our students of funding.

Over 85,000 per employee. Over $5,000 per student is provided in ADA funding. Thta's $150,000 per year for a classroom of 30 students.

Edit - special education is funded entirely separately by the feds and state. Keeping special ed in local schools doesn't "hurt" the schools financially one bit. I have additional knowledge in this area because my son is autistic and is in special ed in San Juan.