| Author |
Message |
    
Fringe
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 11:23 am: |     |
As one who has "ridaculed" Maplewood's financial cotributions to the CCR, that group's letter in the News-Record regarding the revaluation came as no surprise. Would any political party funded by public dollars have done anything less..
While the document speaks for itself, I will only remind the writer that it was not so long ago that the primary reason people moved and stayed here was because of the educational product. The fact that even the CCR no longer rates it as a primary attraction is commentary itself.
How many would be so strident in their complaints about the revaluation if the educational system produced a competitive product.
JTL |
Kap
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 6:43 pm: | |
JT, You really are a trip!! To imply that the CCR has been swayed in its view on the reval based on the contributions it receives from the township is a new low, for even you. The lack of "surprise" on your part indicates that you have had your head in the sand over the last several months and that you did not bother to read the article written by Robert Marchman. The opinon expressed, whether you agree with it or not, is well thought out and articulately stated. Were you also not surprised when the CCR presented to the TC its report regarding possible habitability and zoning violations? (which I also posted in its entirety on this board) Actually, I recall your giving the CCR kudos (in your own way) when the content of that study was made public. I guess we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. I do, However, agree with you that the article speaks for itself e.g.:
"A tax-system in which high -cost housing is taxed at a significantly lower percentage of its value than low-cost housing is conducive to a dual housing market. Moving from lower cost to higher cost housing is inhibited, which diminishes the economic appeal of lower cost housing. Such a tax system increases the divide between low cost and high cost housing and deepens the tendencies toward a dual housing market"
"......through our Schools Committee, we have hosted several public forums candidly discussing the issue of race and the development of constructive means to provide an equitable and excellent education to all our District's students."
"I would also urge my fellow neighbors to constructively use the revaluation debate as a galvanizing event to permanently spur increased community involvement in government, educational and civic affairs."
" .......there are two efforts where such a constructive and organized community effort can make a difference: the reformation of our property tax system in New Jersey (the real culprit in this debate) and participating in the development of constructive solutions to assist educators enhance the delivery of educational services in our district."
JT, You are as familiar as anyone in these two towns with the CCR's vision and mission statement and you are also well aware that one of the goals of the CCR is, and has been since its inception, "to promote equity and excellence in education for all of our children." Just because not everyone views the world through the same statistical prism that you do does not mean that they care any less about our schools and commmunity as a whole than you do.
And finally, JT, for the benefit of those who may not have seen the article can you please point out your evidence that the CCR " no longer rates (the educational product) as a primary attraction is commentary itself." |
Fringe
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 11:34 am: | |
As with the zoning statement, the CCR should post the entire statement on the revaluation and let readers make their own evaluation. Message board policy prevents others from doing so.
Your focus on the unfairness of property tax funding ignores the expense side of the dilema faced by every NJ municipality. Our local elected officials have increasingly reminded us of it even as they have implemented new or expanded existing programs. But can anyone cite specific examples of actions taken by these same folks to change the funding mechanism?
Taxes would not be rising if expenses were not driving them. Every public program has its adherents and justifications for existence. Assuming there is no change - and why would the mid and southern NJ counties want one - is the CCR prepared to alieviate the tax burden here by retracting its request for public funding?
JTL |
Kap
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 5:02 pm: | |
JT, The reason that I posted the CCR habitablity and zoning study was because the News-Record, for some reason, chose not to publish it altough they apparently had a copy. (That and the fact that I was a co-writer of that study and could easily cut and past it.) The op-ed piece that you are referring to was published in it's entirety in the N-R which has a larger circulation than does this board. (No offense intended, Dave). Anyone on this board who has not seen it can get a copy anytime up until next Thursday.
Again I refer to your own knowledge of the CCR charter. Nowhere in it is there any mandate to perform fiscal oversight of either the municipal or school budget processes. If you believe that that function should be a part of the Coalition's mandate, an appropriate way to actually /b"DO" something about it would be to become involved in one of the sub-committees. Sure, that may take a bit more effort than sniping from the sidelines but could be a lot more effective.
The absolute level of the CCR's operating budget provided by the municipalities will be lower in 2001 than it was in 2000 which was lower than it was in 1999. The percentage of the 2 towns contributions has been declining for even long thanks to our fundraising efforts. But again you already knew that. We anticipate that this trend will continue but do not expect or desire it to be zero at any point in time. The reason for this is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to raise corporate or foundation funding without evidence of financial support from the towns. As with all budget items, the governing bodies do some form of macro cost benefit analysis when deciding on budget expenditures. The bodies of both towns, despite your opinion, apparently believe that the returns on their respective contributions to the CCR are well worth the investment. |
Fringe
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 10:27 am: | |
I expect that the CCR will be on the public dole for a long time. The question is why is this private organization more entitled to public support than, say, the Maplewood Civic Association or the Hilton Neighborhood Association or the Volunteer Ambulance Squad. Undoubtedly members of each can construct strong arguments for their funding and can produce evidence of their fiscal value to the town. So why are the CCR's 30+ members any different?
JTL |
Tracks
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 5:09 pm: | |
Fringe.... Doesn't the CCR have a lot more than 30 members? I thought it was more like 300. Although I also question whether they should be funded by local govenrment, I do think it is like comparing Apples and Oranges. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 6:19 pm: | |
Fringe: The Maplewood Rescue Squad gets no town funds? This wasn't my impression. |
Joancrystal
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 8:20 pm: | |
I imagine that the CCR supported the revaluation because they support incentives to increase property values and demand for housing in the "East" part of town. The reduction in real property taxes given to most of these properties as a result of revaluation is consistent with this aim. |
Fringe
| | Posted on Friday, March 9, 2001 - 8:22 am: | |
"Member" is an ambiguous term. I refer to the roughly 30 voting, decision makers of the CCR. If there are indeed 300+ local citizens imbued with the fervor of many of the CCR trustees, is it too much to ask that each contribute $200. This would cover the CCR budget without the need for tax dollars, removing another point of contention for this controversial organization.
Or, do the members - voting or not - lack the financial commitment for their beliefs, preferring instead to impose the cost on those who do not share them?
JTL |
Melidere
| | Posted on Friday, March 9, 2001 - 8:46 am: | |
I'm no member of the ccr, but i think they have mentioned several times that a financial committment from the town is necessary to secure many of the other funding avenues they look to to supplement their budget. |
Sac
| | Posted on Friday, March 9, 2001 - 8:48 am: | |
I'm not sure, but I believe that anyone who donates to the CCR is considered a member. Perhaps there is a donation level ($25?) for that. I know that I made such a donation and now receive the newsletter, so I am probably considered a member, just as I am a member of many other non-profit organizations that I support. The 30 or so number would refer to the members of the CCR board, who vote and participate actively in their meetings, subcommittees, etc. |
Kap
| | Posted on Friday, March 9, 2001 - 7:01 pm: | |
JT, Why didn't you just name this thread "Potshots at the CCR for the Sake of Taking Potshots at the CCR" or......never mind that would have gotten me booted.
SERENITY NOW!! |
Mck
| | Posted on Friday, March 9, 2001 - 11:16 pm: | |
Each trustee of the CCR must contribute money, in addition to time. And they (we - I'm a trustee) do a big fund raiser every year. I can't remeember how much was raised last year by the celebrity auction, but it was a lot. I was impressed. |
|