Letter writer would support ‘incremental approach’ to Lindbergh growth

To the editor:

My family supports the efforts of the educators, administration, board members and students and their successes in the Lindbergh School District.

Those praises need to be sung. However, I am concerned that there has been little discussion of the Prop G ballot issue. This concerns me for several reasons:

• Lindbergh wants to borrow $34 million in bonds. Superintendent Jim Simpson states in a letter that it will “cost about” $6.65 per month for a home worth $200,000, or $80 per year or $2,394 in noninflation adjusted dollars for a 30-year bond issue.

• This is just for construction. What about projected operating expenses to run the lights, insurance, books, salaries, et cetera?

• A total of 569 students joined Lindbergh schools over the past five years, or about 123 per year, and 464 students will enroll by 2018. An email I received states it is “staggering enrollment growth.” These numbers appear to account for new students only and don’t address the numbers that leave the school district. These numbers include all of the Lindbergh School District, including the high school. How can you predict population movement to such a degree as to know that the current property under consideration is the best place to build a new school? Will we end up with underutilized buildings in the future?

• My monthly mortgage payment will increase by $74.23 per month in April — the house is not a $200,000 house. Two items caused the increase: 5.6 percent and 12.3 percent increases in real property taxes and hazard insurance, respectively.

With the exception of 2013 when my assessed value increased by 2.25 percent, my assessed value has decreased since 2009. Excellence in education doesn’t seem to propel home values where I live.

• There is a “multiplier” effect when taxes and/or insurance increase. I pay the real cost of $6.65 per month for this Prop G bond issue, plus the shortage and the “cushion” through a higher monthly mortgage payment the following year. So when any one of the 15 taxing districts says, “The cost is $6.65 per month,” it really isn’t. My property tax — no sewer lateral — went up $154 and insurance went up $114.

My mortgage will go up $890 this year because I was “short” in estimated taxes and insurance.

I would support an incremental approach.

I would support a bond issue that addresses the issues at the high school and nothing else for two years.

Taxing districts need to give us a breather for a couple of years to let our wages catch up. Please stop taxing us out of our homes.