The School Districts across Pennsylvania are speaking, but our esteemed Governor still does not appear to be listening. Here are the numbers folks courtesy of the PA School Boards Association (www.psba.org): 96 or 19% of the State's 501 School Districts have voted to participate in the Act 72 program. However 318 Districts or 63% have voted to opt-out of participation. Well that accounts for 414 or 82% of the School Districts in the Commonwealth, but 87 or 18% have yet to weigh in, and a May 31, 2005 deadline is looming.
These figures, by the way are as of 5/27/2005. A board member for the School District of Lancaster said it this way, and I concur: "We all want property tax relief, but this is not the way to do it." Look at the numbers and draw your own conclusions.
May 28, 2005
ARE YOU LISTENING MR. RENDELL???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Dave, I'm not sure I understand why you are against slots. If the peole of PA want to gamble and will go to NJ or NV to do so anyway why shouldn't we use that revenue to lower taxes. I agree that gambling is an addication but so is alcoholism, smoking, pot, etc. We are fine with taxing the crap out of that. Would you feel better about it if this program had been attached to a lottery?
Simply put NO! I do not believe that any form of tax reform should have to depend on the uncertainty of gambling. What if this "slots for education" program does not produce the amount of revenue the Governor and proponents in the Legislature claim it will generate?
Secondly, there simply has to be a better way to enact "true" property tax reform without attaching it to such an incidious piece of legislation.
The facts are clear that the folks who can least afford to gamble will be the one's that will be going to the tracks and playing the slots. How many jobs have to be lost-How many homes have to be destroyed--marriages broken up, etc., before we realize that this is a BAD idea for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? Besides, people will still go to NJ & NV, so that argument does not hold water.
OK - well here's my problem. I am forced to pay $2100 a year in property taxes which go 100% to a school district which regular teaches agendas I am completely against. Because of these teachings I pay over $3500 a year to send my children to a private school of which I can deduct zero(0) on my taxes. Every year these school officials cry poverty for some reason or another (we need a new stadium..the one we have doesn't have pretty padding on the seats) and ups my percentage without giving me the right to do anything about it!
What are my options? Not pay my taxes I guess and then they take my home from me. This is nothing short of extortion and the first possible remedy that comes along in over 30 years and they vote it down because they will be limited on how much they can raise taxes without voter approval! -
People gamble, they did 100 years ago, they will in 100 years from now - and they'll do it with or without slots in PA - My opinion is - use it for something worthwhile instead of lining Rendell's pockets!
I hear what you're saying PA, and suprisingly I do not disagree with anything you said. My problem with this whole concept of tying property tax reform to the slot machines, is if the "program" does not produce the revenues the Administration is claiming it will generate, the taxpayers will get hosed in the end anyway, in that they will not see any appreciable relief in their property taxes, and in some cases there may even be an increase in the amount the taxpayer will be forced to pay. I am convinced that there has to be a way to enact "true" property tax reform without having to rely on the unpredictable performance of the slot machines. At any rate, this whole subject may be moot should the State Supreme Court rules that ACT 71, which is the Slots Bill, is unconstitutional.
Actually to the contrary DB, Once a district buys in to the slots program they cannot raise taxes more than the rate of inflation without referendum, which I will venture to say will make them extremely frugal with their budgets!
Point taken, PA-hadn't thought about that. The referendum point is most excellent, as this will give the resident/taxpayer a voice in the "operation" of this program. I wonder if they will actually use it however? You know how complacient some folks can be. Perhaps they will realize that this has the potential for making their local School Board i.e., local taxing authority more responsive they'll understand, although I am somewhat skeptical on that score.
Well unfortunately those who did not vote to accept to participate in Act 72 do not have restriction of the referendum and most have already raised their tax rates by 7, 9, and up to 11 percent in response to the "Manditory participation" effort.
This was all planned anyway - Fast Eddie knew that the majority of school districts wouldn't give up their perview to increase tax revenue and now that only 20 percent or so have accepted the slots money - where do you think the profits will head? (You take a look at Eddie's wasteline lately big pockets in those pants)
I think it is a foregone conclusion where the money is going to go, but I have to wonder if the School Boards were worried more about the implications of taking the "slots" money rather than losing their taxing authority? There is just something rather incidious in linking property tax reform the such an unpredictiable process, that likely will do more harm to the Commonwealth that it will good. And yes I have seen Rendell's waistline-must be too many Governer Rendell Burgers at the Spot Restaurant in Harrisburg (and let's not forget their famous hot dogs too).
Besides, the word MANDATORY has always been a very difficult word for me to handle. It takes away an individual's choice and forces something on them they do not want. This is not conducive to good and responsive government. If you think the School Boards resisted Act 72 when they had a chance to vote on it, just wait until they hear that they may not have any choice in the matter. Maybe they'll get mad enough and send Fast Eddie back to Philadelphia next year, as A PRIVATE CITIZEN!!!
I agree with you on the manditory thing however we are not talking about individual choice since we have none when a school district decides to raise taxes anyway. I would much rather "FORCE" the district to come back to the taxpayers for authority to act instead of having us "FORCED" to abide by their decision. ... On other note.. can you tell me when your school officials are up for re-election? I can't find one thing on the schedule of elections for mine...
Not at present, but I can try to find out and get back to you.
Actually DB - I was (failing badly) to make a point that I don't know of when or if these election schedules are ever posted and if so they keep the filing deadlines a secret to anyone outside their inner circle (to turn a phrase from Meet the parents :))
I think I see what you are getting at PA. Perhaps we need a local "Deep Throat?" (Please excuse the Watergate humor!)
Just a thought PA, wouldn't you think it would be a bit strange if the election schedule for the School Boards were not posted, since all other elections schedules are public record? Your thoughts!
I do indeed think it strange - but however strange I have still not found a listing of the schedule of open elections for public school districts. I'm not thinking conspiracy - just incompetence and lack of follow-through
Incompetence says it all!!
Post a Comment