| Author | Message | ||
     jfburch Citizen Username: Jfburch Post Number: 1312 Registered: 6-2001 |
Habanero2, Westfield's taxes are not lower because they have lower spending (per pupil rate is similar to ours), or because they have lowered the growth rate or cut spending. They have a bigger ratable base (and probably a smaller county bite). | ||
| marian Citizen Username: Marian Post Number: 119 Registered: 9-2001 |
Talking about ratables, what kills me almost as much as my out-of-sight property taxes, is the fact that so many Maplewoodians scream and shout about their taxes, and then scream and shout almost as loud every single time a new business wants to open in town and add to the ratable base. (i.e., the KFC on Springfield Ave.) Folks, if we want to increase Maplewood's ratable base, we can't get a repuation as being unfriendly to business, but I fear we already have one. | ||
| mfpark Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 211 Registered: 9-2001 |
Jf: Yup, the real answer is to stop funding the majority of school costs with property taxes (and also to control costs more). But that would mean more income tax (which is means-based), and that seems to be something New Jersey cannot get its arms around. Michigan did it, why can't we? What are the arguments against decoupling schools and property taxes? | ||
| Cato Nova Citizen Username: Cato_nova Post Number: 70 Registered: 12-2003 |
Mfpark: There are no rational arguments against decoupling schools and property taxes. Only the dead hand of history, and the historic connection between schools and community, prevent us from adopting a regionalized form of school funding. It is a clear no-brainer, except that rich districts, not to mention white districts, would rather die than see their general funds go to poor/black districts. What we need is a visionary leader. Or leaders. But instead we have mealy-mouthed weasels who lack the courage to lead. | ||
| mellie Citizen Username: Mellie Post Number: 413 Registered: 4-2002 |
a timely an intelligent BOE budget process would be a start - we aren't even ready to begin the dialogue with the shambles I am observing | ||
| Fruitcake Citizen Username: Fruitcake Post Number: 73 Registered: 9-2003 |
Lumpy, The world is run by those who show up. If you want more people to vote in BOE elections, do something about it. Sylad, OK, let's cut non-essential services. Your turn first, what specific items do you want to cut? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 2053 Registered: 5-2001  |
Our school spending is already pitifully low. Do you really want to live in Alabama North? You can kiss goodbye those nice couples engaging in bidding wars over homes on your block if we start cutting any more into "non-essential" services. Jim Florio's fate has everyone thinking tax reform is poison. Isn't there some politician out there with the leadership skills to get us out of this mess? | ||
| mellie Citizen Username: Mellie Post Number: 414 Registered: 4-2002 |
Tom, I thought we were spending at the general average rate per pupil - neither too high nor too low. On what do you base your "pitifully low" remark. $75m or so over 6000 students =$12.5k per student. Surely you mean our non residential rateable base is pitifully low ? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 2054 Registered: 5-2001 |
In comparison to the districts we'd like to be compared with, Livingston and Millburn, which spend more like $10K per student, we're low. And yes, our non-residential rateable base is pitifully low. | ||
| Sylad Citizen Username: Sylad Post Number: 313 Registered: 6-2002 |
Fruitcake...provide me with a line item of the budget, or tell me where I can get it, and I am sure I can carve out something. | ||
| Fruitcake Citizen Username: Fruitcake Post Number: 74 Registered: 9-2003 |
Sylad, Do I need to do your leg-work for you so you can stick to pontifcating online? Why do you even make a statement about cutting services if you don't already have the line-item budget in front of you? | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4768 Registered: 5-2001 |
The short and very non-political answer is: 1. While apparently slowing down, our schools have had over a 33% increase in enrollment over the last 10 ten years. 3. There has been no corresponding increase in rateables to help pay for this. 3. State aid has been substantially cut. 4. Our spending per pupil is pretty much average for the state. 5. There seems to be an increase in the number of special needs students in the district. 6. There is a new teachers contract this year, substantially increasing costs. 7. Because of zoning we have a high population density per square mile, meaning more students than in a town with 1/2 acre zoning. | ||
| mfpark Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 213 Registered: 9-2001 |
Bob K. Thanks for that rational recounting of the issues. Should we also add a large administrative load as part of the equation? That was the cost the BOE trying to improve the quality of education. I am not opining whether this has been money well spent or not, just pointing out that administrative costs seem to have increased a lot over the last 5 years. | ||
| Sylad Citizen Username: Sylad Post Number: 315 Registered: 6-2002 |
Fruitcake..I have been in business for many years and have yet to see a budget (public or private) that has FAT. If you have seen one without fat that is great, but most start rather heafty and with a few items that can go and cause no or little impact. I was offering a suggestion as opposed to a complaint. Pontificating, what is wrong with stating your opinions? I thought that was one of the points of a message board? If you don't like or don't agree with my point of view, don't read and don't respond. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 2217 Registered: 1-2003  |
bobk, how does #7, population density make the budget tighter? And as sportsnut said, we all have to do more with less, so why shouldn't the teachers be asked to? You say the contract cost went way up. Do you know where that money goes? Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4771 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tom, if MW and SO had half acre zoning there would be about a quarter of the people here in town. I agree that isn't the best arguement I have ever made, however.  Mf, in the Education Section one of the posters indicated that the admin costs here aren't out of line with state averages. I don't know if I accept that or not to be quite honest. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 556 Registered: 8-2003  |
Bobk, you could also add: 8. Unfunded requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 2219 Registered: 1-2003 |
bobk, it's probably obvious, but I'm still not getting it. If we each had more land, then yes, the towns would be less dense, but how does that affect the budget? Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4774 Registered: 5-2001 |
Less population because of fewer dwelling units per square mile means fewer students, teachers, buildings and, hopefully, administrators. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 2220 Registered: 1-2003 |
...which leads to a smaller budget but the same costs per student, except that the economy of scale would be worse, or perhaps better. Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing |
