Guffanti editorial lie three, "the district built a school a year without bonds"

Lie three is a lie by deception, leaving out crucial information. Here is the lie: " a district (VUSD) that had built a school a year for the previous eight years without a bond."

First off Guffanti should name these eight schools, I know of only two--Sierra Vista and Rancho Buena Vista High School. Both were built without bonds true. So Guffanti is technically correct but he does not tell where the money to build them came from.

Sierra Vista is a special education high school built by a consortium of surrounding districts on land donated by VUSD near Vista High School. Originally it was used by many districts and the funds to build it came through grants from the state of California that were combined to build a high school. I believe VUSD paid less because we donated the land. This was back when there was lots of vacant land in the VUSD area. The money to build it was from state money and money from other districts surrounding us because there was a need in our area for a special ed high school and VUSD had land if not money available. That deal was a once in a blue moon deal.

Rancho Buena Vista High School was built on land that the developers of Shadow Ridge donated in lieu of paying building impact fees when they built the homes at Shadowridge.

This sweet heart deal saved the developer millions of dollars in real money by allowing him to donate an equivalent value of land. Except it was not equivalent. He gave his worst land. It was un-buildable for houses. It was underlain by blue (super hard) granite that could not be bulldozed and had to be dynamited which cost huge extra amounts of VUSD money when the site was being prepared for RBVHS.

The loss of the millions needed to remove the super hard granite rock meant there were not enough funds for the RBVHS stadium to be included at the time and it had to be built later with new money. But worse all the side walks on the RBVHS campus were narrowed to save money on cement which makes terrible traffic flow problems when students change classes and creates huge slow downs during disaster drills.

If Guffanti was on the board when that land was donated, then he did not do due diligence in accepting that land.

The money to level the site and erect building at RBVHS came from builder fees on the many other housing developments being constructed in other parts of our district--notably east Oceanside. Lots of vacant land, lots of houses built, meant lots of school building funds in the short term.

However, the state of California CAPPED the amount that school districts could charge developers to an amount far less than was needed to build all the schools for the children generated from those housing developments.

Guffanti was on the board when the VUSD board voted to raise our fees UP to this new state minimum and Guffanti voted against raising the fees. How can he brag about building schools without bonds when he tried to lower the amount of money our district would have to build those schools? Chutzpah!

Once the builder's fee money was gone, how was the district going to construct more schools without local school bonds that Guffanti either actively opposed or did nothing to demonstrate support of in the 80's and 90's. I am talking about VUSD’s Prop K for Kids, Prop L, and Prop LL.

In a previous comment post for another article, Guffanti or one of his supporters bragged about money that the district had received from state taxpayers. VUSD qualified for the money as a basket case district because our schools were overcrowded and we could not pass a local bond to raise money for the schools that were needed. Our district went hat in hand and got some money. A little shameful.

Guffanti says schools were built without bonds. Why doesn't Guffanti recognize that the money we spent came from a STATE BOND? A bond is a bond. The taxpayer pays for all bonds. Or did Guffanti mean it was fine to let citizens in other parts of our state pay double for schools? Once for their own schools in their own districts and once for our schools in our district?

Why in Guffanti's world are bonds bad when local folks pay for local schools but good when other taxpayers who get no benefit pay for our local schools?