All school bond proposals will be heavily scrutinized

The recently published article about the loss of a proposed bond measure to support Tamalpais Union High School District campuses explores the idea that a certain segment of voters made the difference (“Ross Valley voters might have sunk Tam Union bond plan,” March 24).

However, only 13 of the district's 35 precincts (spanning all of Southern Marin and beyond) gave the measure the 55% majority it needed to pass. Most district voters live outside the Ross Valley. In my opinion, it was those no votes that contributed more significantly to Measure A's failure.

To be sure, Ross Valley voters were likely miffed over the proposed inequitable distribution. Archie Williams High School was to get roughly 13% of the proceeds, despite having about 25% of the district's enrollment.

Taxpayer bond fatigue, as the article noted, probably was also a factor. Tam District voters already pay taxes for its high schools. Most pay additional taxes for their elementary and middle schools.

I think many who voted no might have supported a more affordable measure. It could have been approved with a more focused, better prioritized proposal in which the expenditures more clearly tied to urgent need and educational benefit.

Voters are also concerned about data showing the district's decline in statewide academic ranking. It certainly doesn't rank with the public high schools like Palo Alto or Acalanes in Lafayette any longer. Perhaps our tax dollars would be better spent on what goes on in the classroom rather than on expensive new buildings and renovations.

The effort to push Measure A through (with significant campaign funding from contractors) may have caused voters to question who actually gains from Measure A.

One thing is clear, the days of rubber-stamp voter approval of all school tax measures is over. — Emily Johnstone,

San Anselmo