Only Property Tax Payers Need Apply

Tweet

The school referendum debate is a hot issue in Janesville. Some letter writer’s to the Janesville Gazette are completely miffed as to why a resident would vote no. At least a few childless taxpayers have voiced their opposition to the referendum and some have suggested the school taxes be pro-rated based on the number of children a taxpayer has. Those are valid ideas that have fallen on deaf ears in the past, but I do believe quality public schools are everyone’s responsibility and not just the property tax payers. Nobody wants to discuss spreading the financial burden of local schools to all voters, but yet we allow all local voters to cast deciding votes regardless of their equity in property, schools or children.

For many, the school referendum has nothing to do with property values, children or the improvements, but everything to do with burdening the people who are saddled with the bill – the property tax payer. Many senior taxpayers and others on a fixed income cannot afford to raise their own taxes for any reason. While others think those opposed to the school referendum are selfish or don’t get the big picture.

JG Sound Off excerpt:
A caller last Sunday suggested childless people should vote “no” on the referendum. I’ve always thought that childless taxpayers should pay more in school taxes. After all, it is expensive to raise kids and yet it is the responsibility of the community to provide educational opportunities for children. Who do you suppose paid for the caller’s education? - anonymous

What a flaming remark. I suppose anonymous feels that people who don’t have kids should be punished for their circumstances. Yet the callers sarcasm is strong enough to imply some resentment for their own situation, that is, because kids are expensive, perhaps they feel punished for having them. Of course, none of this banter is positive and it just adds fuel to the fires of misunderstanding, but at the same token, some of the thoughts and emotions cannot go ignored.

What if by chance the childless taxpayer was sent to private K12 schools AND the parents paid for public education on their property tax bills as well. Also, are we supposed to be perpetually in debt to our children or vise-versa? Is that how we view children – as debt? On the other hand, saying that educational opportunities for children is the sole responsibility of the community is not quite right either. What is the definition of community? And more specifically, which community are you talking about?

Merriam-Webster’s definition of community:
1. a body of people living in the same place under the same laws; 2. society at large; 3. joint ownership

It becomes apparent that any definition of community you can find will not mention the property tax payer. I know it sounds ridiculous, yet much of rhetoric designed to encourage a “yes” vote talks about community as if to include everyone, but there is no rhetoric or plan to include everyone to pay. Now if the anonymous caller means the property tax paying community, well that’s different and it changes the argument completely by narrowing the paying pool down considerably.

There is no reason why a public school in Biloxi, Mississippi should be better or worse than a public school in Madison, Wisconsin. Of course, my idea of ensuring that “no public school is left behind” would charge the taxpaying community in its widest and purest form, which is the Federal income taxpayer. But those running (Republicans) our Federal government refuse to fund their own mandates or force the taxpayer to jump through a series of hoops in order to benefit from their own taxes. This is just another reason why most people are fed up with our current leadership in Washington and want a change.

Everybody has their own valid reasons to be against this school referendum. Whether it’s the air conditioning issue, the double four court gyms, the plan itself, the $70.8 million price-tag, the school districts seeming arrogance or the juggernaut of them all – higher taxes, there appears to be plenty enough differences against the referendum to actually hinder efforts to form a cohesive opposition group. At the same time it is possible the Janesville School referendum has enough obvious flaws that a formal united front opposing it may be unnecessary.


One of the more interesting ideas comes from Dwight Brass of Fulton Township who has attempted to organize opposition against the referendum. He started an organization called CARE, Citizens Allied for Responsible Education, and it seems to be based on a more objective approach. He believes the Janesville School referendums fundamental plan to the improvements and its relationship to enhancing education are inefficient and flawed. Brass argues that the school board plans are based on opinions and beliefs and not on research and proven methods. He apparently also believes the school board did not look at all options available or alternatives to achieve their goals. I agree.

Another idea shared by other states with some success would propose a referendum giving the voting rights on all specialized spending to only those who are paying the bill. Thus, if schools are solely funded by property taxes, only property taxpayers would be eligible to vote a tax increase, onto themselves. This too, needs consideration.

Voting “no” will not end the quest to improve Janesvilles schools but it may force the school board to reconsider its plan and approach the taxpayer with less belligerence. Any way you look at it, we need to find other sources of funding for public schools. Property taxpayers in Wisconsin want cuts, not increases. And please, spare the guilt trip.