taxes, bonds, voting, and the meaning of life

[anastrophe]

here in the san francisco bay area, dozens and dozens of school districts managed to get local measures in front of the voters to increase property taxes to 'save our schools'. at first, i thought our local measure was all there was - just our funky little town, financially sound, going into conniption fits because they're being asked to hold to a budget, of all things.



well, it was apparently a concerted effort, per the dozens of other school districts that did the same. they were all called 'measure A', and the increases in property taxes appeared to be geared to the particular economic affluence of the various communities - Ross, in Marin County, one of the most affluent communities in the world, was being asked to have their property taxes increased by something close to $500 a year for four years, per parcel. Here in Rohnert Park where I live, a sleepy (near catatonic) little bedroom community, the increase proposed was just under $100 a year for four years, per parcel.



For reasons unclear to me, all of these measures required 2/3rds majority to pass - 66.7 percent. i've never understood why some things are simply majority, others 2/3rds. but anyway.



in most of the communities, the measures have failed, by very slim margins. i'm not shy to say that i voted against the measure in my community. why?



i've been voting since 1978. virtually every single election - local, state, national - there has been some form of measure on the ballot to 'benefit' schools. massive bond measures - tens of billions of dollars for school construction. directives to the state budget - X percent of the budget must be spent on schools. parcel taxes like this one.



now, many would toss out the casual ad hominem that voting against these measures means that one 'doesn't care about our kid's future'. it's a very effective ad hominem - but ad hominem it is. the argument used to push these measures is always the converse - 'save our schools'. 'think of the children'.



the problem is, the schools here in rohnert park are absolutely fine. none of them are crumbling. they're all adequately staffed. the curriculum is good by any measure.



a few years ago, our former governor squandered a gargantuan budget surplus, acceding to the blackmail of out of state power generators, during a manufactured energy crisis. the state has been in the red for a few years now. the legislators of course want to get more blood from the taxpayer turnips. the concept of tightening their belt - fiscal responsibility - is foreign to them. our replacement governor however has held fast, refusing to raise taxes, and forcing the legislature to do the unthinkable - spend less rather than more of the taxpayers money.



the schools however, continue to whimper and whine endlessly. if you don't accede to their blackmail, you must not 'care for the future of our kids'.



yeah, i know, i'm rambling and ranting.



here's what i wanna know: why the heck aren't taxes such as this based upon *how many kids you have in school*?? i'm a pragmatist, and i know that paying for a good education pays off in the long run in better employment opportunities as kids grow up, and lower crime rates. so i understand and acknowledge that even those who don't have kids need to have a stake in the common good, and need to pay some portion of taxes for schools. but why should i, with no kids, have to pay the same as my neighbor who has four kids in school? why not have a parcel 'head count' tax? why not make it so that instead of me potentially paying a hundred bucks more per year in taxes, i pay just $25 a year more, and if my neighbor has a kid in school, he pays $50 a year more, my neighbor with three kids in school pays $100 a year more? they're the ones who most benefit, they're the ones who should pay, it would seem to me.



luckily, the measure here failed, by a very slim margin - something like 65.x% yes vote. so my $4000+ a year property tax won't be going up.



what hell are they doing with my $4K a year anyway? sheesh.



okay, i've drained my coffee cup. rant done.



:yh_silly :yh_coffee

[Lon]

anastrophe wrote: here in the san francisco bay area, dozens and dozens of school districts managed to get local measures in front of the voters to increase property taxes to 'save our schools'. at first, i thought our local measure was all there was - just our funky little town, financially sound, going into conniption fits because they're being asked to hold to a budget, of all things.



well, it was apparently a concerted effort, per the dozens of other school districts that did the same. they were all called 'measure A', and the increases in property taxes appeared to be geared to the particular economic affluence of the various communities - Ross, in Marin County, one of the most affluent communities in the world, was being asked to have their property taxes increased by something close to $500 a year for four years, per parcel. Here in Rohnert Park where I live, a sleepy (near catatonic) little bedroom community, the increase proposed was just under $100 a year for four years, per parcel.



For reasons unclear to me, all of these measures required 2/3rds majority to pass - 66.7 percent. i've never understood why some things are simply majority, others 2/3rds. but anyway.



in most of the communities, the measures have failed, by very slim margins. i'm not shy to say that i voted against the measure in my community. why?



i've been voting since 1978. virtually every single election - local, state, national - there has been some form of measure on the ballot to 'benefit' schools. massive bond measures - tens of billions of dollars for school construction. directives to the state budget - X percent of the budget must be spent on schools. parcel taxes like this one.



now, many would toss out the casual ad hominem that voting against these measures means that one 'doesn't care about our kid's future'. it's a very effective ad hominem - but ad hominem it is. the argument used to push these measures is always the converse - 'save our schools'. 'think of the children'.



the problem is, the schools here in rohnert park are absolutely fine. none of them are crumbling. they're all adequately staffed. the curriculum is good by any measure.



a few years ago, our former governor squandered a gargantuan budget surplus, acceding to the blackmail of out of state power generators, during a manufactured energy crisis. the state has been in the red for a few years now. the legislators of course want to get more blood from the taxpayer turnips. the concept of tightening their belt - fiscal responsibility - is foreign to them. our replacement governor however has held fast, refusing to raise taxes, and forcing the legislature to do the unthinkable - spend less rather than more of the taxpayers money.



the schools however, continue to whimper and whine endlessly. if you don't accede to their blackmail, you must not 'care for the future of our kids'.



yeah, i know, i'm rambling and ranting.



here's what i wanna know: why the heck aren't taxes such as this based upon *how many kids you have in school*?? i'm a pragmatist, and i know that paying for a good education pays off in the long run in better employment opportunities as kids grow up, and lower crime rates. so i understand and acknowledge that even those who don't have kids need to have a stake in the common good, and need to pay some portion of taxes for schools. but why should i, with no kids, have to pay the same as my neighbor who has four kids in school? why not have a parcel 'head count' tax? why not make it so that instead of me potentially paying a hundred bucks more per year in taxes, i pay just $25 a year more, and if my neighbor has a kid in school, he pays $50 a year more, my neighbor with three kids in school pays $100 a year more? they're the ones who most benefit, they're the ones who should pay, it would seem to me.



luckily, the measure here failed, by a very slim margin - something like 65.x% yes vote. so my $4000+ a year property tax won't be going up.



what hell are they doing with my $4K a year anyway? sheesh.



okay, i've drained my coffee cup. rant done.



:yh_silly :yh_coffee
Good Rant--------------I agree

[anastrophe]

i think another thing that bugs me is the 'hold it forever' mentality within the school system with regard to property. a couple of years ago, a middle school a few blocks away was closed due to declining enrollment. fine. but all they did wasy chain the gates. the place sat vacant for a couple of years, and now it's being used as a special ed site for 'troubled' teens. most of the school is still vacant - they're just using a few classrooms.



the school is several acres in size. gee - budget deficits, declining enrollment. why not sell the property to developers? provide new housing, and make a bundle - that would help with the budget, no?



the school is in the middle of prime real estate. houses here go for $300K to $500K. they could build thirty homes on the land easy. probably more.

[BabyRider]

Now, see, Anastrophe...Your first mistake was in suggesting things that actually MAKE SENSE. What were you thinking? This is government you're talking about here. The longest, most difficult route possible seems to be standard practice. If guys like you were in charge, then things might get accomplished, and be fair. Heaven forbid!!! We can't have that, so stop talking crazy....

[anastrophe]

I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for the office of president.

primarily because i'd never join a party that would have me as a member, nod to groucho.