The “It’s all fun and games until somebody loses $1 billion” is rather amusing. It seems folks don’t realize bonds are just loans that voters have to approve. Effectively part of this bond will go to pay the demands, and the district will get the leftovers for whatever they earmarked (once the unofficial accounting has settled). Really, it seems the district had to fold to get some part of the $1B for themselves but the district continues to go more into debt and Administrators continue to rake it in. It is not like the schools have generally improved – there are still the same 3-4 showcase elementary schools, 2-3 high schools…and then lots of other schools where parents will opt out of if they can and go private.
When I was young I thought Bonds for schools and infrastructure were always a no-brainer but now I vote no more than not. I now view them as bandaids for inequitable funding in the state and wasted money in the district.

As a teacher, I am deeply disappointed by my union missing this rare opportunity to push for real change. This deal is a tiny bandaid that does nothing to address the gaping holes sinking this district. There is no accountability for the Empower fiasco or for decades of financial mismanagement or for worsening working conditions for teachers and students. As you said we hold all the cards and at this crucial window of opportunity there is unprecedented momentum for a major labor movement.

For that reason I am voting no on the tentative deal. I am so frustrated at this concession from my union and I do not see it as a victory.

Now all they need to be sure of is that their new-fang led payroll system can actually, ya know…..pay them correctly.

In reply to marcos.

It’s a general obligation bond. As such, state law forbids the use of any such bonds proceeds to be used for operating expenses. The District, I believe, still has a voter approved parcel tax which is used for operating costs.

These teachers are not very smart. They ought to be striking for comparable wages.

In reply to marcos.

Marc — 

I’d agree with you if you were describing historical trends, but that’s not the case now. As noted in the story, the head of the building trades, along with Local 21 and SEIU 1021, sits on the consortium of public sector unions gearing up for action in 2024. They would’ve enthusiastically blown up the bond if that was required here, and would’ve called for unfair labor condition strikes if that would’ve advanced the UESF position, too.

JE

Can’t we just tax the rich and pay teachers more ? Say any home that sells over $1m you have like a 50% tax . We can use this money to pay teachers more and end homelessness .

In reply to Joe Eskenazi.

Joe — Building and Construction Trades operate on a political logic grumbly alien to the logic of UESF and SEIU.

In reply to marcos.

Marcos —

The point I’m making is that capital work would be done by union labor and there is something of a sense of solidarity among the organized workforce right now.

Best,

JE

“Are there still questions about earmarking $1 billion for facilities before deciding what facilities may yet be closed?”

There is still no evidence that there are any grownups at all in San Francisco government who are taking the budget crisis seriously.

You have more facilities than you need! And our resources aren’t unlimited. Repurpose before building something new.

“And while it was far-fetched to imagine unions actively opposing a school bond — who do you think would be doing the work it authorized? — that doesn’t mean they have to go out of their way to support it. ”

Bonds do not generally fund operations, they fund capital projects, construction, maintenance, rehab, etc. UESF would not be trading their academic robes for construction worker belts and hard hats any time soon.

If SFUSD is contemplating floating debt under these tight monetary conditions for operating costs for what UESF members, teachers, or SEIU members, support staff, would do in the classroom, then that’s your economic malpractice problem right there, and we should recall the entire SFUSD Board.