| Author | Message | ||
     bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4582 Registered: 5-2001 |
Bookgal, I guess we move in different circles. On our block in the Jefferson area five houses sold last year. Four were families whose kids were through secondary school, one was a family with school age kids who moved to Millburn. With that said, I think some younger families also move, primarily because of school issues. Some people like the idea, but not necessarily the reality, of the school system. Diversity, I don't know if you have paid for college for kids recently. Tuition at many private colleges and universities now runs close to $40,000 a year. Some of us, will be paying that off for quite awhile.  | ||
| bookgal Citizen Username: Bookgal Post Number: 487 Registered: 7-2001 |
BobK, I am in the Jefferson area. EAch year we lose more families to other school districts. I don't deny that it is very hard for people with kids in college, that is some way off for us but I already can't imagine how we are going to pay for it. If we cut electives and enrichment programs from the schools, we will lose a lot of families who invest time and money in the community. If we raise taxes considerably we will lose others...it is very hard. I am not opposed to some cuts...I'd like to see some administrative cuts. I think we have several areas we can look at but reducing programs which appeal to many higher achieving kids is not the way to go. | ||
| cody Citizen Username: Cody Post Number: 471 Registered: 5-2001 |
A major point is how New Jersey funds school taxes - reliance on local ratables doesn't do it equitably - especially for towns without expansion potential and without large ratables like the Livingston Mall, the Short Hills Mall,.... The federal government also mandates many programs for children with special needs, but does not fund most of them adequately, putting the burden on those school districts which have large special needs populations. Abbott Districts do get some extra help, but with many, many strings attached. Maplewood does not (only 1, possibly 2 of our elementary schools are considered Title 1 schools, eligible for additional federal monies). As our special needs population increases, so will the associated costs. This is an issue that needs to be addressed at state and federal levels, through our representatives. We can't fix it here in Maplewood all by ourselves. Our special needs population is quite large - consider also that many local families have adopted children or are fostering children who come out of areas with known lead paint issues, or whose natural parents had drug problems. I am very, very happy to see these kids being given a chance with a new family and I know several such families, but the children may require additional services from our school system that are costly and not funded by the state/federal government. I believe some of the BOE members addressed this issue in the last campaign, but I haven't heard anything from the Board as to what steps they are taking or considering to move it along. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4585 Registered: 5-2001 |
Bookgal, I think the new budget isn't going to help the middle and upper-middle achieving kids. It seems geared to mainly what Cody calls special needs children. We face a huge problem in catering to two wildly divergent school populations. For the record the poeple leaving our block, which is unusal since we usually average about one sale a year, were replaced with younger families with at least two and sometimes three kids, putting more pressure on the schools. | ||
| mellie Citizen Username: Mellie Post Number: 384 Registered: 4-2002 |
burch - many words, little content 2/10 must try harder next time | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 889 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Now if I'm reading you correctly, that's a twisting of the facts. The underclass has pretty much disappeared from Manhattan and many areas of Brooklyn." I don't believe I'm "twisting" the facts, Copperfield, but if you can show me where I'm wrong I'd be happy to stand corrected. Meanwhile, please take a look at the following Community Service Society study, page 37, where the CSS 2003 population survey reports 33.6% of voting age citizens in New York City are below 2 times the US Census Bureau's poverty level: http://www.cssny.org/pubs/special/2003_11survey.pdf I'll grant you that some portion of that population does not constitute an "underclass" per se; most are probably working poor. But they haven't been driven out, and my point remains: an exodus from our community of the middle and upper-middle classes to towns where the proportion of equity-building payments is higher than tax-paying payments is likely to widen the income gap in our community. Poorer people, especially renters, generally haven't got that option. And they may try to hold on locally for the sake of their children, rather than moving downmarket to Newark and Irvington where schools are questionable. At the other extreme, the very wealthy may be comfortable enough to stay, despite increasing taxes. Until property values fall enough to bring in new middle and lower-middle class buyers, goodbye diversity, hello disparity. Then again, if the schools are perceived to be delivering a truly top-notch education, middle-class people may decide it's worthwhile to stay put. I just think the jury is still out on whether the latest budget will lead to improved education, and I'm 100% behind those BOE members (O'Leary, Clifford, Betheil) who repeatedly question the administration as to how it will measure the success of any particular status quo effort, intervention, or change. As for new BOE candidates, since everyone always claims to support excellence in education, I think they had better be prepared to answer one overriding question: What will you do to ensure we get our money's worth? | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 890 Registered: 3-2003 |
Addendum to the CSS data above: The US Health and Human Services poverty threshold for 2003 was $18,400 for a family of four. 200% of that would be $36,800/yr. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 441 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Ensuring we get our money's worth" is definitely the overriding question. Everyone agrees that the schools are the most important asset in a community. It seems to me that the question is always weighing the additional tax increase against the purported benefit. A very likely and scary scenario is if there really isn't any measurement of success, at such time as interest rates start going back up and the red hot real estate market that we've experienced for a longer period than most people would have guessed cools off,how are South Orange and Maplewood, with their exceedingly high tax rates,going to fare competitively with other communities. If there hasn't been any measurement of success along the way, you're really locked into the higher tax rates. This isn't like a business where you can roll back the prices if things aren't selling at the higher price. When you're trying to figure out how high taxes can go before things go negative, it's too late by the time you actually know. By then, you can't give houses away. Shouldn't we really be asking for accountability? | ||
| Copperfield Citizen Username: Copperfield Post Number: 16 Registered: 1-2004 |
Crohn: Your arguments would be more persuasive if you left the facts and figures alone and relied on common sense and observation: Of course the underclass didn't leave NYC- it's a big city- they just moved out of Manhattan and Brownstone Brooklyn as those areas got gentrified. Look at 5th Avenue in Park Slope, the whole of Alpahbet City, Hell's Kitchen- those areas are expensive to live in today, filled with upscale restaurants and stores- but were pretty shaky 10 years ago. Neighborhoods gentrify, people get displaced. The underclass isn't leaving NYC, just those neighborhoods. Now as for Maplewood, this thread cracks me up. You're all dancing around the 800 pound elephant, pretending it's not there: All these young families with kids are moving to Maplewood because they're banking on the fact that as more middle class families move in, the school system will tilt, the town will gentrify further, Crohn's renters' landlords will sell to someone who wants to live in the house, and Maplewood will become another Montclair, where the recent influx changed the population of the town enough (either in reality or perception-wise) as to make the public schools palatable again. That's the buzz in Manhattan and Brooklyn- whether it's true or not is another thing, but that's what people believe. Check out the "new parents" boards like urbanbaby.com and the talk is all about "The 3 M's" - Montclair, Maplewood and Millburn, and how people are being told that as this wave of middle class families with young kids moves in, the school system is going to cease being an issue. Again, I'm not saying this is true, but it's what's getting people with young kids to move to Maplewood. | ||
| michael Citizen Username: Michael Post Number: 470 Registered: 1-2002 |
A simple question for jfburch - Will you be running for BOE in the upcoming election ? | ||
| Redsox Citizen Username: Redsox Post Number: 411 Registered: 6-2002 |
cathy, recently, one foul mouthed charmer assaulted his teacher, swore @ the principal, & then threatened to attack him. another has a personal escort( in & out of the classroom) that goes around with him because he has to be watched and corrected due to his continuous anti-social actions.. not pretty- is it? that's two specific examples of what i'm talking about.... tell me i'm a liar- i couldn't make this spit up. | ||
| Diversity Man Citizen Username: Deadwhitemale Post Number: 619 Registered: 5-2001 |
michael: of course, that is why she has stopped sending class/race/gender warfare messages. dWM | ||
| ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 949 Registered: 5-2001 |
Doublea - I'm not sure I follow re interest rates going up. That would make houses in places like Millburn (with higher home prices but lower taxes) relatively more expensive. Higher rates would raise mortgage payments, which in a town like Millburn are a higher portion of carrying costs than in Maplewood. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4595 Registered: 5-2001 |
Ashear it is a supply and demand thing. Higher rates cut demand for housing. I have watched this for nearly 25 years around here and Millburn seems to have done better in buyers markets than MW and SO. I think Larry posted something on this a few months ago. During the bad years here, Millburn saw some appreciation while we didn't. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 444 Registered: 3-2003 |
ashear -If and when the housing market slows down, for whatever reason, and SO/M have seen their taxes go up without any noticable improvement in the schools, i.e, there has been no accountability, then I think SO/M will really be hurting. In the six years that Horoschack has been here, most of the time he and he BOE have gotten what they asked for. School taxes have escalted a great deal. Has there been any noticable improvement? This is a very sincere question. I don't have any children in the schools, but I pay close attention to what's happening. It doesn't seem like there has been an improvement to justify the increases. If the quality of the schools improves, the value of my house increases. I'm just not sure there has been a noticable improvement. And from what I've seen discussed, I don't know if this year is any different. I'm really not trying to be negative, but trying to get value for my money, as J.Crohn says. It's all about accountability. | ||
| C Bataille Citizen Username: Nakaille Post Number: 1644 Registered: 5-2001 |
Redsox, pretty? I'm hardly naive. You're just describing the kids I provide mental health services to everyday in a different school district. It's not fun. Their behavior is certainly outrageous. But so is the situation most of these kids have been dealing with every day of their lives. Try telling an 8 year old who has been raped that he should speak nicely to adults. Today I ran a small group discussion about Valentine's Day and sent a young man into an absolute rage by encouraging talk about how families show that they love each other. My bad, I guess. Maybe he knows just enough about that to know what he is missing. I don't know. But I wouldn't call him a mental defective. You think private school guarantees mentally healthy and morally upright classmates for your kid? Hah! It's just a little more insidious. Watch out when your kid gets to middle and high school and half his peers have enough pocket money to buy cocaine on a regular basis. Or he goes to parties where no adult is home for the entire weekend. Watch out what you wish for. It's not a matter of no problems. Just a different set. Cathy | ||
| Copperfield Citizen Username: Copperfield Post Number: 17 Registered: 1-2004 |
Houses in Millburn keep their value/go up because of the perceived value of the school district and of the town in general. It's the same reason apartments in doorman buildings on the Upper East Side don't take the hits that studios in Washington Heights do during a recession or real estate bust. If Maplewood's school system wasn't an issue for many people, the value would most likely hold or go up. Taxes will affect the market as prices rise-- right now, the high end of the Maplewood housing market is (more or less) comparable with the low end of the Millburn/Short Hills market. If housing prices in Maplewood rise faster than in Millburn, the higher taxes will become an issue and will probably serve as an impetus to keep prices down. (e.g. Right now, a $700k house in Maplewood is much larger than a similarly prices house in Millburn. But if the two houses were of more or less equal size, the Millburn house would be more desireable because the taxes would be half of what they were in Maplewood.) | ||
| xavier67 Citizen Username: Xavier67 Post Number: 341 Registered: 6-2002 |
You folks seem to think escalating education costs is something that has occurred only in Maplewd/SO (and that Dr. H and his supporters on the board are solely responsible for them). School districts across the nation, even ones which do not rely on property taxes to fund them, have been and are continuing to face large increases every year, JUST TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL SERVICE. This is why 9% proposed increase is not enough to get us the kind of schools many of us taxpayers/parents want. | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 903 Registered: 10-2001 |
"All these young families with kids are moving to Maplewood because they're banking on the fact that as more middle class families move in, the school system will tilt, the town will gentrify further, Crohn's renters' landlords will sell to someone who wants to live in the house, and Maplewood will become another Montclair, where the recent influx changed the population of the town enough (either in reality or perception-wise) as to make the public schools palatable again." Bingo! At least for my family and I've admitted as much a couple of different times on these boards. My son starts elementary school this September, so we'll see. We shall see. But to be safe I am socking away some cash to send him to private school on the chance that the school won't be the right fit for him. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 891 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Your arguments would be more persuasive if you left the facts and figures alone and relied on common sense and observation..." Thanks for that very fascinating advice, Copperfield. "The underclass isn't leaving NYC, just those neighborhoods." OK, but what's that got to do with the assertion I originally made? The cost of educating New York's children has not gone down, nor have disparities in the wealth of its citizens. They have increased. '...Montclair, where the recent influx changed the population of the town enough (either in reality or perception-wise) as to make the public schools palatable again." The schools became "palatable" again because of Montclair's district superintendent, Michael Osnato, and his policies, not simply because middle class people moved to Montclair. "Check out the "new parents" boards like urbanbaby.com and the talk is all about "The 3 M's" - Montclair, Maplewood and Millburn, and how people are being told that as this wave of middle class families with young kids moves in, the school system is going to cease being an issue." "People are being told," huh? Sounds like realtor spiel to me. Just whom do you think the latest wave of middle class families with young kids is replacing? |
