Opponents of Tuesday’s referendum on whether to let Lexington-Richland School
District 5 borrow $131 million needed to build new schools think they smell a
rat: They shrug off the district’s insistence that the bond issue will not
increase the taxes they pay for capital debt service, saying their taxes for
operating these new schools will go up.
Typical of this point of view is Don Carlson of
Chapin, who was quoted in today’s lead news story as saying:
"Unless these new buildings plan on heating, cooling, feeding,
supplying and teaching these students all by themselves, you can bet … your
tax bill is going to see an increase."
For Mr. Carlson and
like-minded voters in the district, I have the following three points to
make:
-
Your taxes for
that were going up anyway. -
Your taxes for
that were going up anyway. -
Your taxes for
that were going up anyway.
OK, so I’m being a
little facetious. Actually I only have two serious points to
make:
-
Your taxes for
that were going up anyway, because the school-aged population of the
district is growing at a rate of 500 to 600 kids a year, and the district has to
pay to educate them somewhere, somehow. -
The real issue in
this referendum is whether you’d rather those taxes be spent entirely on paying
teachers and operating the classrooms in new schools that will be assets to the
community for generations to come, or spend a large chunk of that operating
money — which would otherwise have gone into the classroom — on mobile
classrooms that depreciate the moment they are placed on the grounds of
increasingly overcrowded, less-excellent schools.
That’s the choice
before you: Whether to spend your increased taxes for operations wisely or
foolishly. A "yes" vote is for the wise option.
In the interest of
full disclosure, there are two ways that your property taxes might not go up to
pay for school operations. One is that you just let one of the best districts in
the state go to pot, and watch your property values fall like a rock along with
the quality of the schools. The second is that legislators come up with a better
way to pay for school operations. That could happen, but there are a lot of
variables between the talk going on at this moment and an actual new school
financing system.
Related Posts
What i don’t understand is why can’t the district build a school without so many bells and whistles? White Knoll High School in Lexington One is gorgeous but it looks like a college campus with a cafeteria that offers more food choices than the food court at the mall. Kids need buildings to learn in, period, we don’t need the fanciest thing money can buy. As for portable buildings they served the purpose for many of us who after high school walked away much better educated than many high school seniors today.
Brad,
You hit the nail on the head about
spending our increased tax dollars
wisely or foolishly. What opponents
of the tax hike disguised as a bond
referendum already know is that the
current administration has a proven
track record of overspending foolishly,
so why give them another pot of money
to pass along to the developers who
already run the county?
How about having the district look at
cutting spending on useless technology?
After a decade of emphasizing technology,
the number of teachers who utilize even
email is a small minority. And don’t
even try to look at teacher’s web pages.
Most don’t have them and those that do,
are a collection of broken links and
cute pictures. Worthless.
Or how about abandoning the ridiculous
notion that cutting class sizes has any
significant impact on learning. We all
grew up with much larger classes than the
current trend without any impact. Rather
than cut class sizes, how about doing
something that doesn’t cost a dime —
like enforcing discipline on those
kids who have no interest in learning.
The bond referendum is a one way ticket
to even more sprawl in the area. A
NO vote on the referendum will send a
message to the developers and the school
boards that are in cahoots with them to
focus on controlled growth.
Let’s vote for IMPACT FEES (change whatever
laws now hamper them first) that will make
developers and planners responsible for
paying for the growth.
Don’t let Brad fool you… if the bond referendum doesn’t pass, it would be
years before any measurable difference
in the quality of education would even
be POSSIBLE.
Reasons to vote NO:
* Every bond issue requires taxes to pay it off, unless the new bonds are just replacing old bonds which were finally paid off.
* The interest adds about 50% to the cost of the bonds. Taxpayers only get about 65 cents to spend for every dollar of taxes paid to service the bonds.
* Voting NO is the only voice the citizens have, because the elections are rigged to make it impossible to get rid of more than a few bad board members at a time.
* A better way to pay for new schools is for the developers to pay for schools based on a fee per square footage, based on the ratio of square footage to new students, both elements being known right now. Then let the developers increase the price of every new house the cost of its share of the new schools (and roads, sewer, and water lines). Let the home buyers finance the cost of the schools in their mortgage.
If you live in the Chapin or Irmo Schools area, a NO vote is your only wise choice.
Why should we vote yes on a bond referendum to pay to build schools for people living in Ballentine and Dutch Fork. If they want a new HS and a new Middle School, let them pay for it. Additions yes, upgrades yes, but $130 Million to build schools for people living in $300,000 homes, no way. Besides all that will do is add more people to the ride in on I-26.
Vote No to bonds.
Vote No to stop sprawl
Wow…I didn’t realize all these years I’ve lived in Dutch Fork, I was only supposed to be paying for the schools near my house!!! Any chance I could get a refund for all that money I gave that probably went to Irmo and Chapin???
I agree totally with Brad on this one…the wise choice is to support this one.
If we have issues with how our school board is spending the money, then we should be pressing them on this…but pushing this back another year or more means District 5 will start to struggle to maintain its dominance as it continues to grow at the rapid pace we currently see.
Thanks for the support Brad…(and I have nothing to do with any campaigns for or against, I just live in the area with kids who attend the schools).
Smaller class sizes don’t help??? Who in the world is writing this information? I have actually read the studies and almost 100% of them support smaller class sizes as a way to improve learning.
We don’t live in the past and the idea that larger classes worked for us so they will work for today is ridiculous! I would love to see one of these No voters spend 1 day volunteering or better yet – substituting in our classrooms. Standards are higher than when many of these people were in school. The demands on students and teachers are much greater. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know this!
And, by the way, in spite of the media attention by some, we ACTUALLY have more students graduating from high school than ever before in our US history.
Vote no… We simply can’t afford another big debt during these economic times. People are stretched too thin as is and the average household debt is off the charts.
The real wise choice is if we want better schools then vote to start banking some of our current tax dollars for this coming need. This ensures 100% of your tax dollars are spent on your purchase and not on interest plus the interest earned. I know, I know that is just a crazy thought! REalizing of course some monies will have to be spent on temporary facilities or upgrades…
It is a simple philosophy: If you can’t afford it don’t buy it.
Robin
As a parent of three children spanning elementary-middle-high school,
As a multi-term PTO president at a once well respected elementary school in the northeast,
As a frequent volunteer at many school events
(reading partner, field trip chaperone, etc.)
all I can say about your “studies” that
show classroom performance are helpful is
that they aren’t worth the paper they
are written on. The “studies” are tailored to prove the desired result. And if you think kids today are smarter, God bless you. I see a widening gap between the haves and have nots. Just this last week, we saw the results for the 10th grade high school exit exam in SC. These kids who have been put through the PACT wringer for a decade are now failing the H.S. exit exam in record numbers. 30% of the students FAILED the test. One quarter of the students at supposedly “good” districts like Richland 2 failed the test. These are kids who have had the smallest class sizes in the state’s history. Instead of looking at “studies” why don’t you look at the real world?
We’re heading fast toward a generation of kids who can take tests but can’t analyze, create, or concentrate on complex issues.
My kids have had small classes completely disrupted by one or two punks with parents who threated legal action if their kids are punished. Class size has nothing to do with it. Class discipline is far more important.
Those whippersnappers need to start transcribin’ the Bible like we had to, dang rapscallions! We used to get forty licks talkin’ outta turn, and a mouthful of soap for makin’ snarky comments! Kids today spoiled rotten, no respect for their elders. Smaller class size, balderdash! More like larger paddle size!
Brad,
Here is the problem as I see it. People want good schools. School board members want schools that look good. People want thier tax bill cut. School board members want more money to spend. Get the picture? Schools waste enormous amounts of money on useless items because they have few limits. And, since most people don’t pay attention, there is little retribution for wasting our tax dollars.
Of course, this happens at all levels and types of government. Take Lexington Town Hall, for instance. I was told by a proud employee how a group flew in from California to see the hardwood cieling tiles in Town Hall. The wallpaper is shaved wood cut into strips that could be contoured to the curving walls. Couldn’t this building be built for less?
White Knoll is another good example. Why is it that people think that schools need to be beautiful? The schools I attended were brick boxes with few windows, less amenities, and few computers. Now, we have computers in 1st grade classrooms, and buildings built as monuments to the egos of those with power.
We just need to get serious about the way that we do things. We need to stop with projects that waste money to make those who are wasting it feel good about themselves.
In the end, I think voters should approve the L/R 5 bond referendum. But, they better demand accountability and frugality in the spending of the funds. The buildings should be built in a manner to allow for future expansion. The buildings should be functional. And they should be little else. Spend the money as though you have limits on your budget, because it isn’t yours to spend in the first place.
I’m always amused by people who talk about how schools were so much better in the old days and how being educated in portables didn’t affect the quality of their education in light of the fact that most of these people spend much of their time talking about how public education has been nothing but a failure for 40 years or more. Vote Yes, and if you think you’re taxes are too high because you have to pay for quality schools, move to Allendale or something.
Robin, the Japanese have the highest scores for education in the world. They normally have 100 or more students in each class. The studies you read are primarily funded and coordinated by groups like NEA and AFT. Also, since the US population has increased it is logical that we have more total high school students and thus more total graduates, even if the drop out rate has grown at the same time.
Brad – So you’re saying it’s “ok” to tell the voters of Lexington-Richland 5 that their taxes won’t go up when, in reality,they really will? Are you condoning deceiving the public? So there’s no problem with buying portables at $50,000 a pop, instead of adding on the designed classrooms – and doing so to give the “appearance” that a school is bursting at the seems? And do you and your paper believe in open and “HONEST” debate or just the same lies and manipulation out of the district office?
The primary reason for a lack of space and large class sizes (mostly in K-5 and 1st grade, where classes should be smallest) is the creation of K-4 kindergarten.
K-4 is of no net benefit to children with good parents, one of whom is at home all the time.
K-4 is mostly just a tax-funded babysitting service for good parent, both of whom work to pay all the new taxes.
K-4 is beneficial to children with sorry parents or no parents (mostly blacks), but they have to go home to the root cause of their misery, while while liberals feel good about “doing something” from 7:30 to 2:30 five days a week.
Dear Mary Poppins (and imagine I’m reading this aloud in that awful Cockney accent of Dick Van Dyke’s),
Whose blog are you responding to? You’re accusing somebody of wanting to deceive the voters. It certainly can’t be me. How many times to I have to say it:
YOUR TAXES FOR THAT WERE GOING UP ANYWAY.
That’s true whether you buy portables, build new schools or take the course that you recommend — adding on to existing schools (less wasteful than portables, but additional operating costs will still be there — along with the capital cost, of course).
Seems like I’ve done the device to death, but here it is once more:
Your taxes for that were going up anyway.
How is that deceiving the public? I’m trying to get people to face reality, however unpleasant they may consider that reality to be.
Your taxes are going up anyway, if you keep electing dishonest socialistic politicians who hire inept administrators and egomaniacs who want to build monuments.
The only reason taxes go up is because government is growly faster than the economy.
Check out the election results.
It would seem that 70% of the voters in District 5 totally disagree with you. No more schools unless someone finds a way to make the developers pay for them.
After losing this election decisively, the tax and spenders will learn nothing from the result. They are already indicating they need to simply regroup and present their spending wishes in a better package, and with better timing. Just once it would be great to hear someone say, “We will just have to get by with less”. The people have spoken.
Dave,
You can bet the losers are trying to cook up a way to have the laws changed so they can borrow and tax without the nuisance of voters being involved.
As a former employee of D5, I am truly saddened by the unrest in the community. The students are not being well served because of the actions of a very political (and unethical) coalition who have distorted and misrepresented district actions. This group refuses to realize that the most important function of a local government (along with state support) is to provide for a child’s education. There’s an adage that “you get what you pay for” … and it’s truly sad that D5 is being moved to mediocrity by this hostile coalition.
Sorry Mike, the problem with government is that we don’t get what we pay for. What we get is waste, fraud, and a lack of accountability. If private companies were run the way that a school district is, they would have to file bankruptcy. The school district can just raise taxes. I think that voters should have approved the funds to build new schools, as we did in Lexington 1 last year, but the school board needs to get the picture on spending. Of course, that is a lesson that all government could stand to learn.
Nathan, what on Earth are you talking about? Cite examples of the “waste, fraud and lack of accountability.” Simply saying those words will persuade no one; it will simply get nods of agreement from the people who already — whether they have evidence or not — believe as you do. Since those people seem to constitute (at this moment) a majority in that particular district, you’ll probably be satisfied with that. Why, I don’t know. That wouldn’t satisfy me in your place.
But perhaps you are being prophetic; perhaps you are looking FORWARD to the waste that will occur when the district puts up portables to accommodate the students that it has no choice but to accommodate. But I’m sure that point will not hit home, since you apparently believe that the schools just spend this money willfully and whimsically, instead of as a matter of necessity to meet their legal obligation.
I have to wonder what the voters think they have gained. Looking for some logic in the result, I find myself suspecting that they are not property owners. They must not be, because property owners will end up spending more now — operating overcrowded schools dotted with worthless portables now, and then having to go ahead later and build the schools that they have only put off temporarily. Why “temporarily?” Because the need is not going to go away. In fact, it is only going to become greater, and at an accelerating pace. Eventually the voters will see that. They always do — eventually. But in the meantime, the money wasted on temporary, stopgap solutions will be appalling to those of us who care about responsible, frugal, accountable government.
Brad,
It’s like my momma used to say, “You can’t lie with the dogs without catching the fleas”.
Voiceless
Brad you just dont get it.
This is not about taxes, it is about growth and development. For the past 3-5 years we in the older areas of Irmo and Chapin have stood by and watched the developers carve up rural Northwest Richland county into subdivisions with high dollar houses and the people who move in these houses expect us to provide them with schools. Sorry, but I have good schools and I dont mind paying to keep them that way, but to stop the growth we have to stop building schools. We will never vote “Yes” to approve building a new High School or Middle School so these people can have their “neighborhood” schools.
So if these people want to buy a house up here, then they should be prepared to stuff their kids in mobile units like sardines, I dont care. Like I said, I have good schools and a good neighborhood and I could care less what happens in those new developments.
Maybe it’s time they created their own School District and then they can be in the Majority and vote yes all they want.
Specific examples of waste:
1) Multiple school districts within a county, each with its own set of administrators and support staff.
2) Overspending on technology without any tangible benefits. The teachers don’t use even 10% of the technology available to them. Does anyone really believe that a $10,000 electronic blackboard is going to increase a child’s ability to learn over a $500 overhead projector? Our elementary school has six of them.
3) Building showcase schools. Blythewood High School has a gym with 3 basketball courts, a wrestling room, a dance studio, a high quality football stadium, plus a practice football field that is better equipped than the regular field at my late 1970’s high school.
That’s just a start on the waste.
I did find it interesting that Inez timed her decision to retire so that it occurred before all the bad news about education in the state came out. Think she had some early warnings on that data? Naw! And then she has the, ahem, “guts” to respond to today’s disappointing news with a call for “more accountability”. Ha! That’s like the chief of police responding to cars speeding down Main Street with “We need better radar guns”. Accountability means taking responsibility when things go wrong, not blaming someone else. It also means getting rid of bad teachers and bad principals, not shuffling them around to other grades and other schools.
It’s time to admit that PACT has done more harm than good. Scrap it and implement an existing NATIONAL test. Give the test in early April but only to 3rd, 5th, and 7th grades. That will provide more than enough data on how the schools are doing.
Sorry for going off topic a bit, but the bond referendum is as much a referendum on education as it is on taxation.
Brad, I’m glad you asked (I am pretty big on backing up opinions with facts, which is why I still can’t figure out Turnipseed). I’ll give you some facts about some of the school districts I have encountered and then you can make up your own mind from there. I am a former auditor. Here is a sample of some of what I have seen over the years:
When auditing on particular school district, we came across invoices paid to a private company for grant-writing services. This was a good deal for the Ph.D. they had on staff who was also paid to write and administer grants.
We noted one instance at a school district where the district had agreed write checks to pay the bills for a local organization. The local org. gave the district thier grant money and the district wrote checks. Only, the org. spent more than twice as much as they gave the district and the district didn’t notice. How could they not notice? They never balanced the checking accounts. They just didn’t see the point.
At another district I “visited” couldn’t find numerous laptop computers and informed me that many more of them were at teachers homes.
Teachers at the districts that I looked at frequently took trips to beachfront “teacher’s conferences” at the expense of taxpayers.
One district owned a wireless keyboard system to help students learn to play keyboards. It was a very, very expensive peice of equipment that was recently purchased. The music teacher pulled it from the back of a storage room for me to see. It was barely getting used! Why was it even purchased?
Other items that everyone can see:
Why are schools built as though they are Dennis Kozlowski’s private offices? Why are they built as though kids can’t learn in a building that doesn’t have the newest architectural plans and innovations? Have you seen White Knoll? I live close by it, and it is a nice place. And hundreds of thousands of extra taxpayer dollars built that monument to the egos of the school board and district administrators.
How long has it been since your newspaper reported fraud at one of the Richland school districts? Could this have been stopped?
Brad, honestly, I am with you on building new schools. I think that voters should have approved the construction. I think it is a waste to buy portables as a temporary solution. But, the school district has to earn the trust of the people back if they want to make things like this happen.
One more question for you, though. If new development is adding people and students to the schools and the tax rolls, why are the new tax revenues insufficient to pay additional operating costs without tax increases for long-time residents? Shouldn’t the expenses and new taxpayers even out? Or is this just an excuse to grow government?
All the school districts use lots of mediocre cronies as “consultants”, far more than real consultants in IT and engineering, to conduct rinky dink mandatory training for teachers who usually know far more than the consultant, who spent most of their career avoiding the classroom.
I asked for life-cycle maintenance cost plans for the buildings and busses for Richland 1 in 1988, and was told, “We are working on them.” They still don’t have them. They are flying by the seat of their pants.
Charlotte voters just rejected over $400,000,000 in new bonds, when they found out the schools had tens of millions of dollars of unspent money from previous bonds, “not earmarked”, which is bureaucratese for “my slush fund”.
I’m not opposed to paying higher taxes for better schools – really, SC residents are getting off cheap for school funding, especially considered at the $/student level spent in the top 10-15 states. And I was appalled when I saw the use portables are put to around here.
But it is hard to swallow an increase when developer impact fees are essentially zero. Am I correct in the understanding that State law actually bars counties for assessing developer impact fees for school construction/infrastructure? That’s a coffee shop rumor I heard the other day and am very curious about.
In SC, public schools are built to help developers charge more money for their houses.
Roads, sewers, and water lines are built to subidize the new projects.
The primary purpose of property taxes is to force retirees, farmers and poor blacks to sell out to the developers who are in cahoots with the politicians.
So why would anyone expect these same politicians who are subidizing the developers with tax money to turn around and tax the new development with puny impact fees, much less the full cost per house and building?
Well Lee;
The buck just stopped here in Distict 5. We will no longer subsidize developers or home builders with schools. Two years ago we booted out two tax and spend trustees and last year we booted out two more. This summer we booted out the Superentendant and this past Tuesday we voted down their Bond.
We are 4-0.
So bring it on developers..Lexington 5 belongs to the EXISTING residents now and we control the vote.
Brad is either on vacation or this District 5 vote rendered him speechless.
“Dear Mary Poppins (and imagine I’m reading this aloud in that awful Cockney accent of Dick Van Dyke’s),
Whose blog are you responding to? You’re accusing somebody of wanting to deceive the voters. It certainly can’t be me. How many times to I have to say it:
YOUR TAXES FOR THAT WERE GOING UP ANYWAY.
That’s true whether you buy portables, build new schools or take the course that you recommend — adding on to existing schools (less wasteful than portables, but additional operating costs will still be there — along with the capital cost, of course).
Seems like I’ve done the device to death, but here it is once more:
Your taxes for that were going up anyway.
How is that deceiving the public? I’m trying to get people to face reality, however unpleasant they may consider that reality to be.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Nov 8, 2005 9:05:08 AM”
My dear Brad,
Please review these quotes from district officials and tell me, since you stated above that taxes WILL increase, whether you believe they are facts… or untruth’s meant to deceive the public into voting for a flawed referendum.
“I can say for sure that property taxes will not go up because of this bond referendum, absolutely will not,” says Lexington-Richland District Five spokesman Buddy Price. (WIS TV November 3, 2005)
“The financing plan developed by the district to pay back the $131.4 million in bonds that will be sold will NOT require an increase in taxes for property owners in the school district….. Never in my 36 year career have I been able to commit to taxpayers that a referendum would NOT result in a tax increase. This is truly a unique opportunity for the citizens of District Five.” TEC Dowling, Interim Superintendent (Op-ed The State, November 2, 2005; Irmo News, November 3, 2005; and distributed in children’s book bags thoughout the district.)
Do the children and taxpayers of Lexington-Richland School District 5 deserve that type of deception out of our public officials? Do you not agree that we deserve an open, honest debate? And how worthy is it of The State newspaper to endorse such fraud?
You promtly responded to (but did not answer) my previous post. Would you be so kind to comment again?
Don’t expect Brad Warthen or any of the other supporters of taxes without accountability to face the detailed reasons of voter rejection. It is easier to write a puff piece about the usual cast of visionary leaders who understand the need for the rest of us to pay higher taxes.
My dearest Brad,
It’s been three days and you still have not responded. I know your busy, but I am
disappointed. I thought we would be able to have a real conversation about this issue.
‘ello, Merry Pawpinss! At least, I think that’s how the chimney sweep said it.
Just saw your question. Those statements were true. The taxes would NOT go up as a result of the bond referendum. They’d go up because of the larger number of kids — roughly a full additional elementary schoolful a year — that the district is obligated to educate. That’s going to happen, as I keep saying over and over, with or without the capital project. The capital project itself would not have called for any additional taxes.
And now that the referendum has failed, you’re going to end up wasting more tax dollars in the long run. That’s because these schools have to be built eventually. Only now they’ll be built later, when the cost will be higher, and in the meantime, large sums will be blown buying portables that start depreciating the moment they’re delivered.
Do you understand yet what I’m saying? I’ve said it as emphatically as I can, over and over.
Brad:
Exactly how do you think the bonds and interest will be paid without raising taxes?
The “more kids” have no power to levy taxes.
No wonder the The State is unable to provide adult coverage of the property tax issue.
Brad,
You could devote your life to debating the Mary Poppins, Nathans, Daves and Jims of District Five (and SC) but you’d never get through to them.
It’s a waste of time.
Mary Poppins’ lack of reading comprehension must have really been a trial to his teachers. Undoubtedly he walked five miles, (uphill, both ways) in the snow to his portable classroom.
I’ll agree with them on one item: development impact fees should be instituted. Unfortunately, that would be too difficult politically. Instead they’re concentrating on killing the incentive for development— school quality.
Kids’ education is just a collateral damage. But, hell, the view on Lake Murray and a good cocktail is all a retiree needs, anyway.
Lee,
It depends on what you mean by “raise.”
If you mean “increase my tax” rate then the answer is relatively straight-forward. The millage rate devoted to retiring bonded indebtedness would cover the cost of interest.
And, that’s if the tax base remained at the current value. Since the tax base has been increasing (due in large part to demand created by a well-respected school system) then the reasonable expectation would be that, even if millage remains the same, more revenues would be generated.
But, wait, I guess that I see your point. If you gut the school system and destroy the demand for property in District Five then the millage might have to go up— as your property value sinks.
Wow, a “lose-lose” proposition. Perfect.
Fed Up, If you are saying that Brad will never convince me that all of the money that we send to schools is spent wisely, or that we are not in need of more financial accountability at that level, or that tax increases aren’t a good thing, you are right.
I just supplied several peices of evidence of wasteful school spending. Has anyone responded to that? No. Do you know why? Because if you accept that stuff like that happens, then you have to start holding people accountable for it. That means that you have to accept that the schools aren’t failing because of a lack of funds, but because of where those funds are directed. That undercuts any argument that you are going to get on this page.
I’ve said it before, we need a SC Government Accountability Office doing audits of how the schools and other parts of the government are spending your money. The newspaper cannot be the only oversight of our money.
Nathan, who on Earth would ever try to convince anyone that ALL of the money spent on ANYTHING is spent wisely? The best one can hope for from any kind of system run by humans is due diligence.
And therein lies the problem Brad. We do not get anything even resembling due diligence. Nobody, other than the newspaper, ever looks at how schools spend our taxes. Private auditing firms can only ensure that the waste is classified properly. The newspaper is only capable of so much. There will always be waste, and I can accept that, but it is much higher than it needs to be.
I started looking at the District 5 website and found it interesting. Here is the Org chart if you care to see it. http://www.lex5.k12.sc.us/super/docs/orgchart.swf
Browsing the site you see they have a Director of Accountability, a full time grant writer, public relations official, and other non teaching positions. I realize some of this is needed but you can see the overhead is high. So a school district now needs a paid PR official. How about a volunteer parent to do that? How about getting one of those tax hating retirees out on Lake Murray to pitch in and do it? Just a thought. Now, where’s that cocktail???
“FedUp” seems to be another public school casualty, who was not taught basic civics.
No one expects all the money to be spent wisely by anyone. That is the red herring and straw man evasion used by apologists for school failure, in order to avoid discussing the many examples of waste which could be easily eliminated BEFORE asking for a tax increase.
If the property values are truly increasing, then re-assessments would keep taxes increasing enough to pay for schools. Millage increases are due to the government spending money faster than even the inflation increases of property values.
im a senior at chapin high school and am writing an argumentative essay and i read your website. i agree with the guy who posted a comment earlier. you hit the nail RIGHT on the head! our school is becoming so over populated its hard for me to get to class in the seven minutes we have for class change, it will take 3 to 5 years to build a new high school and now another year for the referendum to be voted on again, thats 6 years right there and it might vote no again! we grow approx. 100 students a year thats 600 students over 6 years, we are already almost double the capasity! anyway i appreciate your opinion being online!
I cannot believe that so many people with so little information, feel free to preach about education. I am in the schools everyday and I see technology being used all the time at the elementary level.
The district has a budget that is approved by an elected board. People voted these elected officials in to this thankless position and then they ignore the opinions of these tireless public servants. I have a choice. I can move. Reading this blog makes me want to pack my bags tonight. I don’t want to live among such selfish, materialistic, skeptics. These people are willing to pay for satellite dishes, but not help fund public education. How sad. Our children have many challenges that we didn’t face as youngsters. I wish there were more people in this area that would be willing to invest in these students.
The county and public school system need to creat a system where the developers of neighborhoods…fund/supprot both road construction and school expansions. The price of the homes (new neighborhoods)should have this included in the purchase price.
Residents of the county can’t be taxed at every turn… in the name of support…the ones movig in should support the growth.
THEN the school board needs to use moderation in developing the schools..the board forgets that their positions are elected positions and they are accountable for their decisions and actions.
I will vote NO because no effort has been made in spreadig the costs to someone other than the tax payers….
The county and public school system need to creat a system where the developers of neighborhoods…fund/supprot both road construction and school expansions. The price of the homes (new neighborhoods)should have this included in the purchase price.
Residents of the county can’t be taxed at every turn… in the name of support…the ones moving in should support the growth.
THEN the school board needs to use moderation in developing the schools..the board forgets that their positions are elected positions and they are accountable for their decisions and actions.
I will vote NO because no effort has been made in spreadig the costs to someone other than the tax payers….
The county and public school system need to creat a system where the developers of neighborhoods…fund/supprot both road construction and school expansions. The price of the homes (new neighborhoods)should have this included in the purchase price.
Residents of the county can’t be taxed at every turn… in the name of support…the ones moving in to the area should support the growth.
THEN the school board needs to use moderation in developing the schools..the board forgets that their positions are elected positions and they are accountable for their decisions and actions.
I will vote NO because no effort has been made in spreadig the costs to someone other than the tax payers….