About Me
- Name: Nick W.
- Location: Wisconsin, United States
Libertarian observations from within the Ivory Tower by an archivist, librarian and researcher.
Email me at
libertarian_librarian@hotmail.com
Worth a visit or two
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Ornery American
- Iraq the Model
- Dennis the Peasant
- Tim Blair
- James Lileks
- Views from the other side of the aisle
- Views from the XX side of genetics
Archives
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
A university is just a group of buildings gathered around a library. ~Shelby Foote
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
When the Government Lies
Hooked ya, didn't I tc? No, I'm not talking about George Bush or the NSA or Dick Cheney or any of that. This is closer to home, and it's doubly galling because my school district-- the agency charged with imparting education and analytical thinking to my children-- is willfully and disingenuously twisting the facts to benefit themselves.
I hate that.
Here's the deal. In the spring of 2004, the voters agreed via a referendum to raise an extra $6.45 million for the school district for the July 2004-June 2005 fiscal year. That comes to about $33 extra per $100,000 in valuation for your property, or roughly $50-$70 for most district residents. As of July 1, 2005, that referendum expired, so last spring, the school district threw a big enough tantrum (we'll cut sports, we'll hold our breaths until we turn blue, we'll show up at your summer parties and complain!) that voters agreed in June 2005 to renew that tax increase from the year before. This was after the referendum was defeated the first time through in April.
All of which was really annoying. The district asked for the money, the voters said no. So, the district just asked again. What part of No didn't they understand?
But even more annoying, was that the district sent out mailers claiming they weren't increasing our taxes. They were asking for $6.45 million more than the state mandated limits allowed, but it wasn't an increase because it was merely the same amount as last year's increase. So, the amount they asked for hadn't actually gone up. Never mind that the amount we'd be taxed was $33 per $100,000 of valuation more than we'd have to pay if the referendum failed. I will grant you that there was no increase of the increase, but to claim that there was no increase is a lie.
And it worked. The referendum passed-- the second time, after they hit on the idea of billing a continuing increase as not an increase at all.
So, naturally, this year, they decided to try again. The district is asking for a contiuation of the $6.45 million dollar referendum, and they bill it this way:
That's an increase.
To say it isn't is either a lie, or math so bad it would make the Journal Sentinel proud. Either way, I won't be voting to increase funding to a school district that is either stupid, a bunch of lying liars, or both.
I hate that.
Here's the deal. In the spring of 2004, the voters agreed via a referendum to raise an extra $6.45 million for the school district for the July 2004-June 2005 fiscal year. That comes to about $33 extra per $100,000 in valuation for your property, or roughly $50-$70 for most district residents. As of July 1, 2005, that referendum expired, so last spring, the school district threw a big enough tantrum (we'll cut sports, we'll hold our breaths until we turn blue, we'll show up at your summer parties and complain!) that voters agreed in June 2005 to renew that tax increase from the year before. This was after the referendum was defeated the first time through in April.
All of which was really annoying. The district asked for the money, the voters said no. So, the district just asked again. What part of No didn't they understand?
But even more annoying, was that the district sent out mailers claiming they weren't increasing our taxes. They were asking for $6.45 million more than the state mandated limits allowed, but it wasn't an increase because it was merely the same amount as last year's increase. So, the amount they asked for hadn't actually gone up. Never mind that the amount we'd be taxed was $33 per $100,000 of valuation more than we'd have to pay if the referendum failed. I will grant you that there was no increase of the increase, but to claim that there was no increase is a lie.
And it worked. The referendum passed-- the second time, after they hit on the idea of billing a continuing increase as not an increase at all.
So, naturally, this year, they decided to try again. The district is asking for a contiuation of the $6.45 million dollar referendum, and they bill it this way:
There will be NO INCREASE in your school taxes as a result of this referendum, since it replaces dollar-for-dollar the expiring June 2005 referendum amount of $6.45 million. [Their emphasis]Which, I'm sorry to say, is a lie. A lie they repeat FOUR times in the flier. As of July 1, 2006, that referendum expires, and my school taxes go back to their base amount-- about $45 less than what I paid in 2005. The NEW referendum asks me to agree to increase my school taxes back up to the 2005 levels.
That's an increase.
To say it isn't is either a lie, or math so bad it would make the Journal Sentinel proud. Either way, I won't be voting to increase funding to a school district that is either stupid, a bunch of lying liars, or both.
Labels: Politics
Comments:
<< Home
Nah. didn't hook me. To be completely cynical, in these days it is pretty much obvious to all but about 29% of the electorate that Government Lies. As a matter of fact, I think even most of that 29% also realize that, they just support the lies.
It's no secret that large segments of suburban residents ALWAYS vote against school referendums. It's why they have to resort to subterfuge to avoid wholesale degradation of the public school systems.
Hooking school improvements up to property taxes maybe used to make sense. But in today's environment, it's a ludicrous way to finance infrastructure.
It would be great if there was someone with the political brass to advance a wholesale change to the financing structure.
But the political structure won't support that kind of proposals, when the Elected are more concerned about being re-elected than the real concerns of their constituents.
Post a Comment
It's no secret that large segments of suburban residents ALWAYS vote against school referendums. It's why they have to resort to subterfuge to avoid wholesale degradation of the public school systems.
Hooking school improvements up to property taxes maybe used to make sense. But in today's environment, it's a ludicrous way to finance infrastructure.
It would be great if there was someone with the political brass to advance a wholesale change to the financing structure.
But the political structure won't support that kind of proposals, when the Elected are more concerned about being re-elected than the real concerns of their constituents.
<< Home