There doesn't seem to be any perfect solution for the funding woes of the Orange County Schools. Is a special district tax “unfair and divisive� Is it an unnecessary burden on farmers?
IMHO, supporting the district tax referendum is an important opportunity to send our county commissioners a message that Orange County School District residents want more funding for our schools. However, I haven't been willing to say that it's the "best" solution for increasing funding.
After the discussion at last week's referendum information forum, I was left wondering: What if $0.10 in additional funding is the right amount?
I think the majority of Orange County Schools residents support increased funding for our schools. Most are even willing to pay a little more than what they do now. But, I don't think most residents are willing to pay a tax rate of over $1.00. To achieve equity with Chapel Hill, that's what would be required.
If we're not going to have funding equity or merger, what is the right balance between increased funding and increased taxes? If the district received the maximum increase allowable through the district tax, it would generate about $4.27 million. That's an increase in funding of more than 20% over this year's county allocation. It would also narrow the county's funding gap between OCS and CHCCS by about 50%.
Public policy is the art of finding pragmatic solutions to complex problems. What if $0.10 is the pragmatic solution?
Issues:
Comments
I seem to recall that the
I seem to recall that the General Assembly in a previous incarnation would not allow the issue of a lottery to come to a popular vote for precisely the reason you say Gerry---the Assembly was opposed to the lottery, but it was widely assumed that a popular vote would overwhelmingly approve a lottery.
gerryc If what you say is
gerryc
If what you say is true, wouldn't it have been smarter for the governor and the GA to get it on the ballot instead of slipping it through..
If the lottery is such a great idea why were kinnaird, Insko and initially hackney all against it?
I'm confused - if the people will endorse what you want, why not let them endorse it?
I thought the religious right and the liberal left would both be opposed to the lottery.. aren't these the groups most likely to vote?
gerryc - as far as "levying"
gerryc -
as far as "levying" versus "abolishing" - yes any 3 commissioners could stop levying the tax at any time - but they could change their mind the next budget year and re-levy it or lose in the next election and the next commissioners could relevy it. It is only if it is voted out that it can be permanently removed...
there have been a long
there have been a long string of legal arguments about whether the General Assembly has the constitutional authority to place an issue on the ballot if it is not specifically authorized by the constitution (such as constitutional amendment and bond issues where the constitution requires a referendum). Remember we are a republic, not a democracy, and the courts have struck down in most states attempts by the legislature to place simple legislation on the ballot (on the basis that the constitutional convention ceded the legislative power from the people to the elected representatives. Remember that the founding fathers (sorry, no mothers had the vote back then) feared direct democracy.
Lottery opponents threatened lawsuits against placing it on the ballot.
JB, Polls were pretty clear
JB,
Polls were pretty clear about public lottery support. But I don't think any of the legislature's lottery opponents faced potential electoral defeat on the issue of the lottery. They were merely principled!
That Easley & Sen. Basnight slipped the lottery through with at least a modicum of shenanigans had nothing to do with public opinion. They knew they didn't have a majority in the Senate. So they extended the session at the last moment, because they knew two opponent senators would be absent -- one on his honeymoon, and the other recovering from surgery. Either of those two dudes could have invoked rules to postpone the vote's timing, but they chose inaction (seems they both were informed).
Get this -- I'm actually going to relate this to the question of Orange County schools merger!
From what I understand, the lottery bill was also very specific about lottery expenditures, or at least some of them. Namely, the proceeds are to go for schools construction in counties with the highest property tax rates.
Those really poor rural counties? They actually have some of the highest tax rates, because there is so little value to tax. That's why Chapel Hill & Carrboro no longer top the highest cumulative property tax scales in the state. (We're still up there, don't worry!)
This means that lottery proceeds will go at least in part to construct schools in areas with stagnant or decreasing student populations. Uh-huh. Unnecessary public works, cha-ching. (Sold to the locals as public-ish employment. There are better ways.) I wonder who'll be donating to state Democratic candidates .... Or how long until the Republicans base their "Contract with North Carolina" on this kind of stuff. (Don't blame me. Basnight scripted it.)
Back to Orange County. If I am correct, shifting the CHCSS district tax onto the county tax rate would actually raise the County's construction proceeds from the lottery. (By how much, I don't know. Before Liz Brown & Co. start throwing that around, let's get a close estimate.)
Of course, we all know that lottery-proceeds-for-schools is an accounting shell game.
Pages