| Author | Message | ||
     fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 218 Registered: 5-2001 |
Now that the Dems control Trenton, when can we expect the long proposed property tax reform that local township officials and school board members have held out as the cure-all for our financial woes? Or, will the new Democrat suburban reps find that their constituents really aren't that interested in another Essex County bail-out. JTL | ||
| Joan Citizen Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 2149 Registered: 5-2001 |
Doesn't it really come down to how many of these Democrats' constituents come from densely populated cities like Newark and Camden which are already receiving a great deal of State funding for education and how many come from much smaller and more suburban communities like Maplewood and South Orange? IMHO, we would have stood a better chance of seeing State funding for education reform if the Republicans were in control in Trenton. | ||
| athos Citizen Username: Athos Post Number: 116 Registered: 4-2002 |
Whoops!  | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 285 Registered: 8-2003  |
for 8 years before McGreevey, the Reps were in control in Trenton and did nothing for property tax reform. (Not to say the Dems will do anything now, though) | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 172 Registered: 3-2003 |
Joan - are you saying that maplewood doesn't count politically on the state or county level? If so, maybe we should defacto vote en-mass against any incumbent representative at the county and state level, plus our Representatives (3-at last count). In smaller elections we can make a discernible difference. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1508 Registered: 5-2001 |
what we got with the Reps in charge was income tax cuts, which kind of works against the idea of lowering property taxes. | ||
| Joan Citizen Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 2154 Registered: 5-2001 |
Reflective: Votes equal power. Politics is all about getting the votes to stay in control. While the representatives we elect directly may have some incentive to push for real property tax reform, especially now that we have been placed in a district with more suburban communities facing similar escallating property tax problems, the sad reality is that the majority of Democratic voters live in the very communities which have seen an increase in State aid to education in recent years. Why should their representatives vote for something which may help us but disadvantage the very constuents who put them in office? Because our numbers are so small when compared to the far larger urban interests, I don't think even the kind of action in the voting booth you propose will help very much. The best we can hope for is to develop people from South Orange and Maplewood who have enough overall personal clout in Trenton to be able to trade other favors of import to the more-urban- district leadership for help in achieving real property tax reform but I am not holding my breath. Note: This is how I see the situation. I would love it if someone could convince me that I am wrong. | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 175 Registered: 3-2003 |
Tom You brought up parties, ie Reps. So, Tom, we have a DEM as governor, 2 DEM senators, all 3 of our Representatives are DEM, our county reps are DEM and all 5 of our township committee are DEM. The DEM are in charge , Tom, and we know they not are going to cut taxes. If you are a DEM, Tom, what are you going to tell the DEM honorables to do about the situation? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1509 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually, the fourth word in this thread is "Dems," posted 10 1/2 hours before I posted. As a matter of fact, of the four posts preceding yours, every single sentence mentions a political party, with the sole exception of Athos' "whoops," which isn't technically a sentence. So I have to plead innocent on "bringing up" parties. Apology accepted, in advance. - - - - - - I don't think it's about cutting taxes, or raising taxes, it's about changing the way the revenue stream is structured. | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 219 Registered: 5-2001 |
Let me change the question - when is state-wide property tax reform likely? If not in the near future, is, as Latz has pedicted, an annual 7+% school tax hike acceptable for the forseeable future? JTL | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1889 Registered: 12-2001  |
The school tax hike is a different question. As along as only 10% of the electorate can be bothered to vote in school board elections, I wouldn't expect anything to change. | ||
| Joan Citizen Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 2159 Registered: 5-2001 |
Fringe: I have no acceptable answer to your fist question. Sorry. As to your second question: An annual 7% increase will not be enough to maintain a holding pattern where the school system is concerned. It is unlikly to be enough to fund our share of the increased costs for added enrollment, insurance, increased salaries for all those new teachers in the system who will be gaining in seniority, maintenance costs for our aging physical plant, cost of providing mandated services which are not paid for by the mandating authority, loss of grant money for programs the school district wants to continue as tax levy items, etc. On the other hand, an increase of 7% annually will be way too much for most of our empty nesters and many of our young families to bear. We need to change the method by which we fund public education in SO/M now! | ||
| Joan Citizen Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 2160 Registered: 5-2001 |
Perhaps the best solution for the present time is to make our schools more self sufficient: A number of school districts are now charging students for what they consider optional services such as joining sports teams, participating in clubs, receiving instruction in the arts beyond that covered by the basic curriculum, etc. Parents are finding that a child who participates in even a few activities may be billed over a hundred dollars a year in participation fees and that doesn't even include the cost of equipment and other related expenses. Similarly, use fees could be charged for library privilages, use of the gym and/or the swimming pool, computer rooms, science labs, shops, etc. beyond the student's own scheduled class hours. An even more radical approach I read about recently (not in a public school)was to require that all students beyond a certain age hire out for a set number of hours per week and turn over their earnings to the school. They were able to cut tuition costs appreciably. A variation on the the "let the kids earn the money" approach would be to require each of the children regardless of age to spend a fixed amount of time performing light maintenance, clerical support, or paraprofessional duties within their capabilities which are presently being performed by paid staff. Still another possibility would be to maximize our use of our physical plant by having the classes meet on rotating shifts: start some classes earlier in the day, have others run later at night, vary days of attendance so that some classes meet on weekends, have manditory field trip days during which the classroom can be used by another class, etc. Which of these ideas, if any, do you think would be supported by the voters and school administrators of SO/M? | ||
| athos Citizen Username: Athos Post Number: 117 Registered: 4-2002 |
Joan, Our BOE/Administrtion already charges fees to participate in athletics. Fencing costs $200.00 for the season. The charge is indirect because the amount of funding for the program is $1200.00 for the year, however it costs $15,000.00 to run the basic program. Hence the reason Parents of CHS Fencers are showing "Choice of Weapons" on Fri., Nov. 21, 2003, 7:30-10pm at the H.S. auditorium. If we didn't resort to this event and a multitude of other fund raisers a great and unbelieveably successful program would be no more. I wonder what the cost to parents of C.H.S. athletes participating in other sports is? Chime in MOLers and let us know.... | ||
| jfburch Citizen Username: Jfburch Post Number: 1081 Registered: 6-2001 |
The short answer to fringe's question is: we don't know and any answer depends to a large degree on what is considered "acceptable" and to whom. Joan is certainly right--many in the community are seriously stretched and housing is a big part of it. As of the 2000 census, 35% of both Maplewood and South Orange households (and family households) were defined as "low income" by the HUD definiton which is 80% or less of the local area median. And this holds true regardless of race. More to the point, as of April 2000, just before the reval effects kicked in in Maplewood: About 30% of mortgage holding homeownwers were housing stressed--paying more than 30% of income for housing costs (mortgage, taxes, heat, sewer utilities, insurance). About 10% were housing distressed: paying more than 50% of income. For non-mortgage holders, the numbers were 22% (M) and 25% (SO) paying more than 30% and 10% (M) and 16% (SO) paying more than 50%. 32% of Maplewood renters and 43% of SO renters were housing stressed (30% plus of income) and 16% (M) and 23% (SO) are distressed, paying 50% or more of income for housing. The reval changed this to some degree--bringing more housing stress to Maplewood neighborhoods where it was rarer, and perhaps easing it for some, though the modest decreases in some neighborhoods have already been largely erased, and newcomers are carrying larger mortgages so I would guess that the overall effect was not so much as to redistribute housing stress, but to increase it overall. (Unfortunately, it will be at least 3 years before we can get annual data that might let us track such changes between census years.) Many people have probably been helped by the historically low interest rates and refinancing boom that has reduced mortgage payments even as taxes increased. How much housing stress can a community sustain? We don't know. Some cities (New York, San Francisco) are notoriously housing stressed with lots of people who wouldn't live anywhere else and probably an increasing number reaching their limit and leaving. One result is an increasing income gap and and increasingly large share of the population that is wealthy and a shrinking middle class. I haven't run the numbers, but that seems to be happening here to some extent. Will the towns fall apart if tax increases continue at the rate they have been? Probably not. Will the towns become richer overall? Probably. How many people will be willing to be housing stressed and stay because of what this very attractive community has to offer? I don't know. At what point will people like that be unable to continue to make the choice--having gone from stressed to distressed? I don't know. (An article in today's NYT notes that housing stress in NYC for rent stabilized tenants has decreased a bit because of rising incomes.) How will changes/factors in the larger economy affect any of this? I don't know. While people--and especially politicians--are self-interested and that makes changing the system hard, people--and communities--are also highly adaptable and resilient, and in this richest country in the world, we all have more financial wiggle room than we often feel we do--up to a point. | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1039 Registered: 6-2001 |
When John McKeon was campaigning in Maplewood, I told him the Democrats had to get behind property tax reform as their major priority. Affable though he is, he voiced the usual scairdy-cat answers, but that was before the election. I don't think they expected to win as big as they did. They are so out of practice doing the right thing, who knows if they remember how. But I assume they want to try to get McGreevey re-elected before uttering anything that remotely sounds like the "T" word. McKeon does recognize that for communities like Maplewood there is no other answer than switching to an income tax and unlike some, he doesn't believe it's impossible. I hope the incoming TC understands this as well and takes a leading role in organizing a push for property tax reform or at least energetically supporting the fomenting rebellion out there. The notion that we can create enough new ratables or bump up property taxes for those now paying less than others just doesn't take care of the problem. | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 176 Registered: 3-2003 |
Tom: I apologize, you are right, I shot from the hip! But you are more fun than the others. | ||
| bak Citizen Username: Bak Post Number: 391 Registered: 5-2001 |
An article in today's Star-Ledger speaks about The League of Municipalities convention this week in Altantic City. Tops on the agenda is property tax reform, and it goes on to mention that top Dems Codey and the gov were cold to an idea of a reform convention. I'm sure many present and former TC members will be attending and hopefully can giv eus an update upon their return. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 3855 Registered: 5-2001 |
I personally don't think that tax reform is possible anytime in the near future. New Jersey voters are even more tax adverse than those in other states and the best way to become an ex-legislature is vote for a tax increase.  In addition, state funding would be to the advantage of a relatively few high density northern NJ municipalities and at the expense of other suburbs and South Jersey. Also, state funding of all, or most, of the local school budgets is a mixed blessing. First, the state will want even more control and second, in times of economic hardship the funding will be reduced as has been the case in California, Louisiana,Alabama, North Carolina and probably other states. I hate to sound so damn pessimistic, but unfortunately this seems the reality to me. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 3858 Registered: 5-2001 |
Does anyone know the total amount spent on public education here in NJ. We spend over $70mil on around 6,000 pupils. The total for the state must be mind-boggling! Also does anyone know where one can find the state revenue, broken down by source? If we were, miracle of miracles, to fund all or a good part of education through state sources and have the sources reasonably insulated from revenue swings, we would have to look beyond the income tax. How about sin taxes (alcohol, tobacco, etc.), raising the gasoline tax (NJs is among the lowest in the nation), truly committing the lottery revenues to education (this is supposed to be the case, but is not), a two cent increase in the sales tax, etc? Any ideas? |
