Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know I am probably being trolled at this point, but I will keep playing alone. For the millionth time, consolidation, in and of itself, will not lead to meaningful tax savings (at least as far as suburban districts are concerned - I am less informed about rural district, so I won't speak to those).
I don't care to answer your question "[w]hat do you suggest in regards to lowering property taxes?" because I don't need then to be lowered. This is your quest, not mine. My singular point is that consolidating districts won't accomplish it. If you want to significantly lower school property taxes where you live, than you and other like minded people need to grow a back bone and elect people to the school board who will tell the teachers to go screw, and commit your district to non-tenured, low-credentialed, high-turnover, low pay teachers. Make a commitment to significantly lower funded schools. The only way to spend less money on schools is to spend less money on schools. You don't need to consolidate to do this.
Your lack of reading comprehension is appalling. Stop being so quick to pile up your post count and take some time to read what you are responding to. The so-called "bad" districts are not bad because of a lack of money. That was my statement. This is not the same thing as saying that "money has nothing to do with it", or that money is irrelevant. Substantial money is necessary to having a strong school district. But a district will not be strong with money alone. Tons of money plus bad families = bad districts.
Stop...This about a discussion, which you started. I’m not into trolling or any of the nonsense you think you know about me. This doesn’t have anything to do with my situation or your feelings, but we have to be honest about the property tax complaints that have been mentioned within much of the NY forum.
This is about a serious discussion about alternative options. If you don’t want to have a discussion or answer the questions, then say so without getting personal.
Of course to lower costs you just spend less. Perhaps, what I’m getting at is how do we do that efficiently. You don’t have to reply, but I’m just throwing the questions out there for those that may have an issue with school spending.
To jpdivola, that is why I mentioned facility sharing as an option. That could mean buildings, sharing athletic facilities, certain programs, transportation systems, etc. This discussion is more than just superintendents and “that’s it”.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 06-06-2019 at 12:59 PM..
Stop...This about a discussion, which you started. I’m not into trolling or any of the nonsense you think you know about me. This doesn’t have anything to do with my situation or your feelings, but we have to be honest about the property tax complaints that have been mentioned within much of the NY forum.
This is about a serious discussion about alternative options. If you don’t want to have a discussion or answer the questions, then say so without getting personal.
Of course to lower costs you just spend less. Perhaps, what I’m getting at is how do we do that efficiently. You don’t have to reply, but I’m just throwing the questions out there for those that may have an issue with school spending.
To jpdivola, that is why I mentioned facility sharing as an option. That could mean buildings, sharing athletic facilities, certain programs, transportation systems, etc. This discussion is more than just superintendents and “that’s it”.
I started this discussion?? What color is the sky in your world?
If you want to have a serious discussion, than you need to be intellectually honest when doing so. You can't ask others to be honest without being honest yourself.
So again, explain how consolidating school districts will lead to meaningful school tax reductions. If you wish to live up to your claim of "honesty", than just admit that consolidation is not the answer.
And since you may have shifted to "facility sharing" or "collaboration", that is not the answer either. Facilities and properties already exist. Sharing them will not achieve meaningful tax savings.
I started this discussion?? What color is the sky in your world?
If you want to have a serious discussion, than you need to be intellectually honest when doing so. You can't ask others to be honest without being honest yourself.
So again, explain how consolidating school districts will lead to meaningful school tax reductions. If you wish to live up to your claim of "honesty", than just admit that consolidation is not the answer.
And since you may have shifted to "facility sharing" or "collaboration", that is not the answer either. Facilities and properties already exist. Sharing them will not achieve meaningful tax savings.
So basically, it is getting rid of teachers or cutting their salary or nothing else. Got it.
It isn't about a shift, but a combination of things, which can be viewed under the umbrella of consolidation. Meaning, less administration, sharing facilities and other forms of collaboration.
So basically, it is getting rid of teachers or cutting their salary or nothing else. Got it.
Uh, no. Go back to post 49 on this thread. Another possible way is to revamp HOW schools are funded - have them funded by the state and not by local property taxes. I am not espousing this - I am just saying its another way - and said so before.
But to be blunt, you need to significantly lower overall employee compensation (of which teachers is by the far the biggest piece) or use a funding model that relies on sources other than local property taxes. Its either one or the other (or both) - otherwise school property taxes will remain more or less the same.
No, those that live within their "district" within the zone can stay put where they are, but open enrollment just opens up things up for those that want to go to another school within the zone. Forced bussing is not a part of the deal, either way.
If anything, this breaks down the economic discrimination, while looking to lower property taxes and increase educational opportunity with minimal transportation(not going across the county). Think about as to why Southern school districts went to county school districts, but keeping in mind the cons to some of the systems in terms of long bus rides across the county for "balance" reasons. Again, it isn't perfect and will need to be adjusted, but it can be viable.
I don't see it.
District "A" is desireable.
District "B" is undesirable.
Those in B want to go to A. No one wants to go to B. Where does the extra room in A come from? How do those seats open up? What happens to B when 50%, 60% or 70% of the population requests transfer to another school?
A is now over-capacity and B has empty space.
I realize your concept does not have forced bussing. But you fail to realize this is NY. We are about to give driver licenses to illegals. There is no way the powers that be will let those "evil rich folks" place impediments to the "poor disadvantaged" attending their "better" schools. They will also spin it to have a racial bias component. You will likely see civil rights discrimination law suits to implement forced bussing schemes. If the whites in school A are outperforming the non-whites in school B, then you are a racist if you don't allow ALL the non-whites in B to attend A.
Also remember that, outside of NYC, there is no viable mass transit in most of NYS. It is impossible to travel to school via mass transit on Long Island and the Catskills. Are the suburbs or rural areas north and west any different?
Regardless, I don't see how this has any connection to savings. Same amount of students/teachers/buildings/etc. The only difference is a more complicated system of who wants to go to what school and how they are getting there. Such a scheme would only increase the administrative costs.
Just draw a circle around the school. You live at an address in that radius, you go to that school. Just like now - you live at an address in the district borders, you go to that school. Want to do to a different school, move. Anything more complicated ends up costing money, with or without consolidation.
Uh, no. Go back to post 49 on this thread. Another possible way is to revamp HOW schools are funded - have them funded by the state and not by local property taxes. I am not espousing this - I am just saying its another way - and said so before.
But to be blunt, you need to significantly lower overall employee compensation (of which teachers is by the far the biggest piece) or use a funding model that relies on sources other than local property taxes. Its either one or the other (or both) - otherwise school property taxes will remain more or less the same.
Ok, now let's talk about a pay and funding cap then. I did mention the thought of a pay and funding cap, which in a sense would have to go hand and hand with funding.
I will say that the state when consolidation does take place, it actually increases funding to said district and then it decreases to zero after I believe 15 years.
Even if we take out the consolidation piece, there will likely be some things cut. Whether that is a building or two, certain programs, etc.
Then again, perhaps this is where consolidation with open enrollment could come back into play, as you could have say a certain program(this includes sports) at another nearby school that your current school doesn't offer anymore.
If staying pat with lower funding, then we can just say tough and move into that district as well.
So, I'm wondering if funding is reduced or capped, while leaving things as is, do we just bring about another set of issues.
But to be blunt, you need to significantly lower overall employee compensation (of which teachers is by the far the biggest piece) or use a funding model that relies on sources other than local property taxes. Its either one or the other (or both) - otherwise school property taxes will remain more or less the same.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
I would only question the state funding option. Yes, that is another way to fund the schools. However, the state gets that money from the same place... us. If the town/county doesn't squeeze us for school taxes, the state will squeeze us for the same. It doesn't lower cost, it only collects the same money under a different name.
It's all about the compensation packages. The only way to reduce the tax is to reduce the spending which means reduce the compensation packages. The unions own Albany, so that will never happen. Which leaves us arguing over pie-in-the-sky ideas like those proposed here.
I would only question the state funding option. Yes, that is another way to fund the schools. However, the state gets that money from the same place... us. If the town/county doesn't squeeze us for school taxes, the state will squeeze us for the same. It doesn't lower cost, it only collects the same money under a different name.
It's all about the compensation packages. The only way to reduce the tax is to reduce the spending which means reduce the compensation packages. The unions own Albany, so that will never happen. Which leaves us arguing over pie-in-the-sky ideas like those proposed here.
Why so, when it has occurred on a smaller level in recent years in parts of the state?
From the article: Districts side by side can have very different populations, demographics, property taxes and economics. Merging school districts is likely to prompt opposition, while sharing some services could save everyone money.
“In Long Island, the elephant in the room, I have to say it, is if you’re going to tell Garden City they’re going to be consolidated with Hempstead, consolidate Roosevelt with Merrick,” he said. “Tell folks in Half Hollow Hills, you’ll be with Wyandanch and, what’s going to happen? People will say, ‘What do you mean?’”
Ironically, this is something I considered in terms of the open enrollment and particular program aspects, while looking at things in terms of administration and other aspects.
Why so, when it has occurred on a smaller level in recent years in parts of the state?
You answered your own question... "on a smaller level."
Consolidation, merging, sharing services... it can ALL work in specific circumstances. What you are proposing is a one-size-fits-all, county-wide system.
As I have pointed out in the past, studies show that consolidation can work for districts with less than 1400-1500 students. After that, there are no tangible benefits. Look at your elephant in the room (Long Island). A small handful of districts meet that criteria. The vast majority would, according to the experts, see no benefit from consolidation. So how exactly do their taxes go down?
Your links: https://www.suncommunitynews.com/art...ublic-hearing/
I'm not sure how that relates to the discussion at hand.
Headline reads:
No-frills spending plan accommodates $561,000 increase in health insurance costs
That would seem to contradict your point. Compensation/benefits packages are where the problem lies. That is spent primarily on teachers.
I never claimed consolidation is impossible, just not always an effective way of saving money. The link makes no claim of lowering costs or school taxes. The merger was approved six years ago. How much has it lowered the residents tax bill? How much lower is the school budget of the combined district vs. the two independent ones?
On Tuesday, May 21, Ilion-Mohawk Central School District residents will vote on the new district’s proposed $44,125,000 budget for the 2013-14 school year. The proposal increases spending 4.9 percent or $2,062,390 compared to the combined budgets of the former Ilion and Mohawk school districts.
Seems the combined districts didn't save any money - cost went up almost 5% in one year. Current budget is over $45million, so the lack of savings continues. For any $1 that someone's taxes decreased, someone else was paying $1.05 more. Total enrollment K-12 of the _combined_ district is under 600, so according to the studies, this situation was ripe for big savings. I can only imagine what a financial disaster a large-scale, county-wide merger would be.
Some reading shows there were other reasons and benefits for that consolidation. I can't speak to that. Apparently the voters saw a benefit, so more power to them. Again, the conversation here is about savings. Your example supports the opposite.
But they are not based on towns. If there were, the landscape and housing market would look much different. Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with cost. The rasicm argument is a red herring. Years ago, it had some merit. Today, nothing is stopping anyone from buying in any neighborhood.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
