Why Are SF UESF "Progressive" Leaders Pushing A Regressive Tax & Tax Dollars For Charters?

Why Are SF UESF "Progressive" Leaders Pushing A Regressive Tax & Tax Dollars For Charters?

IF YOU CALL YOURSELF A PROGRESSIVE,
WHY WOULD YOU VOTE FOR A REGRESSIVE TAX THAT INCLUDES TAX DOLLARS FOR CHARTERS?
Prop G will add funding to Charter schools. UESF has a dilemma: defend public schools from privatization or organize charter school teachers.

PROBLEM: UNDERFUNDED PUBLIC EDUCATION

We all agree public education is underfunded; teachers and other site staff are not adequately paid for the services they provide. For example, last year the top wage for a San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) paraprofessional was $35,000.

PARCEL TAX PROP A 2008-2028, ADDITIONAL PARCEL TAX PROP G 2018-2038

In 2008, SF voters passed a parcel tax, Proposition A, “Public Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF).” Prop A imposed a parcel tax of $198/year on real estate in the school district for twenty years, from July 1, 2008 through July 1, 2028. SF Treasurer’s Office currently collects $280 adjusted for inflation, per parcel per year. In an effort to give their members a raise, United Educators of San Francisco (UESF), the teachers’ union, negotiated with SFUSD to place another Parcel Tax “Living Wage for Teachers” known as 2018 Proposition G on the June ballot. In addition to Prop A, UESF is again asking homeowners for another $298, adjusted for inflation, for the next 20 years! Does that mean the first Parcel Tax is still not enough? Yes, regressive taxes will never be enough because residents’ incomes don’t increase at the same rate of inflation. If Prop G passes, residents will be paying $578 adjusted for inflation- annually through 2028, unless UESF introduces yet another Parcel Tax before then.

SFUSD/UESF TENTATIVE AGREEMENT

Many critical questions arise why United Educators of San Francisco (UESF) partnered with Philanthropist Phil Halperin to put a regressive tax, Prop G “Living Wage for Teachers” on the June ballot. It begins with the Tentative Agreement between SFUSD and UESF in the Fall of 2017. Just days before UESF Membership was to vote on the Strike Authorization, UESF Bargaining Team called off the vote and proclaimed they had successfully negotiated a Tentative Agreement with SFUSD touting a revenue-producing Parcel Tax as the solution to public school austerity. In their haste to mail ballots and encourage, “Yes on Tentative Agreement” officers failed to prompt members to print their name on the outside envelope. It is necessary to read a voter’s name in order to match the casted ballot with the “Eligible to Vote” roster; and to make sure there are no duplications. When this major error was noticed, teachers asked officers to cancel this ballot and reissue a valid one. Officers said, “NO, there wouldn’t be enough time to redo it since the Parcel Tax filing deadline was quickly approaching.” This error resulted in 312 ballots uncounted. Total Counted Votes - 1,875; Yes Votes - 1,318; No Votes – 557. Beyond a Yes or No on the Tentative Agreement, many members distrust the process and question the results. Members on the election committee and California affiliates agreed the election could be invalid and should not be certified.

“PROGRESSIVE” LEADERSHIP, REGRESSIVE TAXATION

Why would a progressive organization decide to place a regressive tax on the ballot? SFUSD/UESF may have best intentions, but Parcel Taxes are inadequate and unfair as a sustainable solution. The problem is – parcel taxes are regressive and inequitable. How can SFUSD and UESF even consider another regressive tax on SF residents when both parties claim they are PROGRESSIVE and EQUITABLE?!

1. UESF officers consider themselves progressive leaders. In internal union elections, the vast majority of candidates run as a slate, “Progressive Leadership Caucus” fighting for causes like Climate Justice, and Black Lives Matter. So, why would a progressive organization like UESF push another regressive tax on the ballot?

2. SFUSD prides itself in developing an Office of Equity and “Social Justice”. “The district's strong commitment to equity and social justice across all of its communities and all of its schools enables not just some students but all students to realize their potential.” Equity is different from equality. Equality means the same; equity means according to need and ability. Regressive taxes are NOT equitable because they do not consider the neediest families’ (who rely on public education) ability to pay the tax.

Racial and Social Justice Practitioners solve inequities progressively/equitably. A regressive Parcel Tax temporarily and precariously solves inequities with an equal amount of $298 for the next 20 years.


Regressive taxes are neither progressive nor equitable; they are unfair. Unlike, a progressive corporate tax on unlimited corporate profits or on progressive income tax on individuals, regressive taxation disproportionally affects everyone else.

PUBLIC SCHOOL TUITION

Everyone else means adults who neither have children nor school-age children to support, or whose children attend private/parochial schools. Parents who are financially able to send their children to a private or parochial school pay tuition. Public school children and their families, educators and those who serve them, benefit from public funding. A truly democratic and fair tax system redistributes excessive wealth to fund public institutions as a common good. If you follow this logic, a regressive Parcel Tax, Prop G, substitutes as tuition on the backs of families who use the service but least able to afford to pay it. Prop G disregards “a free and quality education” by mandating local residents pay tuition for public schools.

MOST AFFECTED RESIDENTS OF SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS

Homeowners (or tenants who may be passed on the tax through rent) of single-family dwellings will be the most affected by another regressive parcel tax. As a regressive tax, every parcel is taxed at the same rate, $298, regardless of: usage of the building; commercial, residential, industrial; square area of the plot or volume of the building; value of the property; or district. Single-family homeowners will be paying more per square foot than large multi-story apartment buildings or multi-unit housing complexes. Homeowners on a limited income will be taxed the same $298 as working adults, as regressive taxes do not take into account the ability to pay.

The actual proposition is easy to read: It omits that a percentage can and will be passed on directly to tenants. Public school students’ families are primarily tenants or occupants of single-family homes. Some families are undocumented, some families border on homelessness. These families are disproportionally hit the hardest with an imposed regressive tax.

UESF’s rallying cry fighting for Safe, Stable and Supportive Schools can’t exist until their families’ living conditions are safe, stable, and supportive. Surely, the single-most influential factor in a child’s life are his first caregivers, his family.

PUBLIC RECORDS- PROP G. FUNDED BY MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES

A California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Public Records request shows Prop G campaign being funded by venture capital, real estate interests, big tech and groups who fund attacks on public education, among others. Yet, Philip Halperin is the only listed millionaire on the Yes on G website. If UESF is taking money from the interests that are gutting our city and driving out the people whose children attend our schools, (and their teachers), then what are they expecting in return? So far, UESF Officers and Executive Board have transferred $350,000 membership dues to the COPE committee for the purposes of receiving dollar-for-dollar matching funds from these millionaires and billionaires. A Living Wage for Teachers can NOT be at the expense of their students’ families and SF residents.

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC EDUCATION

Regressive Parcel Tax Prop G benefits the super wealthy because it deflects public education funding from unlimited corporate taxes to individual homeowners instead of a fair progressive redistribution of wealth- explaining why charter-school philanthropist(s) support Prop G! SFUSD’s accounting firm states Charter Schools annually receive more than $1 million, adjusted for inflation. Prop G will add funding to Charter schools. UESF has a dilemma: defend public schools from privatization or organize charter school teachers.

ENDORSED BY “PROGRESSIVE” ORGANIZATIONS

Many conservative and “progressive” politicians endorsed the clever, benign-sounding, “Living Wage for Teachers”. After all, it’s easy to promise other people’s money-- NOT your own. The only official opposition to Prop G is the Libertarian Party. LOL, they got some of it right. If you consider yourself a progressive individual, why would you vote for regressive taxation?

MAKE IT FAIR

California is the fifth largest economy in the world, and SF is the epicenter. Shouldn’t UESF consider a progressive tax rather than a regressive one? Sustainable, long-term alternatives justify a NO on Prop G Parcel Tax. “Make it Fair California” is a coalition that has been working to reform corporate property taxes. In fact, UESF just endorsed the California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2018. If passed it “will restore $11 billion a year in revenue for schools and local communities by eliminating the Prop 13 corporate loophole without raising taxes on homeowners, renters, or small businesses.” UESF now joins California Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO; United Teachers Los Angeles, Alliance San Diego, United Teachers of Richmond, the League of Women Voters, California Calls, ACCE, PICO California, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of California, among others. In educator speak, “Progressive Taxation is a paradigm shift.” Sadly, UESF progressive leadership approved only $500 in support.

Past progressive statewide measures for education such as Proposition 55 and extension Proposition 30 taxes individuals in higher income brackets.


FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU; FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME

I actively phone-banked to pass Prop A in 2008. Only 10 years later, UESF put another Parcel Tax on the Ballot. As a progressive educator, who stands to benefit from passage of the Parcel Tax Prop G, I cannot in good conscience, passively remain quiet about the misdirection of my union. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice; shame on me!
Prop G Parcel Tax robs Peter to pay Paul. Residents of the City are overwhelmingly progressive, so why would they vote for a regressive tax? SF voters are smarter than that.


Sources: Actual text
Wikipedia “Parcel Tax”
Ballotpedia.org
Local Revenues for Schools: Limit and Options in California
http://www.ibabuzz.com/education/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pub_localrevenues_2009-091.pdf
UESF and SFUSD’s websites
UESF membership elections
California Fair Political Practices Commission.