WEATHER »

SBCC Approves $288 Million Bond Measure


Thursday, June 19, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

The SBCC Board of Trustees approved placing a $288 million facility-improvement bond measure on the November ballot. The resolution is about $20 million less than the one the board had previously entertained, and it comes after approximately a year of deliberation. Among a slew of renovations and modernizations on the main campus and at the two satellite campuses, the bond measure would replace the college’s portable classrooms with a permanent building if approved by 55 percent of voters. Funds must be used on remodeling, not salaries, and would cost homeowners $16.65 per every $100,000 of their homes’ assessed valuation.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Wait a minute! Didn't the voters approve a bond measure for SBCC just a few years ago? What happened to that money? I'm all for keeping the place maintained, but before I vote for another bond measure, I want an accounting of how the last one was spent.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2014 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Too much, too soon and too many reckless spenders at SBCC to give this outfit any more money to waste. SBCC badly needs to downsize and not perpetuate their relentless out of district and foreign student growth policies. No to this overly large demand on local taxpayers for a school now catering to non-resident students.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2014 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Have these admin's ever met a bond measure they didnt like?

I'll vote no as we cannot pay off the existing bonds let alone more...

When will these people realize that forcing your children to pay for your excesses is not positive?

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2014 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The high schools in the SBCC district have about two thousand graduates a year. SBCC has an enrollment of 25,000. It is obvious that the vast majority of the students are from outside the district and have local community colleges that they could attend. There is absolutely no justifiable reason that the property owners in the SBCC district should be saddled with more than a quarter of a billion dollars of debt because many California students would prefer to attend junior college in Santa Barbara rather than their hometown.

oaintw (anonymous profile)
June 20, 2014 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe SBCC could spend a bit of this on a center in IV to keep their 7,000 abandoned students in IV from developing into future Elliot Rodgers.

More likely SBCC will spend this money on new luxury boxes for the stadium, like they did before, and let all the negative behavior of their 7,000 profit-producing students who live in IV taint UCSB.

pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
June 20, 2014 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am cautiously in support of this bond measure, but why so friggin much on technology rather than TEACHERS?! This aspect needs close study, toys for teachers & administrators? or genuine learning tools?

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
June 20, 2014 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This ballot measure has nothing to do with paying teachers. It is to build more space for the 20,000 out of district students attending SBCC.

oaintw (anonymous profile)
June 20, 2014 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am cautiously in support of this bond measure, but why so friggin much on technology rather than TEACHERS?! This aspect needs close study, toys for teachers & administrators? or genuine learning tools?

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
June 20, 2014 at 3:31 p.m

Because that's how they lure us in. Simply put: They cry about how they're broke, fan the flames about how we need to educate our people, the public--having been conditioned to not question the motives of those in the education vote for bond measures and/or simply assume their money is going to a good cause, while the administrators on top laugh their way to the bank.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 20, 2014 at 11:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bill, your hostility to public education is well-known on these threads, you are a constant critic. You hate the educational "1%" writing, "while the administrators on top" laugh to the bank.
Yes, oaintw, you are correct and indeed Brugger writes, "Funds must be used on remodeling, not salaries" ... and this is why I may not be able to support it since humans teaching other humans is most important. "Renovations" often means rewiring and updating serviceable classrooms for tech gear and fibre optic cables and computing needs...how nice for Apple Corp. and others that we the taxpayers are funding the substructure so they can sell more gizmos to administrators...never mind training teachers or reducing class size. More info needed about the exact spending plans.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
June 21, 2014 at 5:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm all for education, and don't mind funding it from my tax dollars. What I DO mind is that even though all this $$$ is spent, Johnny still can't read.

As a taxpayer I have every right to demand accountability from teachers and administrators. If one doesn't like what I have to say about it, get your hands out of my pockets.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 21, 2014 at 5:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: