| Author |
Message |
    
Nohero
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 5:43 pm: |     |
On the issue of how the towns pay for the schools -
The school district is considered as a single governmental unit. Each property is assessed based on its value. There have been "equalization factors", or whatever the term was, to put the South Orange and Maplewood properties on the same scale, for the purpose of determining the taxes to be collected for the school district. Once the revaluation is finalized (whenever that may be), such factors would be adjusted (I assume) to incorporate the results.
This is different from a system where a town sends students to a school district out of town, or where a number of towns enter into an agreement to allocate school costs. The district was in existence back when Maplewood and South Orange were a single municipality. For purposes of taxation, this is still a single entity, and there is no "per student" allocation of the tax burden. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 8:15 pm: | |
overtaxd
Although the current assessment will be more than the 1.8 billion...what we have all learned is that a fair amount of the new number has taken place in the last year or two.
South orange hasn't had a reval number THAT recently, and i can't see any reason why they should assume that their properties haven't seen the same kind of price pressure. |
Joancrystal
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 9:11 am: | |
Willfalaise:
It's the "or any subsequent tax year" part that bothers me.
What's to prevent the State from using the 2001 revaluations in 2001?
Where does it say that the base rates will be frozen at 1997 assessment values? |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 11:42 am: | |
From the mouth of a village trustee: Maplewood will see their BOE share increase due to this reval.
Some of those voting seniors live on the westside and in the middle! |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 3:31 pm: | |
Remember that some of those "voting seniors" have grandchildren in the public schools, too. And some believe education should be funded for children today just as it was for children two generations back. Quirky idea but it certainly makes sense to me as one who has been paying taxes for many years for schools I've not used.
Anybody catch the Times article in the NJ section (tomorrow's paper) on the difficulties of finding qualified teachers at today's salaries?
Bacata |
Octofoil
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 6:02 pm: | |
Remember the teacher's strike? |
Willfalaise1
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 10:14 am: | |
At the end of Wednesday's meeting Ellen Davenport announced that the first hearing on the constitutional convention Townie mentioned will take place in Maplewood. 3/27 I think.
So what do you guys want to ask them for? |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 12:57 pm: | |
Spread the cost of schools more evenly around the state by utilizing a different funding mechanism (NOT property taxes.) Reconsider income tax as the primary source of funding. Increase the sales tax on cigarettes, alcohol, etc and turn that money over to the schools. Find out where the lottery and casino money is really going and redirect some/most of it to the schools.
Bacata |
Sac
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 3:17 pm: | |
Amen to Bacata's suggestions! |
Mem
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 3:28 pm: | |
Bacata - great suggestions! (Except for raising the tax on alcohol, but you knew I would say that...) |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 3:49 pm: | |
Mem, thanks for the laugh! Does this mean you'll be bidding on the liquor license of that defunct package store?
Bacata |
Mem
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 4:00 pm: | |
Yet another great suggestion! Does anyone know any details about the liquor license availablity?
Thanks again bacata! |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 4:17 pm: | |
When gambling was voted for in New Jersey (I voted against it) the premise was that monies would be directed toward education and, I think, to help seniors.
Of course gambling was supposed to revitalize Atlantic City and provide jobs, housing, etc. for the people who lived there.
It seems all it has done is to revitalize organized crime. Just outside the casino area, there is little in the way of housing to be seen. Also, the casino jobs mostly went to people from all over the country - unless maintenance was your career goal.
How about an investigative report on just where casino money goes? |
Mlj
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 6:02 pm: | |
The idea of funding schools in NJ with state income tax would be great for a place like Maplewood, but I suspect it would cause a revolution in the state of NJ. I am referring to people who have chosen a specific area to live because if its low property taxes. |
Jennie
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 7:37 pm: | |
Tobacco, alcohol, lottery, casinos--sounds like a soak the poor scheme. To have others in the state pay for our schools is appealing, but why should they have to if we don't want to? I think we should do a better job of getting back more of our own taxes we send to the state and the feds, but I'm not sure how that can be done. I suspect we're getting a relatively low return of tax money, and we should ask our legislators about that. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 2:52 am: | |
Jennie, I understand what you're saying in terms of disproportionate use (and marketing!) by and to poor and/or urban folks. But I don't think that Maplewoodians and S.O. villagers don't use those things (think of all the fine wine consumed in our fair community.) I was thinking about the health aspects of the first two while I posted. I don't think it's a matter of asking someone else to pay for what we are unwilling to. I do think it's a matter of viewing all of the children in the entire state as entitled to a good or (dare I say it?) even excellent public education.
The Abbott decision recognized the inherent inequities from city to suburb to rural areas in the funding mechanism that was in place but it did not specify how to remediate that. That was left to the governor and the State BOE (and probably the attorney general.) Now what we have is the unfortunate situation where towns with a low commercial base like ours fund the schools through a ridiculously high property tax. (I know you know this, I'm just trying to lay out the logic and history for myself as I think through the issue.)
There is a certain point, according to public health studies, where a high "use tax" does discourage/decrease behaviors such as smoking. (Now THIS is "social engineering", Mtierney and others.) I don't know what the set point is for that change.
I firmly believe that the whole society benefits from a well-educated citizenry so I am very interested to see changes that will not only help Maplewood/South Orange solve the school funding crisis, but also the entire state. I am disheartened that GW thinks that a large portion of the new federal education dollars should go into annual testing. We don't need a test takers factory. We need good teachers, small classes and good curricula. (Unless we agree that the tests somehow measure that, and believe me there is no agreement on that.)
Anyway, I think this thread might best be used as a brainstorming session where we encourage lots of different ideas.
I would, however, like to see those running for Board of Ed identify themselves and share their ideas here and elsewhere on the board. (I know Mike Manley has started to do that on another thread.) Don't forget to attend the public debates starting March 15th, I think. Jem, is that the date? At DeHart Community Center?
Bacata |
Jem
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 7:16 am: | |
Bacata,
Yes, I've heard that the Midland Park Neighborhood Association is hosting the first debate on 3/15 at DeHart. There are always numerous opportunities to hear and meet the candidates, more formally at debates, which are usually taped and then televised a few times, and more intimately at neighborhood coffees for various candidates. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page