I moved to Nevada City when I was two years old, in 1973. After more than three decades elsewhere, my wife and I moved our family back four years ago to be closer to my parents, including my mother Lynne, who was living with Alzheimer’s, and my father Al Dover. Coming home was one of the best decisions we have made. But one of the hardest things to reconcile was the condition of our schools.
I attended Seven Hills as a kid. When I walk those hallways today with my fourth grader, the buildings and classrooms look virtually identical to what I remember from the 1980s. My first grader at Deer Creek sees the same. That is not nostalgia. That is half a century of deferred maintenance and modernization staring back at us.
On June 2, voters will decide on Measure H, a $26 million bond for the Nevada City School District. A recent opinion piece urged a no vote, citing too much capacity, too few students, and too long a wish list. I see it differently, and so do the facts.
First, on cost. Measure H is projected to cost property owners roughly $30 per $100,000 of assessed value annually, $12 a month for a typical homeowner. I take affordability seriously, especially for seniors on fixed incomes. But we should be honest about scale. This is a modest, targeted investment with real legal guardrails: an independent citizens’ oversight committee, mandatory annual audits, and a legal prohibition on using a single dollar for salaries, benefits, or pensions. Every cent stays local. Every cent goes to facilities.
Second, on enrollment. The No campaign argues that declining enrollment proves we do not need to invest. The causation may run the other way. Families with young children tour Deer Creek and Seven Hills, see classrooms that look unchanged since the Carter administration, and choose elsewhere. Deer Creek was built in 1977. Seven Hills dates to 1970. Many of their core systems, pipes, electrical infrastructure, and safety features (or lack thereof) are original. If we want young families to plant roots here, we cannot keep showing them buildings that signal the community has stopped investing in its kids.
Third, on financial prudence. Voting no does not make the infrastructure problems disappear. It only guarantees we pay more later. A roof replaced on schedule costs a fraction of one replaced after water damage spreads into walls, floors, and wiring. Facilities research consistently shows that proactive capital investment saves 20 to 40 cents on the dollar versus reactive emergency repairs.
Fourth, on the state match. If Measure H passes, the district becomes eligible for approximately $10 million in state matching funds, dollars earmarked for districts that demonstrate local commitment through voter-approved bonds. If we vote no, that money does not stay in Sacramento. It goes to other communities, who will modernize their schools while ours continue to age. A $26 million local commitment unlocking roughly $36 million in total improvements is a 38 percent return before a single project breaks ground.
Fifth, on property values. This matters to homeowners regardless of whether they have children in the district. A widely cited 2010 study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, analyzing California school bond elections, found that bond passage raised local home prices by roughly six percent, an effect that persisted for at least a decade. For most Nevada County homeowners, the appreciation from a passed bond will exceed the bond cost many times over. Voting yes is fiscally prudent, not fiscally reckless.
Finally, the question underneath the question. What kind of community do we want Nevada City to be?
When I walked into Seven Hills as a kid in the early 1980s, the building was already a decade old. When I walk in today, alongside my fourth grader, almost nothing has changed. That is not heritage. That is neglect, accumulated quietly across generations, and the bill is finally coming due. My daughters deserve schools that match the love this town has always shown its kids. So do the kids who arrive after them.
The choice on June 2 is simple. We can be the town that invests in the next generation, or the town that did not. We can keep our share of the state match, or send it to other communities. We can grow our property values, or watch them lag. We can welcome young families, or quietly become a community they pass through.
I am voting YES on Measure H. Please join me.