Considerations for a Fair and Just Society

Aug 31, 2025

In 1962, California voters approved State Education Bonds to pay for site aquisition and the construction of Community Colleges. (Click here)  In 1967, the Community College District in San Jose, CA (SJECCD) obtained a portion of the State bond funds to purchase land for the sites of San Jose Community College, Evergreen Community College and Milpitas Community College. (Click here)  Regional elected officials then subsequently laundered the State Bond assets into General Revenue in violation of State law.

The laundering technique is simple. The government agency performs these steps:

1. Obtains public facility bond funds on the pretense of using the funds to acquire land as the voters approved in the bond wording,
2. Makes land purchases compliant to the bond use wording,
3. Declares all or a portion of land purchased with the bond assets as surplus,
4. Conveniently "looses" records that track the land as being purchased with voter approved funds having a required purpose and
5. Leases or sells land placing the revenue into the agency's General Funds.

Accounting firms get hired if they help "cook the books" and represent the activity as legitimate. (See: "When an asset is paid for with bond funds, is it listed as a bond asset for the CBOC to see?")

SJECCD exemplifies the misuse of public funds. For example, the shopping center on the corner of San Felipe and Yerba Buena is located on land owned by SJECCD purchased with the 1962 State voter approved education bond funds. The lease income is currently being used to help fund special retirement benefits for staff. The land for Milpitas Community College was sold to private investors and the sale proceeds then placed in the SJECCD General Fund.

Laundering of Voter Approved Bond Funds is not uncommon. For example, West Valley College District leases the land of Mission College for the Mercado Shopping Center in Santa Clara to generate General Revenue. BART acquires land using voter approved bond funds specified for mass transit facilities, then sells or leases the land for high density housing and then pockets the money for general revenue. Lands for most California public schools were purchased with bonds. Yet, however, local school districts close the schools, declare the land surplus and then sells or leases the land for General Income. Bond Assets and the associated public records magically disappear. Local Citizen Oversight Committees are told to focus on public bond fund expendentures but ignore the disappearance of bond assets. All these agencies are also recipients of federal funds.

Why is this happening? Local elected officials participate in the technique to propel themselves into higher levels of government by obtaining "gifts" from real-estate developers and support by government labor organizations that benefit from the extra general revenue¹. The laundering activity swindles the public from vital public infrastructure paid for by taxpayers and undermines democracy by the ignorance of the mandated bond fund use requirements as approved by voters on the ballot.

The local District Attorney and other Public officials have been contacted to address illegal laundering. However, they oddly ignore. Even the local State senator was asked to request State Audit - but rather openly supports the laundering. (See: https://sd15.senate.ca.gov/news/san-jose-evergreen-community-college-district-receive-1-million-planning-grant or Here)  There appears to be a lack of enforcement because public officials responsible have an obvious conflict-of-interest. That is, SJECCD board members are in the same political party as those responsible to investigate and enforce the law. See: Political Parties recognized to be harmful to society

The loss and misuse of public bond assets in California is staggering.

SomeFYI's notes:

¹  The total compensation of government workers (compensation+benefits+retirement) far exceeds the compensation of the public in the private sector for similar education and experience. See: https://gcc.sco.ca.gov/ and Public School Teacher's Compensation Compared

²  This writing is intended to be considered opinion protected under the First Amendment. The author intends to outline the facts making it clear that the challenged statements represent the author's own interpretation of those facts and leaving the reader free to draw his own conclusions. Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1995).