Guest Commentary
by Rick Alexander
As a vet I’m ticked. This great nation has vowed, rightfully so, to never again treat its veterans the way we were treated during the Vietnam Era. But now it seems that if a special interest group wants anything from government or the electorate they simply attach the “veteran” label to the request, whether it is a significant part of the program or not. As vets, we have gone from being abused to used. Better, but still not good.
A case in point is the current request by the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District for the voters to approve a $398 million bond measure on the November ballot. Front and center of the ballot language and press releases is the mantra of “veterans’ centers to assist former and active-duty military.”
The district asked for and received the letter designation of V, as in veteran, from the Registrar of Voters. The placards and buttons are designed with a red, white and blue “V”, used to invoke the image of a service ribbon. Just to make sure the message gets across, blue stars bracket the “V”. And, to hammer home the message, community college leaders this week held a press conference on the Midway. Nice touch.
The message is clear, not to vote for this bond measure would be an affront to all veterans and unpatriotic to boot.
What is behind Oz’s curtain? What does the veteran get from Prop V? When queried for specifics, the college district honestly states that it has not really decided. In fact, it is only a concept. It will be better defined in the update of their master plan, which will occur after the election.
They will tell you it is not a separate building for vets to be financed with bond funds. Most likely a couple rooms within some building. Please understand that GCCCD already has veterans’ programs and space for the men and women who served to gather. This will only be a relocation or expansion of the current facilities. Cost, less than one-half of one percent of the bond money!
Let’s hope the voters don’t approve tax measures based solely on the assumed benefits to those having served in the military. Otherwise, the veterans get a couple of new flat screen TVs and the tax payers get stuck with a $398 million bill.
# # #
Rick Alexander served as an Army Officer at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe during the Vietnam War. He was a trustee for the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District for 20 years. He is currently an investment specialist with KW Commercial real estate.
Comments 3
The problem community college districts face is that the student flow of the K-12 “pipeline” is slowing. Most school districts’ enrollment has been steady or declining these 10 or so years, with little change anticipated. Yet the CC’s want to sell us on some growing need (which there is not) to energize voters to support higher property taxes for bonds (which can include CAB bonds).
So now the districts are pretending that — instead of “it’s for the children” — now “it’s for the veterans.” It is a complete load of crap.
Mira Costa is making the same pitch in the North County — it’s for the veterans. They are projecting a 2.4% annual rise in demand — totally fabricated from assumed increasing veteran demand.
BTW, to the extent that community colleges DO serve veterans, it’s often because these ex-military students make a profit off the arrangement. Our CC’s charge little or no tuition, while the GI bill pays a hefty monthly check to “students.”
Thank you Rick for your service as a veteran and as a past GCCCD board member. The registar of voter’s sample ballot contains no argument against Prop V, despite its obligating east county voters to years of payments for this needless bond for “more construction for constructions sake”.
So I hope you, as a respected citizen and former board member, are successful in getting the word out against Prop V, although it’s an uphill battle given the backing it has received from local construction companies.
The “veterans” angle of this bond is indeed a cynical tug at east county residents’ heart strings, although most will see through it.
One concern I have though, is that if voters vote “Yes” on V out of misguided support for the colleges, they may turn around and with clear conscience vote “No” on Prop 30, which while not perfect, is right now the only way that Grossmont and Cuyamaca can continue to provide the classes that students in the community are desperate for,
A Yes on V combined with a No on Prop 30 will guarantee that both colleges become a sorry wasteland of construction equipment and shiny new, empty buildings serving fewer and fewer students. The district needs to prioritize the needs of IN-struction over DE-struction.
look at what is happening to the veteran community in nocccd and fullerton college