Kevin Gordon, chief lobbyist for the California School Boards Association, disagrees. They are radical. Suspending the right to weigh the need for school facilities in land-use planning could put school districts in an uncomfortable pinch, with hundreds of new children and no classrooms to accommodate them, officials argue. For that reason, Assemblywoman Helen Thomson, D-Solano, voted against the version of the bill sent to the Senate last week. Plunking down more portables is one alternative, although critics see that as a Band-Aid for a problem that needs a permanent solution.
Many campuses are already overrun with temporary buildings.
In Vacaville, portables make up 36 percent of classrooms. Fairfield-Suisun campuses are cluttered with more than 400 temporary buildings. Regardless of whether a state bond or developer fee cap passes, it will likely take financial backing from local taxpayers to cover the cost of bringing school facilities up to speed in the new millennium, she added. The question, which school officials will spend the next year pondering, is how great an expense residents are willing to pay. In some cases, it's too late.