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 would be upset if my local school district was spending $26k / student per year too. IMO that's just wasteful, and the mistake made is / was electing people who let it get out of control like that.
However, I just can't agree with your solution. IMO, the main benefit of New Hampshire's system of taxation is that when voters make a bad choice, they feel the pain, have incentive to correct the mistake, and have the ability to actually fix the mistake. Shifting the tax burden off of people who made the mistake of electing these officials removes their incentive to make a better voting choice next time. Having school funding be shifted to state level, rather than local level, removes the ability to actually fix a mistake when it's made.
If the voters in your town won't fix this mistake when they're paying $26k / student, maybe they will when they're paying $46k / student. But they definitely won't if someone else is paying that bill. And, as I said before, if they're aware that much money is being wasted and are ok with it, if it were me, I would move someplace else. I don't want to live in a community that's ok with wasting money like that, and I don't want to spend the rest of my life arguing with my fellow voters about it.
Unfortunately, many of NH's school districts include multiple towns. You can vote any way you want, but unless your town has a majority,not just plurality, of voters in that district, your vote doesn't count for squat.
And moving someplace else isn't an option for a lot of people given the spiraling RE prices now.
Unfortunately, many of NH's school districts include multiple towns. You can vote any way you want, but unless your town has a majority,not just plurality, of voters in that district, your vote doesn't count for squat.
People in other towns have to pay for the schools as well.
IMO, the strength of New Hampshire's tax system is that it makes voters feel the pain of their poor choices, because that's the only thing that will compel them to make better choices in the future. Letting voters avoid the pain of their poor choices undermines the system by removing all incentive to make better choices in the future.
I can empathize with anyone paying outrageous taxes to fund wasteful school spending. $26k / student / year is beyond crazy. But the right thing to do is to use the pain people are feeling to vote in better officials. And if voters simply refuse to do that for whatever reason, I would move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCZ
And moving someplace else isn't an option for a lot of people given the spiraling RE prices now.
There are still places with lower real estate costs. I haven't checked, but I'm willing to bet prices in Colebrook are more reasonable than they are in Portsmouth. And if no place in New Hampshire meets my needs, there are 49 other states to choose from, some of them will.
No matter where one lives, there are trade offs, there is no perfect place. If the town I live in has taxes that are higher than I can afford, and especially if they're just wasting the money they collect in taxes, I'll find a place that's a better match for me and move there. It won't be perfect either, but where one lives is a choice.
IMO, the strength of New Hampshire's tax system is that it makes voters feel the pain of their poor choices, because that's the only thing that will compel them to make better choices in the future. Letting voters avoid the pain of their poor choices undermines the system by removing all incentive to make better choices in the future.
This is exactly what CU is doing: letting landowners who control 70%+ of the property in the state avoid the pain of poor choices by removing all incentive to make better choices.
Telling people to just pickup and move somewhere else is not the answer.
Letting the cost per student per year reach $26K is the result of poor voting choices.
Voters need to be vigilant about town spending and responsible for their choices or bad things will happen. There is no substitute for that. I personally would be opposed to changes in Current Use, or any other law, to "fix" the problem of overspending on schools as you've outlined here. That overspending is a problem that was created by local voters, and it needs to be fixed by local voters.
I have a lot of empathy for people who voted responsibly and ended up being collateral damage. But ultimately, the correct solution is for local voters to fix the problem they created. And if they genuinely don't see what they've done as a problem, I personally would move.
Letting the cost per student per year reach $26K is the result of poor voting choices.
Voters need to be vigilant about town spending and responsible for their choices or bad things will happen. There is no substitute for that. I personally would be opposed to changes in Current Use, or any other law, to "fix" the problem of overspending on schools as you've outlined here. That overspending is a problem that was created by local voters, and it needs to be fixed by local voters.
I have a lot of empathy for people who voted responsibly and ended up being collateral damage. But ultimately, the correct solution is for local voters to fix the problem they created. And if they genuinely don't see what they've done as a problem, I personally would move.
^^^^^^that times 1000!!! Ultimately the people voted for this. Stop the spending insanity!
Letting the cost per student per year reach $26K is the result of poor voting choices.
Voters need to be vigilant about town spending and responsible for their choices or bad things will happen. There is no substitute for that. I personally would be opposed to changes in Current Use, or any other law, to "fix" the problem of overspending on schools as you've outlined here. That overspending is a problem that was created by local voters, and it needs to be fixed by local voters.
I have a lot of empathy for people who voted responsibly and ended up being collateral damage. But ultimately, the correct solution is for local voters to fix the problem they created. And if they genuinely don't see what they've done as a problem, I personally would move.
Do you live in NH? Just curious - because based on your "poor voting choices" comment, you don't seem to understand how the school systems are made up and how education costs are apportioned to towns. If you do live in NH - what are your towns cost per student?
Salaries and benefits are 77% of total expenditure, so that's where most would have to come from. Either lower salaries or (more likely) eliminate administrative positions. Debt service is insignificant, so the district isn't paying for new buildings, etc., unless it's been buried in some obscure way.
Just this year alone the budget has been increased $600k to pay for this:
6 additional para positions additional positions for universal preschool
1 additional elementary school counselor
2 middle school support counselors
1 special education teacher
NOTE - 10 positions are being added this year: 1 teacher, 9 overhead. This is where your tax dollars are going. There's no limit to the number of things that would be nice to have, the only limit is how much people are willing to spend.
Maybe it isn't poor voting choices, maybe this is just what the people in your district want. Either way, it costs the same.
As I said, I have a lot of empathy for anyone who ends up being collateral damage in this kind of spending. But realistically there are only so many possibilities: 1) people don't know what's going on, but would change it if they did, 2) people know what's going, but aren't willing to change despite being unhappy about it, 3) people know what's going on, and it's what they want. Unless it's the first one, if it were me, I would move.
Good luck, I do genuinely feel bad for you (and everyone else) who's caught up in this. But to me, this is simply a problem of overspending, and the only way to fix overspending is to spend less. Anything else will just make it worse later on, because you can always find more nice to have things to spend money on, and the people in the district have proven they're willing and able to spend this much through property taxes. Offload those taxes from them, and the spending driven taxes will just rise right back up to where they are now and keep going until voters say "stop."
A lot of positions are necessary to run state-mandated programs like special ed and now for "COVID therapy." You can't just cut them.
Exactly. State and Federal mandated programs.
Quote:
Debt service is insignificant, so the district isn't paying for new buildings, etc., unless it's been buried in some obscure way.
Exactly. The district has excess capacity to absorb new students - many districts have. So the argument of paying people so the don't develop their land doesn't carry the weight it once did since the investment in school infrastructure has already been paid.
I completely understand the point you are trying to make about reducing costs -- and it sounds good on paper - but in practice it is considerably more difficult and challenging that you make it out to be.
Last edited by illtaketwoplease; 05-10-2021 at 08:11 AM..
A lot of positions are necessary to run state-mandated programs like special ed and now for "COVID therapy." You can't just cut them.
The average in NH is $15K / student, this district is spending >$20K / student. That isn't a function of mandated programs, it's a function of local spending decisions. Based on the additions to this year's budget it appears to be a function of adding administrative overhead (which is a common problem among schools).
Voters would get a 25% reduction in their school taxes if the district brought its spending down to the state average. And with no debt to service that should be possible (eventually they will have debt to replace old buildings - look out when that happens).
Did you see the "universal preschool" item? I sent my kids to private preschool, I know how crazy expensive that is. If the voters in this district want that to be shared public expense they can do that. I'm not going to say they're wrong, if it's what they want it's what they want. But it is an expensive nice to have item, and it's things like that that are driving the spending.
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.
