Yes on Measure H for strong schools

There can only be one reasonable vote on Measure H, the Los Altos School District’s parcel tax renewal: a vote in favor of it.

The measure funds 20 percent of the district’s budget for everything from classroom teachers to library hours. Whatever your feelings about the district’s handling of Bullis-Purissima School or the Los Altos Hills redistricting effort, political squabbles are downright petty compared to the need for quality education to go forward.

The current tax, at $597 per parcel, per year, is being renewed, not increased. It needs only a simple majority to pass. Supporters are cautiously optimistic that it will go through, and a poll this past spring showed overwhelming support for a parcel tax renewal.

That said, another Los Altos Hills poll showed 53 percent in favor of redistricting - an effort that would lead to abandoning the Los Altos School District in favor of a town-only district. Even though a vote to redistrict might be three years away, if at all, there’s concern that those committed to it would not see the point in investing in the Los Altos district and its parcel tax.

But there is a point - a major one - to all of us voting in favor of Measure H. When we build strong schools, as is the slogan for the parcel tax campaign, we build strong community. When schools are offering top-of-the-line education, as Los Altos schools are, property values stay high. More like-minded people are attracted to such communities, and the high quality of the community as a whole continues. So it has been for Los Altos.

The parcel tax has been an integral part of the success of the Los Altos School District, and thus, the community. It should be renewed without hesitation or reservation.

Yes on Measure A for land protection

It seems the main argument presented against Measure A, the county’s land conservation initiative, is that it would hurt farmers, ranchers and vintners who own the large parcels of land.

However, Measure A is not bad news for current landowners. It doesn’t restrict current uses or even stop them from annexing to a municipality and developing it. It is bad news, however, for housing developers looking to buy rural lands with an eye to subdividing large parcels to build many large-scale homes.

Eyesore issues aside, limited development means protected watersheds, less pollution and less road and sewer infrastructure for which taxpayers would have to pay.

Opponents also say Measure A could encourage a flood of lawsuits aimed at the county. But those lawsuits could just as easily come from environmental groups challenging the county over housing development. As with prior initiatives, courts would uphold initial challenges. Then the measure would do as intended - uphold our quality of life.