| Author | Message | ||
     fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 288 Registered: 5-2001 |
Although the purpose of last night's BOE budget workshop was ostensibly for administration response to some of the more challenging BOE & BOSE questions, members of both groups used it primarily as an opportunity to speak to their base constituents and establish initial voting positions. I recommend the video for an interesting 2.5 hours. One thread that wound through several comments involved the staying power of various community segments. Latz began the evening's comments by acknowledging that the administration/budget committee's decision to maintain all existing programs and services (plus $1.3 in new spending) which he describes as "preserving what we have" will force some residents to leave the towns, but according to him the viability of the community is more important. Mr. Frazer, another member of the finance committee, echoed these sentiments by stating the budget debate is about which group will stay and which will leave. For his part, he sides with the young families who, he claims, want the current system preserved. These sentiments were challenged by some members of the BOSE who noted that it is precisely the property taxes required to maintain the status quo that are likely to keep young families away. Mr. Profetta, in calling for a tax increase in the 5% range, noted that many of those "older" citizens leaving have contributed and continue to contribute a great deal to the towns. Candidate (for higher office) Huemer had the night's closing line, encouraging the BOE to step up its PR to older citizens by stating that "the community is extraordinarily generous in what it will support." JTL | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 430 Registered: 3-2003 |
My son and daughter-in- law are in their 30's. They puchased a house in Westfied last August. A young couple with children moved into a house across the street. They moved from Maplewood because of the taxes. Recently, my DIL in the course of her work met someone from Maplewood who was seriously thinking of moving to Westfied because of the taxes. She has three close friends, all who moved from Maplewood to Westfied because of the taxes. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 431 Registered: 3-2003 |
Maybe more to the point is that I'm an older guy. I complain about the taxes, but can afford them . These younger families can't. | ||
| xavier67 Citizen Username: Xavier67 Post Number: 337 Registered: 6-2002 |
Yes, but houses in Westfield are 20-50% more expensive than in Maplewood. The savings in taxes are offset by higher house prices (unless they are moving into smaller houses). And no amount of money will make up for the differences in commuting time for many of us die-hard NYC-centric commuters, the core would-be Maplewood residents. Personally, I think proposed spending increase is too low for where I think our district needs to be. I may be in the minority on this issue, but members of BOE should know (as I think Frazier understands) that this is a sizable minority. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4555 Registered: 5-2001 |
It is an established fact that empty nesters are bailing out of town as quickly as they can because of the taxes and, more importantly, the fact that taxes are going up and up and up at rate much quicker than most of our income. Even being able to “afford” the taxes doesn’t seem to stop people from leaving, especially if they have a couple of kids in college. Another factor is that the tax burden here is becoming unbalanced once again. The work that Larry Seltzer and, I think, Jerry Ryan did earlier this year on 2003 sales shows that home appreciation has pretty much tracked the tax decreases and increases that resulted from the revaluation. I wonder if Mr. Latz and others would be so cavalier about the tax increases if an adjustment was made based on Larry’s data? Roughly, taxes in Hilton and east of Boyden would go up by a third, before any annual increases such as the 9% figure proposed by the Administration and apparently rubber-stamped by the BOE. Are people still going to want to move here when the taxes on a four bedroom colonial revival approach $20,000? I don’t think, to use Fringe’s term, that there is an inexhaustible supply of Slopies.. Does anyone have the link to Larry's thread on home values? | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 432 Registered: 3-2003 |
bobk - I didn't want to seem to be cavalier about being able to "afford" the taxes. I think you and I are on the same page. Your observation about the reval is correct, and South Orange can't put off a reval forever. My guess is many of the families in S.O. who are in support of a tax increase are the same families who will be most vocal against a reval. | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 898 Registered: 10-2001 |
While my family can afford these taxes and quite possibly more the question becomes why would we? We lost our neighbors to livingston due to the taxes in maplewood. They paid a little more for a little less house but their rationale was that if the market keeps going up they'll come out even. My wife and I talk about how much we like our house but if the taxes continue to go up year after year we won't stay. Our taxes are up about 50% in four years and are still quite affordable but at this rate we'll be looking to move in the next couple of years. | ||
| jfburch Citizen Username: Jfburch Post Number: 1282 Registered: 6-2001 |
Affordability is a complicated question--and ultimately depends on individual circumstances--and in many cases choices. Certainly there are individual and families who are getting squeezed by their housing costs--but on aggregate, it's only a little worse for older folks and the folks who are getting squeezed hardest are the 30% at the lower end of the income scale--and I doubt they are moving to Westfield. These are 2000 numbers, the reval will have shifted them some, but not dramatically enough to change the patterns. Our median housing costs, including taxes, are in line with state and NY/NJ/CT/LI metro area numbers: (these are homeowners) Median Housing Costs as a % of Income Town/Area NJ Metro M'wood SO Total 22% 22% 23% 22% Mortgage 24% 24% 24% 23% No Mortgage 15% 15% 15% 15% Now that's the median--many people are paying more or less. In our towns, 25% to 30% of homeowners are paying 35% or more of income for housing expenses. 40% to 45% are paying just 20% or less. By age, about 20% of younger to middle age homeowners (25-55) are paying more than 35% of income in housing costs and 35% to 40% are in the under 20% crowd. For older homeowners (55+), the percentage that's housing stressed (more than 35% of income) does go up to around 30%. But, so does the percentage of those who are paying less than 20% of income--it's close to 50% in Maplewood and over 50% in SO. If we want to find a group that is really squeezed by housing costs--and thus tax increases, it is, not surprisingly, lower income folks. 52% of folks with household income 75,000 or below in Maplewood were at or above 35% of income for housing costs. Just 4% of folks over 75K were. In South Orange, 60% of folks with household incomes below 75K were paying 35% or more for housing. Just 6% of folks over 75K were. I don't want to be cavalier about anyone's tax stress, or anyone feeling that they cannot afford to stay, or move here. It's our reality and it hurts. But, I think, as individuals and as a community, we need to think hard about the difference between what we *can* afford and what we are *willing* to afford. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4558 Registered: 5-2001 |
Jf, the thing that your numbers don't account for is that many of us in the over 55 "crowd" are paying for kids college costs and are trying to plan ahead towards retirement. What Mrs. K and I can afford now will be different after retirement, although I think there is an element of choice here. Also, many of us are faced with situations where retirement may come a little before we planned because of the economy.  Also, your numbers are from the 2000 census I believe. Since then both housing prices and taxes here in MW have, I think, increased at above the national average. | ||
| jfburch Citizen Username: Jfburch Post Number: 1283 Registered: 6-2001 |
Like I said, it depends on individual circumstances. Younger families are coughing up daycare money. Lower income families are trying to send their kids to college, planning for retirement, dealing with job loss too. The national average isn't the right reference point for this region--where housing costs, home prices, and taxes are all above average and rising fast. And, yes, they are 2000 numbers, and things are not static. As I noted, I don't think the general pattern has changed dramatically--even post reval--though it almost certainly is a bit worse all over. The point remains, as both you and sportsnut note, that this is about choices--and the overwhelming majority of folks in this town have some options and are in a position to make those choices, rather than being "forced" by a tax increase. | ||
| jfburch Citizen Username: Jfburch Post Number: 1284 Registered: 6-2001 |
And bobk, you note that "taxes are going up and up and up at rate much quicker than most of our income". That's probably true, but the rate of increase for *housing costs* for many people is not. Again, it depends on particulars, but for a lot of folks holding a mortgage, the overall increase in housing costs is a couple/few percentage points--or (a lot) less. Before I was a homeowner, except for a few years when I had a socialist landlord who never raised my rent, my annual rent increases (and thus housing costs) have exceeded that by a good bit. I don't want my taxes to go up. I am offended at some level by the numbers. But I am not surprised if my housing costs creep up--and I am willing to accept it in order to have decent schools. | ||
| sac Citizen Username: Sac Post Number: 934 Registered: 5-2001 |
Unfortunately, even if cuts are made, they will not substantially reduce the tax burden (although they may substantially reduce the quality of education in some cases) and these problems will remain so long as we continue to be forced to fund the schools via local property taxes. I don't disagree that there are probably some prudent cuts to make, but in the long run if we want people to be able to continue to afford to move here AND STAY, the tax system has got to be changed. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4560 Registered: 5-2001 |
Unless you are refinancing every year to get a lower rate (and I think some people do, rolling the closing costs and points into their mortgage and increasing their debt and pushing the term of the mortgage out further) the higher the taxes as a percentage of your monthly nut, the more the tax increases effect you. OUr taxes on a monthly basis are actually more than our motgage payment and I don't think that is unusual for people who have lived here for more than a couple of years. I don't think that anyone is arguing for cutting school funding to reduce taxes, although that may happen in the future as the gap between the haves and have nots grows (see my posting about Englewood). Most of us are talking about more efficient use of the tax dollars and a reduction in the headquarters staff. This is a tough year because the new teachers contract has just kicked in, but still nearly a 10% increase with fewer pupils is kinda tough to take. | ||
| bookgal Citizen Username: Bookgal Post Number: 484 Registered: 7-2001 |
Most of the people I know who have left have had kids in the school system and have moved to what they consider "better school systems for their families". Unfortunately, I know more families who plan to do the same with deleveling taking place in the 6th grade and possibly the entire middle school eventually. So, while taxes are an important issue..it is not the whole story why people with families leave. These were and are families who have lived in the community on average between 8 to 12 years, made huge contributions in the schools and in various community efforts. I don't want to see cuts (well, I could live with administrative cuts in central office and cuts in some other areas), and we struggle with our property taxes but the most important factor in determining whether we leave Maplewood would be decreasing academic standards in the schools, reductions in the number of electives at CHS, removal of the Explorations program or something similar, removal of world language instruction and further deleveling at the middle school and continuing behavioral issues in the classrooms. These are the things that would make us leave, and this is probably true for most of our friends. | ||
| xavier67 Citizen Username: Xavier67 Post Number: 338 Registered: 6-2002 |
"...the most important factor in determining whether we leave Maplewood would be decreasing academic standards in the schools, reductions in the number of electives at CHS, removal of the Explorations program or something similar, removal of world language instruction and further deleveling at the middle school and continuing behavioral issues in the classrooms." My reasons would be the same as all of the above except perhaps the last two. I would also add, tilting the curriculum towards standardized tests (aka, "teaching to the test"); spending disapportionate amount of instructional time explicitly preparing for standardized tests; and reduction of the arts programs, esp in elemen and JHS levels. | ||
| Dad23 Citizen Username: Dad23 Post Number: 44 Registered: 8-2003 |
I agree with bobk and bookgal "a reduction in the headquarters staff" "I could live with administrative cuts in central office" I never understood how the superintendent could raise class size AND add a 3rd assistant super. But my biggest concern was said by bookgal and xavier67 " the most important factor in determining whether we leave Maplewood would be decreasing academic standards in the schools, reductions in the number of electives at CHS" I don't see how adding more responsibilities for the CHS dept. heads helps. They teach the electives and help keep academic standards high at the high school. Now they will be stretched too thin to have any impact. | ||
| ladyrunner Citizen Username: Ladyrunner Post Number: 14 Registered: 9-2003 |
The thread is called "The debate is about who will leave" From what I heard about the meeting last night, at least one BOE member thinks Mrs. Davenport should leave. When are they going to show that on tv? | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 885 Registered: 3-2003 |
Just for the record, that BOE member was speaking about positions, not personalities. | ||
| jln Citizen Username: Jln Post Number: 32 Registered: 2-2001 |
Based on much of the budget discussion at the BOE meetings this week, it's hard not to conlude that Peter Horoschak and many members of the BOE believe that they are the sole guardians of community values. They understandably have an educentric view and they have every right to line up at the public trough. But there are other elements of the public good to be considered: police and fire protection, roads, libraries, 4th of July , jitneys, after-school rec leagues, parks, ordinance enforcement etc. etc. All of these are part of the critical infrastructure that makes this a great community, and all of these have strong claims for funding. The job of the Township Committee is to balance these competing claims. It's a tough job . . . and the TC members will need to make difficult choices both on the municipal and school fronts. When Fred Profeta throws out a 5% number it's not because he's anti-education or because he's cheap . . . it's because he's all too conscious of the many other important, sizeable, and legitimate funding needs we have as a community and because he knows that annual tax rate increases of 8-9% compounded over a number of years will be deadly to the health of Maplewood. The problem with Horoschak and his supporters on the BOE is that they do not take this problem seriously. They say they do, but in fact they do not. They lack the fortitude and the imagination to get down to the serious revolutionary work of figuring out how to do more with less. There will be a lot of hand-wringers out there who will say it can't be done. But it can be done and the BOE needs to find new leadership and a superintendent who's capable of taking us in a new direction. | ||
| Redsox Citizen Username: Redsox Post Number: 409 Registered: 6-2002 |
great post jln btw- i am strongly considering pulling my child out of the system and going the parochial school route.....have spoken at length with some teachers in the SOM system.....they really do not try to dissuade......why is it that my child should be subjected to mental defectives in the classroom????.....it's a social experiment gone horribly wrong... Horrorshaq is a pompous *sshole he'll leave here in 3 years with seth-boyden on his resume and massive destruction in his wake..... Latzie and all the other apologists will put the blame on everyone else but themselves(i.e. federal mandates, state funding, the economy, old buildings & structures, changing demographics, test scores, leveling, deleveling, special need students, ESL students .....) it's a joke that is not funny... |
