Court Opinion

ID: 9721186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:50:35.352604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:23.847030
License: Public Domain

CROSBY, J., Concurring.
I can find no fault with the preceding legal exposition and concur in the judgment of the court, not without misgivings, however. Although it is true “‘some school districts have old buildings which require expensive maintenance; some have a disproportionate number of older teachers entitled to higher salaries; some must spend excessive amounts for security, and for the repair of vandalized buildings[;] [sjome high schools in remote parts of the State have only a few students and must maintain costly classes for less than ten students[;] [sjome schools must insulate rooms to keep out distracting noise from airports or freeways[; and] [s]ome are located in parts of the State where climatic conditions require unusually high expenditures for heating or air conditioning’ ” (Serrano v. Priest (1976) 18 Cal.3d 728, 760 [135 Cal.Rptr. 345, 557 P.2d 929]), these special burdens contain a common element: They are simply unavoidable.
*703By contrast, the user fee the County of Orange adds to the strained budget of local school districts is avoidable. The county could exempt schools from the fees and, if necessary, spread the additional cost by raising the user fee slightly to commercial and private users. I would think an enlightened county government cognizant of the inability of individual school districts to increase taxes to meet rising costs after Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584 [96 Cal.Rptr. 681, 487 P.2d 1241] would do everything possible to avoid adding to the list of costly disparities for local school districts—and ultimately the students themselves—to bear. Unfortunately, that is a political judgment, not a legal one, and beyond our power to reconsider.
A petition for a rehearing was denied February 26, 1985, and appellants’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied April 3, 1985.