posted by Mike Madison at 7:45 PM /
I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and lived there for many years, and one of my favorite radio news guys was Wes "Scoop" Nisker, who wrote and read "the news you can dance to." Scoop ended every update with this phrase: "If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own."
So while I've been traveling a lot over the last couple of weeks and not blogging here much, Scoop's line kept occurring to me while I read the torrent of comments that poured in recently -- especially regarding the school district's budget, the new pool, and real estate assessments. A few thoughts, and some food for news:
(1) When the real estate tax system in Allegheny County is so bizarre, it's easy to forget just what a bargain Mt. Lebanon in particular and Pittsburgh in general really are. This is a beautiful little town, with extraordinary public amenities. And compared with just about any comparable town anywhere else in the United States -- charming old housing stock, walkable leafy neighborhoods, excellent public school system, accessible if modest commercial areas, close proximity to an urban center with impressive resources -- the price of housing here is just dirt cheap. Sure, there are issues and problems in Mt. Lebanon (anyone catch or kill that dog-stomping deer yet?), but let's keep things in perspective. If you bought a 300k house here recently, you're taxed to death. But if you bought a 300k house in almost any other upscale suburb of almost any other US metro area, you just bought a garage.
(2) I was disappointed that when a neighbor named Dave Franklin popped up in the comments and posted under his own name, he was excoriated by name for the viewpoint that he expressed. I don't agree with everything that Dave wrote, but I do agree with a lot of it. Most important I genuinely appreciate his willingness to sign his own name. Whatever you think is wrong about Mt. Lebanon, anonymous commenting -- however constructive it may be -- will get you absolutely nowhere.
(3) And a lot of the anonymous commenting at BlogLebo these days isn't particularly constructive. I strongly suspect that at least some Commissioners and School Board members and even folks who work for the Municipality read this blog from time to time, but I also strongly suspect that much of the time those folks ignore what's said here. Why? Because a lot of the commenting comes across as anonymous whining. People in power, whether they are politicians or bureaucrats, respond to names and faces. I understand that some folks are afraid that the teachers will take parents' opinions out on their kids (if you can actually prove that this happened to you and your child, then you should report it -- no teachers' contract will protect that teacher from being fired). I understand that some folks are afraid that the Municipality or the county will figure out a way to punish them via the assessment process (hasn't happened to me, and I've been pretty publicly critical of almost anything that you can think of, and I don't even have any local family ties to fall back on). I've said it before: I have no plans to cut off anonymous or pseudonymous comments. But there's a difference between ranting and working for change. When you speak out, decide which approach you want to take.
(4) If you want to be constructive, what can you do? Say, for example, that you're unhappy about the gold-plated pool proposal. Or you think that the Commissioners and the members of the School Board don't coordinate what they think and do. Call them! Write them! Show up! To a person, they all seem to be pretty accessible and responsive, at least in my experience. Or if you don't have the time for that, talk to your neighbors. Make that a topic at your next block party, and gather the facts. Maybe the Commissioners and the School Board don't coordinate, maybe they coordinate more than you know. But perceptions count, too; even if the Commissioners and Board members do coordinate what they do, the fact that some sizable part of the Lebo population thinks otherwise is itself evidence of a real problem. Push that point of view. Start your own blog! Use your real name.
(5) Why oh why are Mt. Lebanon residents so afraid that our real estate market will collapse because people might choose to live in Upper St. Clair instead? I've lived here for nine years. I just don't get it. USC is a pleasant place. I have some good friends who live in USC. But no matter how funky Lebo taxes get, I have zero interest in living there.
(6) And as long as we're talking real estate taxes, there are two real problems in Mt. Lebanon: one is inequity, and two is residential/commercial balance. Most folks focus on the first, that is: I'm assessed at X while my neighbor in a comparable (or larger) house is assessed much lower. That's clearly a problem, though usually the problem is that the neighbor's assessment needs to be raised, not that your assessment needs to be lowered. Not as many people focus on the second, which is that Mt. Lebanon has a relatively small commercial real estate tax base (as well as highly heterogeneous residential housing). Find ways to improve the commercial tax base, and pressure on the residential base gets relieved. (And tax the high-end residential properties at full market value, regardless of how long their owners have lived there.) That, among other reasons, was why I was so disappointed by the decision to go forward with the Washington Park TIF, and why I'm happy that the Kossman development is finally moving forward on Castle Shannon Boulevard.
There. How was Friday's First Friday? Unfortunately, I was out of town.
So while I've been traveling a lot over the last couple of weeks and not blogging here much, Scoop's line kept occurring to me while I read the torrent of comments that poured in recently -- especially regarding the school district's budget, the new pool, and real estate assessments. A few thoughts, and some food for news:
(1) When the real estate tax system in Allegheny County is so bizarre, it's easy to forget just what a bargain Mt. Lebanon in particular and Pittsburgh in general really are. This is a beautiful little town, with extraordinary public amenities. And compared with just about any comparable town anywhere else in the United States -- charming old housing stock, walkable leafy neighborhoods, excellent public school system, accessible if modest commercial areas, close proximity to an urban center with impressive resources -- the price of housing here is just dirt cheap. Sure, there are issues and problems in Mt. Lebanon (anyone catch or kill that dog-stomping deer yet?), but let's keep things in perspective. If you bought a 300k house here recently, you're taxed to death. But if you bought a 300k house in almost any other upscale suburb of almost any other US metro area, you just bought a garage.
(2) I was disappointed that when a neighbor named Dave Franklin popped up in the comments and posted under his own name, he was excoriated by name for the viewpoint that he expressed. I don't agree with everything that Dave wrote, but I do agree with a lot of it. Most important I genuinely appreciate his willingness to sign his own name. Whatever you think is wrong about Mt. Lebanon, anonymous commenting -- however constructive it may be -- will get you absolutely nowhere.
(3) And a lot of the anonymous commenting at BlogLebo these days isn't particularly constructive. I strongly suspect that at least some Commissioners and School Board members and even folks who work for the Municipality read this blog from time to time, but I also strongly suspect that much of the time those folks ignore what's said here. Why? Because a lot of the commenting comes across as anonymous whining. People in power, whether they are politicians or bureaucrats, respond to names and faces. I understand that some folks are afraid that the teachers will take parents' opinions out on their kids (if you can actually prove that this happened to you and your child, then you should report it -- no teachers' contract will protect that teacher from being fired). I understand that some folks are afraid that the Municipality or the county will figure out a way to punish them via the assessment process (hasn't happened to me, and I've been pretty publicly critical of almost anything that you can think of, and I don't even have any local family ties to fall back on). I've said it before: I have no plans to cut off anonymous or pseudonymous comments. But there's a difference between ranting and working for change. When you speak out, decide which approach you want to take.
(4) If you want to be constructive, what can you do? Say, for example, that you're unhappy about the gold-plated pool proposal. Or you think that the Commissioners and the members of the School Board don't coordinate what they think and do. Call them! Write them! Show up! To a person, they all seem to be pretty accessible and responsive, at least in my experience. Or if you don't have the time for that, talk to your neighbors. Make that a topic at your next block party, and gather the facts. Maybe the Commissioners and the School Board don't coordinate, maybe they coordinate more than you know. But perceptions count, too; even if the Commissioners and Board members do coordinate what they do, the fact that some sizable part of the Lebo population thinks otherwise is itself evidence of a real problem. Push that point of view. Start your own blog! Use your real name.
(5) Why oh why are Mt. Lebanon residents so afraid that our real estate market will collapse because people might choose to live in Upper St. Clair instead? I've lived here for nine years. I just don't get it. USC is a pleasant place. I have some good friends who live in USC. But no matter how funky Lebo taxes get, I have zero interest in living there.
(6) And as long as we're talking real estate taxes, there are two real problems in Mt. Lebanon: one is inequity, and two is residential/commercial balance. Most folks focus on the first, that is: I'm assessed at X while my neighbor in a comparable (or larger) house is assessed much lower. That's clearly a problem, though usually the problem is that the neighbor's assessment needs to be raised, not that your assessment needs to be lowered. Not as many people focus on the second, which is that Mt. Lebanon has a relatively small commercial real estate tax base (as well as highly heterogeneous residential housing). Find ways to improve the commercial tax base, and pressure on the residential base gets relieved. (And tax the high-end residential properties at full market value, regardless of how long their owners have lived there.) That, among other reasons, was why I was so disappointed by the decision to go forward with the Washington Park TIF, and why I'm happy that the Kossman development is finally moving forward on Castle Shannon Boulevard.
There. How was Friday's First Friday? Unfortunately, I was out of town.
33 Comments:
Here Here Mike!
A couple of thoughts -
While real estate taxes are funky - it is our system and likely to be here for a while. For a long time I struggled with the idea that a family of 4 in a $100,000 house received the same municipal services as a family of 4 in a $200,000, only at a 50% discount. Often it has nothing to do with ability to pay, only their personal choice of housing. Then I realized - hey - this is an "eyes wide open" decision. When the family bought the $200K house they knew the tax bill that went with it and still bought of their own free will. The free market is a wonderful thing.
While I think the base year is the dumbest thing to come down the pike, it is our system, at least for today. It would have been better to prohibit any increase in tax revenue to taxing bodies from annual reassessments. If they want more revenue let 'em stand up and say so - not just benefit from the revenue enhancements that have come with reassessments in the past. The Municipality used to brag how it had not raised taxes in years - all the while the property tax revenue kept growing and growing.
The idea of the base year is not that assessments should be frozen in time as of 2002 - but that properties should be assessed at their value in 2002. Really hard to do as we get older.
Enough for now.
Unfortunately in todays day and age, you don't know who is on-line reading what you write.
In about 30 seconds, if you write your name instead of anonymous, I have your address, probably your phone number, your tax bill, and possibly more information than that.
Don't think people post anonymous just because they are cowardly.
Also, Blog Lebo is a board of ideas. I don't care if you just want to rip on Lebo, at least we can hear your opinion. Maybe others share that opinion.
I love Blog Lebo for this reason. I once subscribe to the Steelers Digest, and I was sick and tired about hearing how great everything was. At the time, we were 6-10. Really, I just want to hear other opinions, good or bad, as well other ideas on how to improve things.
When I see responses like "Call 2 men and a truck", I just feel it is "Old Lebo" talking, which is a reason why for $300K you can buy a great house here, whereas in any other large city it would be $600K.
But hey, that's just my opinion.
You don't have to put your real name if you don't want to, but I wish people would at least post pseudonymously. I'm pretty sure that there are several anonymous commenters out there who post regularly, but other than "Anonymous Mom of 3", they all just blend together into one big anonymous blur.
Normally when you have a conversation with someone, you build a kind of internal model of the other person's beliefs from the things that they say and this informs your discussion and makes the conversation richer and more productive. But with lots of anonymous commenters, this is impossible, because there's no way of knowing which posts are coming from which people.
My (least) favorite thing is when someone anonymously posts a bunch of controversial facts with no references or data to back it up. Seriously? Why should I believe anything like that? But it happens all the time.
The base year system is best because the old system punished new homeowners by assessing their house at purchase price while assessing another house more than twice the size and twice the value at half of the new homeowners assessment.
Every county in Pennsylvania does this. You just raise taxes based on the assessed value.
Really, a point system would be best. Square footage, housing sales on the street, lot size, # of bathrooms, etc. These things should be what is considered if anything.
The inequities noted by Anon 7:43 existed in 2002 and without politically un-correct appeals - will be frozen in time. How is that fair? What is fair anyway?
I guess the folks that bought a house on 2001 and were reassessed in 2002 to market value just have to suck it up.
If you do your homework you can find a house that is assessed way under market value and save taxes. In fact if you have a choice between two equally acceptable homes that should have comparable market values - say $150,000, but House 1 is assessed at $100,000 and house 2 is assessed at $130,000 you would likely opt for House 1 and save almost $1,000 in property taxes per year. Except - - The owner of House 1 knows the "value" of a low assessment, and prices the house at $162,000.
The market is a wonderful thing and the great equalizer.
Bill, you say the market is a great equalizer, but the person who is over assessed must take less money for their house. I am all for free markets, supply/demand, etc, but the County Government is really unfair to these people.
Not only do these people over pay their taxes, but they have to take less money when they sell their house.
Exactly!
The market corrects for the problem - all the wrong way. My sense is --- it is not that House 2 doesn't get what it is worth - all things being equal both houses should be worth $150,000. But because House 1 has a lower annual tax bill, it can command a premium – because it is “more desirable” than House 2. I guess you could look at it the other way, House 2 is selling at a discount. The inequity is the same.
This is (one of) the great insult(s) of the whole scheme. Not only did the owners of House 1 get years of lower tax bills, they get more $$ for the house when the sell it. It is bad, bad, bad business.
Base Year or not doesn't matter, it is making continual improvements to the relative valuations that does. With Base Year you can get there incrementally - but it takes A) somebody to appeal the valuation and B) a complicated algorithm to get back to 2002, as time passes. Nobody likes “A” and who believes the County can manage “B”.
Reportedly if the County had implemented the last reassessment, property values would have increased 25%. The answer should have been to lower property tax rates 25%. Knowing School Boards and Municipal Governments were not capable of such a responsible action the base year was introduced. What we need is state legislation to make reassessments revenue neutral – period. That would be useful property tax re
I sometimes think that Lebo should re-assess every house themselves(with a value or point system). Lebo knows these streets better than Allegheny County. During this process, they would not be able to receive any more money than they do now.
This way, everyone is treated equally. Right now, if you go the Allegheny County website, in many cases, families are paying twice as much as other families for a house half the size. We are talking $300-$400 more per month (not pennies...)
The inequities is Lebo's biggest problem. Allegheny County's latest reassessment (the one that would have had 25% higher taxes) would have done nothing to fix this, as their previous reassessments never fixed them...the county usually just raised assessments based on overall housing increases...
Lebo knows which streets sell. If a house if assessed at $169K on Longuevue, that is what a plot of land would sell for on that street. Some people's assessments would go down, some will go up. The family on Markham drive spending $9K per year will probably spend $5 to $6K, while the family on Osage that was paying $5K will now pay $9K.....
Mike:
I appreciate your comments. I'm convinced that anonymous posters are simply malcontents who may care just enough to opine on an issue or complain about a problem, but don't care enough to truly try and fix it. Trust me, there is absolutely no expertise or training required to contact your Mt. Lebanon Commissioner, our County Councilman, our School Board or event the Township Manager. I too have found them to be personable, responsive and willing to listen.
I would add that with the exception of the Township Manager, none of the aforementioned individuals are any different from you and me. In other words, they have no special skills, education or expertise that make them more suited to run our community than anyone else. They are salesmen, lawyers, homemakers, financial planners, etc. No one has a masters degree in running a county, a township or a school district. The difference is they care enough about their community or felt strongly enough about getting involved, that they stepped up to serve. The same is true of the near 100 Mt. Lebanon residents who serve on our community's volunteer boards and authorities.
In fact, I think many posters would be surprised to find out how many decisions are made or problems resolved through the efforts of the many non-elected folks in Mt. Lebanon. Everything from traffic, to parking, to the library, to zoning, to our parks, to economic development (and the spending for each) are discussed at the board or authority level, and in most instances well before they are ever discussed at the Commission level. And in most instances, these volunteers have no special skill or expertise, but simply the commitment and desire to serve.
I also agree Mike that our local elected representatives will not be swayed by Anon posters, regardless of the legitimacy of their arguments. This is why we hold public meetings and require residents to appear, state their names and addresses and be heard. Imagine if our elected officials acted solely upon ex parte communications with certain citizens or special interest groups before making a decision? I realize that's an extreme comparison, but I doubt very much that an elected official is going to be moved to act based upon a two or three sentence anonymous blog entry. However, if you send them a personal e-mail, or even post using your real name, I can assure you that you comments will have a greater impact.
Lastly, I'm proud to post under my name. My family has lived in this community for 70 years. We have served the community, and are proud to call it our home. As far as security is concerned, someone intent on causing me (or anyone) problems can walk down any street in Mt. Lebanon, write down the street addresses, and within minutes have the same information that I provide by signing my name. No one truly lives anonymously in a free society. Also, folks who believe that teachers, administrators and commissioners will some how retaliate against them or their children based upon blog posts are either (a) probably going well over the top with their postings, or (b) living in a different community than I am.
Keep up the good work Mike
Veering slightly off-topic:
The rebuke about David Franklin was undeserved - he was not excoriated, but merely challenged in the same vein as he commented. Re-read Mr. Franklin's comments - they have an adversarial edge and posters responded in kind.
And, of course, no one here knows the actions of others. These anonymous posters might express themselves in voluminous letters or emails to their elected officials. Not everyone is effective in person.
**Anonymous Mom of 3**
Valuations being increased by 25% and taxes going down 25% is actually not necessarily a revenue neutral idea. Thanks to a post on another article by Mr Madison regarding proposition 13, I started researching the idea. What you are advocating would be a shift of taxes to a lower income person (the opposite of act 1 in essence).
I still like the idea of being taxed at acquisition value instead of some arbitrary assessed value. There is no guesswork. Also, the prices of homes would go up because the desire to live in a community that has taxes based off of acqusition value would be huge in PA. Additionally, there would most likely be fewer homes on the market (less older folks leaving their homes) creating more demand for those homes that are for sale.
There are a number of articles on what proposition 13 did in California, some positive, some negative. I think the reason that schools have failed in CA has less to do with Prop 13 and more to do with the schools being run by a poorly managed state.
In a nutshell, here would be a possible solution to the tax problems. First, move everyone to a baseline year (kind of like what they tried to do with the 2002 assessment model). Second, assessed value of homes would only change when a house changes hands and the new assessment is equal to the acquisition price of the home (much easier to do instead of sending an assessor to everyone's home).
In this system, tax revenues to the municipality would rarely go down (only in very long, protracted housing depression) and would instead consistently go up even in a down market (a 'reserve' of value is created over the years).
As to the question of fairness...I suppose this is the hardest question answer. I would hope that someone who is buying a house in Mt Lebanon would know going in that this is the tax system. His neighbor may pay $1000 less per year for the same house. But, if both houses were put up for sale, there wouldn't be any premiums paid or discounts given based on what the actual assessment of that house is. It wouldn't matter. This system certainly benefits long-time homeowners but the understanding that your taxes will be more or less fixed if you buy a house here would be quite attractive and different than any other community in PA.
BTW, in case it is not clear, I would be advocating this be done in Mt Lebanon, and not statewide. The County real estate taxes are almost 1/10th of the municipality's so I am not taking that into consideration.
Finally, this is probably my 20th or so post and I never thought of coming up with a pseudonym before. DOH! I, like many others, do post anonymously for a reason but I think someone has taken that pseudonym already!
Thanks again for bringing up this topic of taxes.
Signed,
*CitizenA*
CitizenA, I think the big problem is the neighbor wouldn't be paying $1K less, but could be paying $3K to $5K less for a smaller house (and sometimes more than that!)
It is that bad/unfair.
Lebo would need to go house to house to see the size and take that and compare to others on the street, then compare the streets sale prices to other streets. They could come up with a point system or a value, whatever. But it totally needs redone, it is just way too out of line.
The reason I do not like assessing soley based on sale price is the market fluctuates due to interest rates. Nobody should have to pay more in taxes because of that. Also, let's say you have 2 identical houses both 25 years old. 1 house has the original appliances and the other has all new stainless steel appliances worth $10K. It sells for $10K more than the other. So now the new home owner would have to pay $30 per month more in property taxes forever because of the new appliances, which will probably be replaced in 10 years.
I certainly understand David Franklin’s statement that his rant (May 22, 9:26am) may be the result of his “fundamental frustration with politics generally and in Mt. Lebanon specifically. The more one observes, or participates in local decision making the curiouser it seems.
That said however, I am very unhappy with his characterization of those who do attend the school board and commission meetings as “repeat offenders” and “whiners”. In what way do those who actually attend and speak up at these public meetings offend you Mr. Franklin?
In a later post (May 26), after properly asking the anonymous poster how many school board and commission meetings they have attended, Mr. Franklin then says “these are the proper forums to raise your complaints, concerns, questions and solutions.” So, which is it? You have criticized those who do attend and those who don’t!
Mr. Franklin has also stated that with “few exceptions (he has) no recollection of these folks making a run at elected office or even volunteering to serve” the community, opining that “these traditional Mt. Lebanon whiners NEVER, and (he means) NEVER offer alternatives or constructive solutions to what they perceive to be problems facing our community.” Well Mr. Franklin, your recollections are faulty. Those of us, the “repeat offenders” and “whiners” who do attend these meetings on a regular basis have served on numerous boards and committees and have devoted a great deal of time and effort to improving Mt. Lebanon.
Market prices are affected by things like interest rates, manicured lawns, high-end updates and local government services. No question. But the buyer can factor these into their decision on which house to buy and which Community to live in. On one side are the new appliances, great grass and $100 million dollar high school, on the other is the higher tax bill. It is an "eyes wide open" decision. And -- until the buyer and seller agree, there is no deal.
The thing about taxes is way too much time is spent on the revenue side of the discussion; all the while the expense side grows and grows. In the coming years we face significant millage increase for: a new outdoor pool, the High School Renovation, ever increasing costs of services and something that is not well defined at this point -- the required annual contributions for public employee pensions (this is a whopper that will hit sometime in 2010 or 2011).
Mt. Lebanon School Board = Dedicated individuals working hard to make Mt. Lebanon schools great
Mt. Lebanon Commissioners = Dedicated individuals working hard to make Mt. Lebanon a great place
Mt. Lebanon School Board + Mt.Lebanon Commissioners WORKING TOGETHER = PRICELESS!!
(The inability of these two groups to work together is what made the assessment fiasco even worse!)
I am surprised that no person has already asked the big question. When the School Board and Municipality were raking in all this extra $ from the new homeowners, why did the millage not decrease????
Does anyone know how much $ Mt. Lebanon took in over this 5 year period. If one guy paid an extra $20,000, it has got to be a lot! What was done with this extra $?
Any thoughts?
CitizenA said:
Valuations being increased by 25% and taxes going down 25% is actually not necessarily a revenue neutral idea. Thanks to a post on another article by Mr Madison regarding proposition 13, I started researching the idea. What you are advocating would be a shift of taxes to a lower income person (the opposite of act 1 in essence).
I think this is a response to a comment I made on he school board budget post. I said:
If the county or state wanted to switch to a market-value system, a way to do so that would be relatively fair and would (I think) minimize hassles from the voters would be to require that the municipalities and school districts reduce their millage so that the initial reappraisals are revenue-neutral. Then if they wanted to raise revenue, they'd have to do it the old-fashioned way, by raising the millage and taking their chances with the voters.
However, I never said anything about lowering the millage by the same percentage as the increase in valuations. That would actually decrease revenue. If the average valuation of property goes up by 25%, lowering millage across the board by 20% will keep the township's revenue the same. [I.e. if you multiply the valuation by 5/4 (125%) then you have to multiply the millage by 4/5 (80%). Revenue = Valuation x Tax Rate]
I never said that this would lead to the same change in taxes for every homeowner (only that the sum of the changes would be zero), but I don't see how this is necessarily shifting the tax burden to lower income homeowners. I would guess that there aren't any really gross outliers (e.g. no houses are still assessed at their 1967 valuations, even if they've been continuously owned by the same person since then), so the disparities between different homeowners would likely be relatively small.
I made the statement: "(If) property values would have increased 25%. The answer should have been to lower property tax rates 25%." - - I stand corrected on my math as noted above.
Nevertheless, any increase in the tax base should be revenue neutral; I don't hold the same view if the tax base were to decline. If the tax base goes down, so should spending, or at least get a hard look.
The millage is set each year by taking the total monies required from property taxes and dividing it by the current tax base and the result is the new millage. As far as windfalls, from tax appeals, any new revenue that comes in the current year goes to the general fund and is either spent or goes into the reserves. What should happen in the following year is the new tax base should be put into the previous year's formula used to calculate the previous year's millage to derive a new base millage. Any subsequent increase to that millage is a tax increase. No free lunch.
Ah..
Yet another reason to move to a platform with threaded comments.
Right, Mike? ;-)
The data to which I was refering can be found in a chart on this link: http://www.caltax.org/research/prop13/prop13.htm
It doesn't sound like this idea would get much support here. Over 66% of voters in California voted for this proposition and it has withstood numerous attempts to change it. It would certainly be a paradigm shift. But what would the net difference be when we are already complaing and talking about how much difference there is between assessments on neighboring homes?
Its clear that the current system is broken. What is the law anyway with regards to assessments? How often is you home supposed to be assessed? And by whom? It seems to me that if something as simple as coming up with an assessment schedule was put in place, then maybe some of the inequities go away. Maybe the problem is just that the current system isn't clear and isnt being implemented properly?
I do like the idea of a point system but I also have concerns about it being implemented by government. Some of the best laid plans are easily ruined by government.
Sorry about giving the wrong source on the previous article post. It was Mr. Matthews' idea. Thanks for the clarification.
*CitizenA*
This blog isn't the place to analyze the merits of Prop. 13, but note just a few things. I graduated from high school the year in CA a year after the initiative passed, and I was a politics-obsessed teenager. My parents are Prop. 13 beneficiaries to this day, paying pennies on the dollar in property taxes compared to their next-door neighbors. So this hits a little close to home.
The URL "research" site above is sponsored by an private anti-tax lobbying group. So take their analysis with appropriate salt grains.
The impact of the initiative was only fully felt after about 8-10 years, since it took that long for the lack of annual mark-to-market reasessments to really hit the state treasury. Once the funding effects kicked in fully however, schools started losing programs. Art. Music. Foreign languages. Libraries. Some sports. (My kids elementary school in Oakland had art and music of any sort, and could buy books for its small library, only because of PTA contributions.) Building construction and maintenance mostly stopped. (The revival of capital investment in schools in the late 1990s was unrelated to Prop. 13.) Some of the costs of the initiative are pretty obvious.
The fact that the initiative hasn't been displaced can't be attributed to widespread satisfaction with its core premise (in other words, the problems in CA aren't really mismanagement). The initiative was a product of a populist tax revolt (look up some of the 1976 and 1977 publicity generated by Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann -- Prop. 13 was known popularly as "Jarvis Gann." The authors took advantage of the voters' undifferentiated anger and made the initiative bullet-proof: It was written into the CA Constitution, and the law provided originally that local communities could not override it (with local tax initiatives) except via 2/3 majority -- making any local tax measures essentially unpassable. There were lots of communities with resources that they wanted to commit to the schools, via bond measures or special assessments, but Prop. 13 effectively barred them by law from doing so. (All those seniors with no kids in schools and pre-Prop. 13 property values add up to a sizable voting bloc.) I believe that the 2/3 majority rule has been lessened slightly, but passing local taxes to help your own community remains a huge challenge. In other words, fixing the problems is difficult for structural reasons.
And the fixes that communities have managed to come up with impose costs and inequities of their own. Prop. 13 originated with two problems: one was skyrocketing assessments caused by a hyperactive CA real estate market; the second was gross school funding disparities between wealthy and poor communities. Prop. 13 "fixed" the first, but families paid a serious price in educational services for decades. And in the end Prop. 13 not only has done little to fix the second problem, but may have exacerbated it. Wealthy communities have figured out ways to pay for better schools, but doing so means investing in a non-representative, non-democratic, non-transparent process. The last time I checked into Palo Alto public schools -- and this is a community where the average home value is well over $1mm -- signing your kid up for kindergarten meant signing up for a "voluntary" in-kind contribution to the classroom that was valued at over $300 -- paper, pencils, sand for the sandbox, that sort of thing, because the school district couldn't afford it via tax revenues. In addition to the in-kind contribution, parents were "requested" to make a cash donation to the local education foundation of roughly $500 per child.
The result is that Palo Alto still has fine schools. The school districts in Palo Alto and Mt. Lebanon spend roughly the same amount per child. The difference is that almost all of that money in Mt. Lebanon comes from tax revenues, local and state. A sizable portion of that money in Palo Alto comes via donations to a private foundation (Partners in Education -- take a look at the website at PiE. Also take a look at this BackFence post and discussion, concerning the fairness of the Palo Alto system. These are "voluntary" contributions in Palo Alto -- but believe me, as a former CA public school district parent, there is little that is meaningfully "voluntary" about them.
I'm not defending the PA school funding system or the PA and Allegheny County tax system. I am, however, pointing out that over the course of its life, Prop. 13 has probably generated at least as much inequity as it purported to solve.
Personally, if it were up to me, I would probably abolish residential real estate taxes altogether and ratchet up the sales and income taxes (or use some species of consumption tax), maintaining a baseline income threshold to limit their regressivity.
County Assessment System ruled unconstitutional today . . .
http://www.postgazette.com/pg/07157/791874-100.stm
And the legend grows . . .
This is going to get get real interesting. If Allegheny County appeals, it will get buckets of help from other counties across the state using base year systems and not wanting to change. And if an appeal is successful we will be stuck with a bad system, for bad reasons.
But it is also possible this will wake up the legislature to do something in terms of true property tax reform, rather than have assessment systems state-wide turned on their ear. And if property tax reform is successful - we will be talking about Governor Onorato - for getting done what others could not.
Let's put the assessment ruling on a new blog. This one s too long.
For the record, I live in USC and work in Lebo. We wanted to move here but couldn't find a two-car garage AND a decent kitchen in the same place for our price.
Watched "Over the Hedge" the other day. Had to be about USC. Maybe Peters.
Anyway, Mt. Lebo has things together a heck of lot more than its neighbors to the south. Half million dollar payouts to school officials and silly pool wars notwithstanding.
Still laughing about point # 3 that you made about firing a teacher...
Laughing because it's so naive and misinformed, or laughing because it's so true -- yet the District wouldn't have the nerve to prove it in court?
Mike - Naive and misinformed, in my 45 years' experience in this district. I'm thinking of one particular teacher, whom I believe worked in the Jr. High, who had myriad complaints lodged against him by parents. My memory is fuzzy, as this teacher taught after my time. My sibs remember this man. The kids used to call him something like "Disco Rocky". He made inappropriate sexual remarks to girls and talked extensively about his nightlife. Again, I imagine his file was plump with complaints.
Anyway, he was eventually fired, but only after he was picked up by police in the strip district for impersonating an officer. I believe they found unlicensed weapons in his vehicle. Apparently, those were sufficient grounds for firing. There are other examples, but that's the most egregious one I can muster. The MLEA has power, Mike.
**Anonymous Mom of 3**
The anecdote sounds to me like "the District wouldn't have the nerve to prove it court." From your description, the teacher was abundantly in the wrong, and the contract didn't shield him from being fire. (I am, and was, talking about the law, not the union's muscle.)
Mom of 3 -- He taught in the high school and he was a science teacher back in the 80's when I was in school. My wife, who also went to MLHS, told me about numerous "creepy" things during his tenure there.
Last time I saw him, he was selling cars at the former West Liberty Dodge.
I believe his name was Mr. Pandrock.
Mike,
After watching the school board meeting, do you now understand annonymous blogging?
I've always understood anonymous commenting. I've never agreed that there was a compelling need for anonymity on this blog. And I still don't.
The fear of retribution or retaliation by teachers, assessors, and school administrators is vastly overstated. The fear of retaliation by coaches may be justified, at least if parents are criticizing the coach. In the athletic context, however, feelings run unusually high and judgments by parents are frequently clouded. If I criticize the coach publicly because my kid isn't playing, and then my kid doesn't play, is that retaliation? Or am I as a parent incapable of fairly assessing my own kid's athletic abilities? I've played and I've coached, and I know that parents are rarely impartial when it comes to assessing talent.
In the great majority of cases, anonymous commenting and anonymous complaining have little to zero effect on behavior by public officials. Be anonymous if you want to complain; use your name if you want things to change.
Sure, putting your name with your opinion involves some risk, and no one wants to jeopardize their children. Putting your name with your opinion also involves some courage. Few good things happen in this world, and it is difficult if not impossible to make the world a better place for our children, without courageous people willing to take risks.
Post a Comment
<< Home