posted by Tom Moertel at 8:51 AM /
On his blog, Commissioner Dan Miller writes about a topic that's hot in Mt. Lebanon these days: looming public expenses and how to pay for them. He writes, "If we continue borrowing money to pay for reconstructing our streets (like we did in 2009), we could run up public debt by $18 to $36 million in principle alone over the next 20 years. To say nothing of the interest payments. Just to take care of our streets."
To help our municipality kick the habit of borrowing for predictable expenses, Commissioner Miller proposed a pay-as-you-go ordinance for street reconstruction:
Commissioner Miller's entire post is informative; do read it: Irresponsible Debt and the Public Credit Card. (One interesting tangential statistic caught my eye: the total per capita cost for all municipal services in 2009 was $690 – about $58 a month.)
What do you think? Is annual street reconstruction something that ought to be anticipated in the budget, or is it okay to pay for it with borrowed money?
To help our municipality kick the habit of borrowing for predictable expenses, Commissioner Miller proposed a pay-as-you-go ordinance for street reconstruction:
Mt. Lebanon has a longstanding policy of implementing an annual street reconstruction program with a goal of rebuilding approximately one mile of our paved streets every year. This program has largely been funded over the last decade by the issuing of debt in the form of Municipal bonds that are payable over twenty years and accrue interest. While it is integral to the Municipality to have an annual street reconstruction program, it is also integral to the taxpayers that such annual, reoccurring expenses be appropriately lodged in its general fund accounting so that the true cost of government is more accountable and transparent to our residents.This ordinance was introduced at the last Commission meeting. It is scheduled for a public hearing and possible vote on Monday, 23 August, 2010. If you have something to say about the proposed ordinance, be at Monday's meeting.
Commissioner Miller's entire post is informative; do read it: Irresponsible Debt and the Public Credit Card. (One interesting tangential statistic caught my eye: the total per capita cost for all municipal services in 2009 was $690 – about $58 a month.)
What do you think? Is annual street reconstruction something that ought to be anticipated in the budget, or is it okay to pay for it with borrowed money?
Labels: bond issue, Dan Miller, proposed ordinance, street reconstruction
27 Comments:
Borrowing money for recurring expenses is bad business.
In this case, if we borrowed $1.8MM per year for streets -- the increase in debt service each year would be about $138,000.
That's cumulative annual debt service of $138,000 in year one, $276,000 in year two, $414,000 in year three, until it is about $2,760,000 in year twenty.
After that, it never goes down because we contuinued to borow and borrow and borrow and borrow and ...
In a few short years, as shown in this chart, our debt service far exceeds the annual street budget because of the associated interest expense and issuance costs.
The analysis above assuming interest rates of 4.5% for all debt.
HOME REPAIRS NEEDED FROM THE MT LEBANON WEBSITE
http://info.mtlebanon.org/activeviolations/
If your neighbors don’t have money to maintain their own property how do they buy turf, pools and schools?
SIDEWALKS MUST BE FREE OF OBSTRUCTIONS INCLUDING HEDGES. OWNER MUST CUT AND MAINTAIN.- CITATION ISSUED
RAISE THE TURF, POOL, AND SCHOOL FUNDS FROM VOLUNTARY GIFTS! ! !
REPLACE MISSING MORTAR . . . RESECURE SPOT LIGHT WIRING REAR PORCH. - CITATION ISSUED
REMOVE ALL MISC. DEBRIS, TIRE RIMS, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ETC. - CITATION ISSUED
PRIME & PAINT ALL EXTERIOR WOOD ON DWELLING. CITATION ISSUED
REMOVE ALL PILES OF DEBRIS, GARBAGE & CANS FROM REAR YARD AREA
NO VEHICLE OF ANY KIND OR TYPE WITHOUT CURRENT LICENSE PLATES SHALL BE STORED ON PROPERTY OTHER THAN COMPLETELY ENCLOSED BUILDING. - CITATION ISSUED
EVERY CHIMNEY SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A STRUCTURALLY SAFE AND IN SOUND CONDITION. REPLACE MISSING BRICK AND OR MORTAR JOINTS. - CITATION ISSUED
REPAIR SEWAGE LINE IN DRIVEWAY - CITATION ISSUED
RAIN CONDUCTORS ARE CONNECTED TO THE SANITARY SEWER. - CITATION ISSUED
HOLES, BREAKS LOOSE OR ROTTING MATERIALS AND SHALL BE KEPT IN GOOD REPAIR. POINT BRICKS ON EXTERIOR OF DWELLING. - CITATION ISSUED
REPAIR/REPLACE MISSING SCREENS SIDE ROOM -CITATION ISSUED
SIDE DOOR IS UNSAFE AND MUST BE EITHER REMOVED OR MADE SAFE AND SECURE BY INSTALLING STEPS OR GUARD. - CITATION ISSUED
REPAIR SIDING THAT IS PULLING AWAY FROM SIDE OF HOUSE. SEE ATTACHED FOR SHEET - CITATION ISSUED
John Ewing is completely correct.
I think that Dan Miller has been an outstanding Mt Lebanon Commissioner.
I'd like to see a measurement of the proportion of Mt Lebanon streets that are rated as substandard and in need of replacement, AND the financial obligation of the municipality in the years ahead. All residents should consider this important municipal obligation before considering the "feel good" water parks, tennis courts, recreational centers, etc. Our community needs to get our priorities in order.
If Dan wants to run again for commissioner, I'd volunteer to campaign for him door-to-door.
In fact, having watched his tremendous work with the municipality, I'd like to see all of us encourage him to seek election as a Mt Lebanon School Director where he could join James Fraasch as a voice of fiscal responsibility.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on Mr. Fraasch's August 9, 2010, "Higher Education Bubble" [ http://lebosbupdates.blogspot.com/ ] The issue isn't whether or not to seek higher education Mr. Fraasch, the issue is who is going to pay for it. I have six college degrees and eight professional certifications all of which came at a tremendous personal cost - and I have absolutely no regrets!
If we are going to spend this money I would rather see my taxes go up than my (share of the) debt. If we don't spend the money, that's fine too.
My problem is with people who run for election on a tax reduction platform but simply borrow the money instead. That's the same short-term thinking that got our economy in such a mess. We can run our own house better than that.
Dan Miller can certainly speak for himself, but I don't read his piece as suggesting that our community shouldn't invest in what Mr. Kendrick calls "feel good items" or what Mr. Ewing suggests should be paid for exclusively with private donations.
To the contrary, Dan is opposed to borowing money for basic infrastructure items like roads. I agree wholeheartedly. If some level of street repair work isn't included in the annual operating budget then what's the point of collecting taxes? Even further, Dan's piece suggests that we already have sufficient funds - from current tax dollars - to cover this street work each year! That's right, there's no need to even borrow it.
Importantly, Dan also suggests that our community should also consider non-infrastructure capital improvements like recreational facilities, and it is these items that are more suited for borrowing. I don't read his piece as suggesting that we let our recreational facilities sit in disrepair until all of our streets are fixed. Nor does he suggest that we should not invest in new facilities until all of our sewer lines are rebuilt. To the contrary, Dan states that "such sound investments in our town like a parking garage, a well-tailored swimming pool, or an athletic field should be where the debt debate is." If there are residents who believe that we should never do these things, that's fine. I'm simply more optimistic that our elected officials will make an effort to improve these facilities.
Lastly, Mr. Ewing suggests that people who do not spend money on their own homes should not be "entitled" to ask the municipality to turf fields or build pools. I don't condone folks who violate our ordinances, but I also believe that if you pay your taxes and vote, you have every right to lobby your elected officials on how those funds will be spent. In fact, some of these folks may even lobby for lower taxes so that they in turn can invest their savings into home improvements. Who knows . . . .
So where does the spending end? The turf field? Should we build a water park? What about miniature golf? If the municipality is going to provide us with a water park, wouldn't it be nice to also have the municipality provide us with a miniature golf course? How about parking? If we're going to use the turf field, the water park, and the miniature golf course then we're all going to need a provision for parking, aren't we? But wait a minute - how are the residents going to get to the park to use all of these recreational facilities? Some residents may not even have cars. Do you think that we should provide them with a car? Better yet, if we analyze this a little more carefully, we can make a case that the collective good would be better served if we don't provide them with either a car or a parking lot [which might cause some trees to be cut down and that would be bad for the environment, cars pollute, and then there's water management planning]. Yes, let's think in more of a communal frame of mind - we can simply provide our residents with transportation! Then once they get to the park they'll need direction, won't they? Don't they need to be told how to enjoy themselves? Should we provide them with guidance? Maybe we should have collective activities and organize in groups? Yes, collective activities and a communal mindset...maybe we should start thinking about how everyone would be dressed, right? We'd want everyone to feel like they are part of a group, don't we? Maybe we should provide the residents with government issued clothing - or uniforms, so to speak; you know - like the People's Republic of China used to do until they realized the failure of this type of thinking and started embracing western principles of freedom.
Government isn't the solution to Lebo's problems. Government created the problems. We don't need to spend more money on recreational activities, and we certainly don't need a bigger budget for the school district. Let's work on cutting our school taxes, repairing our infrastructure using prudent fiscal management, improving our property values, and rebuilding what was once a great community.
Mr. Kendrick, thanks for your response. It perfectly underscores the twisted logic that a few folks apply when discussing life and economics in Mt. Lebanon.
In a nutshell, I think you've suggested here (and in other comments) that our elected officials should reduce school spending, lower your taxes, stop spending on "feel good" items, improve your property value and restore our position as a once great community. You also seem to suggest that those of use who would like to carefully allocate funds for our schools and non-infrastructure items are selfish and fans of big government. That's simply nonsense.
First, your property values would likely plummet overnight if we followed your advice to consolidate schools, eliminate programs, increase class sizes and slash our school budget to the bones.
Next, the cynic in me would surmise that you have limited use for most of our recreational facilities, the schools and other "feel good" items, so you believe that now's the ideal time for us to hunker down and only focus on how best to limit the overall cost to you. Do I have that about right?
No one has ever said that Mt. Lebanon is a great place to live because we have low taxes and you get a lot of house for your money. Let’s face it; those items just aren’t on the Howard Hanna checklist of how to sell a house in Mt. Lebanon. Instead, I would offer that Mt. Lebanon became (and remains) a great community because of our schools and our access to a wide variety of unique facilities and other community events and activities. We became a great community because we recognized long ago that while we might pay a bit more than our neighbors, we have the benefits to show for those higher taxes - whether it be excellence in education or a great quality of life made possible by an array of community opportunities. As Dan Miller said in his piece, Mt. Lebanon is not a “just the basics” community and after two and half years on the Commission he has never heard a resident suggest that we become one.
Mr. Kendrick, Mt. Lebanon is not a great community because we have low taxes, large classes and substandard facilities. Mt. Lebanon is a great community because it is a wonderful place to live and raise a family. Our residents recognize the value of education and are willing to pay for it (and no, I'm not suggesting that a $113 high school is the answer). Our residents have also long recognized that healthy and active residents are critical to the overall well being of the community and we've always been willing to pay for those outlets as well. This isn’t about big government and nonsensical spending as you have sarcastically proposed in your comment. As I see it, it’s more about preserving the status quo (at a minimum) and, more importantly, moving forward.
Mr. Franklin, everyone wants the benefits of a welfare state but contrary to your assertion, the majority of people don't want to pay for it.
That's the beauty of John Ewing's position. If you want it, then you can pay for it - period.
Nobody has ever said that you can't have your water park, miniature golf course, turf field, or the care of your children by the state from cradle to grave. Simply put, you can have anything that YOU want if YOU are willing to pay for what YOU consume.
When the private sector leads a sustainable increase in investment then a community prospers, and we can prosper again. But first, we need to address the distortions that were caused by terrible school district tax policies. Clearly, what we're doing presently is not working!
Again, we need to consolidate the schools, employ service delivery, increase the class sizes, reduce the payroll, and cut the taxes! Contrary to your belief, our property values will increase.
Mr. Franklin said, “Our residents recognize the value of education and are willing to pay for it . . .”
That’s not true! There is a practice called “The Process,” where folks move into and out of Mt. Lebanon in a limited time span. While they are here their children get a superior education then they move to a cheaper tax district leaving the bills to be paid by the long-term residents.
We are currently in a school year where we pay $15,000 per year per child for education and we are headed for years where education will cost $20,000 per child. If you have three children, that is $45,000-$60,000 of educational expenses per year for your family. Who do you know who is willing to pay that amount of tax?
Some folks pay relatively little for the education of their children and leave the higher cost community behind after their children are educated so the long-term residents like Mr. Franklin pick up the ever increasing costs of “The Process.”
My Father had contempt for a certain kind of mindset, which he described as follows: “I need it, I want it – and, therefore, I should have it.” Now that’s childish!
It is time to put the brakes on the “Miss Piggy” School District and direct our taxes in a balanced way for the benefit of all Mt. Lebanon Residents.
If you have an “entitlement list.” raise the funds on a voluntary basis.
To suggest that turfing some existing field space creates a "welfare state" is simply absurd.
Perhaps I can go about this a bit differently.
Mr. Kendrick/Mr. Ewing, do you believe that the municipality should allocate tax dollars to the Library?
Do you believe it should fund the couple parades that we have each year, the Farmer's Market or First Fridays?
How about drug prevention programs or Outreach Teen & Family Services?
If not, I sense we will never agree. And frankly, I'm okay with that.
Of course we should fund the library and at some point we'll have do more gifting, since the library has seen a cut in funding from other sources, therefore reducing hours, reducing staff, cutting book purchases etc. needs to be fixed.
So while the library is finding itself in dire need of money, you're suggestion adding another expense - turfing, while existing amenities, such as paving roads, maintaining infrastructure go wanting!
If you spent as much time asking for voluntary gifts as you do pontificating you would be well into your voluntary giving goal right now. My high school had a $1-Million gift to turf a playing field and we installed it this year. How many pledges for how much money have you raised in voluntary giving, Mr. Franklin?
If you have an entitlement list raise the funds on a voluntary basis.
John Ewing is completely correct.
Dave Franklin, maybe you've never noticed the names on the bricks at the library entrance?
Maybe you should think about tax policy and which people in our community carry the burden when you order these facilities that provide you with comfort? Many senior citizens who have provided you with the opportunity for a public education [and still contribute to your welfare] are still being asked to provide you with more comfort with every additional request as they risk losing their homes and perhaps their very survival trying to pay for all of this foolishness. Have you ever thought about them or their welfare? I have!
Did you ever consider the school district tax burden that faces many of our homeowners in the context of other tax liabilities that they face? Contrary to what you may have read in MtL, we live in a middle class community. Look at the household income statistics and you'll realize that many of our homeowners face a school district tax burden that exceeds their Federal tax liability!
You wanted my suggestion on how to fix these problems and here they are:
1. As John Ewing correctly suggests, you should raise private funds.
2. Again, consolidate the schools, employ service delivery, eliminate programs, reduce the staff, and cut the taxes.
3. Exempt any Mt Lebanon residential properrty owner over the age of 65 from municipal school district taxes.
4. Increase the school district wage tax to address any funding shorfall.
I'd like to see our community to start thinking about giving the bill to the people like yourself that keep asking for provisions rather than sticking it to those residents who've already given so much to our ungrateful generation.
As a specific goal - I'd like to see the school district maintain the current quality of education in core academic areas while reducing the staff by 50% over a five year period.
The graduating classes today are about half of the size of mine, and we're on the way to doubling the number of FTE teachers since I graduated. When I've asked why they need this staff, the response that I received was, " ...that the additional staff was needed to address the intracies of a third grade education." DEAR GOD!
There's plenty of room to improve operational efficiencies and still provide a high quality education that is focused on core academic disciplines.
Enough is enough!
Thank you for finally answering a question. Now we can move off of square one.
I agree that funding the library is a good use of our tax dollars. However, to your point, it is ultimately a want and not a need. It’s an “entitlement” (to use your word) and a “feel good” (to use Mr. Kendrick’s). It’s by no means infrastructure. Certainly the money that we spend on the library could be used to fix streets, sewer lines and water pipes, or better yet, to lower Mr. Kendrick’s tax bill. However, as a community we have determined that this amenity provides a significant service to our residents and adds value to the overall community. I’m glad we’ve made that choice.
My point is simply this – our recreational facilities (including our athletic fields) provide similar value to our residents. Turfing two of these fields would increase their availability and allow them to be put to even greater use. To use the library comparison again, the Commission may elect to consider additional funding of the library so that it can restore those hours of operation that were cut due to lost funding. Certainly not something we NEED to do, but maybe a good decision nevertheless. Adding turf at Mellon and Wildcat (albeit at a cost), would increase the days and hours of operation of those facilities in an era in which we have maxed out their current usefulness. You may not agree with that decision – and that’s fine – but to cloak your arguments in the context of guarding against a welfare state or socialism is simply crazy, especially when you support government spending on other non-essential amenities.
If you don’t want the Commission to spend tax dollars on athletic fields, that’s fine. Just say that. There’s no need to attack the folks who do. And I would reiterate that every participant in a youth sport contributes $12 to the Youth Sports Alliance, which in turn contributes those funds to the municipality for the upkeep of the fields. So in some small respect, they already donate to the cause . . . while a library card is still free.
On a final note Mr. Ewing, you’ve indicated in the past that you attended a private high school. So of course any improvements to those facilities would come from personal donations and not tax dollars. Please stick to comparing apples to apples.
Mr. Franklin, I am thankful I attended a private school with more generous than self-interested people.
I am convinced by your blogging that we must "deklein" the padded budgets of the Miss Piggy SD.
I will continue to support my school because they clearly answer questions and I don't have to suffer the intolerance and closed mindedness of the Mt. Piggy athletic supporters.
I do not condone "fiscalholics," nor do I believe that just because consenting adults do things that they are ok.
If the itemized deductions on our charitable gifts differ on our tax returns I understand and respect those preferences. I do not approve of giving credit to folks who don't understand the long-term deleterious effects on our students future.
If you prefer you are welcome to take the self-serving approach of taxing your neighbors from their homes and following a crisis solution to our district's future. Good luck in solving the debt mess our district has made.
We still have a chance to work our way out of that mess by soliciting voluntary giving. The least the athletic supporters can do is come up with the $8-Million they promised.
That’s always my favorite response to any position or stance taken in this community . . . if you’re in favor of this then you’re against that! I support athletic fields and youth sports, so I’m automatically anti-senior citizen. That’s great logic!
I’ll gladly explain how I feel about such things Mr. Kendrick, despite the fact that you guys keep cutting and pasting the same silly slogans. I do think about our lower income homeowners and our seniors relative to these issues . . . a lot. Both sets of my grandparents were homeowners in Mt. Lebanon well into their 80s. They paid their taxes (and tax increases) decades after their kids (my parents) graduated from the Mt. Lebanon schools. Given their advanced ages, they obviously subsidized the education of tens of thousand of students in Mt. Lebanon. And they did so gladly and willingly.
My parents still live in Mt. Lebanon and I ask myself why every day. Why pay these taxes? Why face the uncertainty of the school project and future tax increases? I suppose they enjoy the community, their friends and their family such that it’s a fair trade off . . . for now.
I understand that not everyone is as fortunate as my folks or even my grandparents (two of which are still alive and kicking at 91 and 98), but I’m also proud of the fact that they contributed to this community in countless ways, including a couple terms on the library Board in its infancy. And never once, not once Mr. Kendrick, did they request a hall pass on their school district taxes – not at age a 60, 65, 70, 75, 80 or 85. In fact, your suggestion in this regard would be viewed by them as the same sort of “hand out” that you argue so strongly against in your earlier posts. Homeownership has significant burdens and responsibilities. Those burdens hit us in the face when we’re young and struggling to make ends meet with small salaries and young families, and they hit us again when we’re older and on a fixed income. I can personally attest that they hit us everywhere in between too. Living in a community that places a high value on education, nice amenities and a unique quality of life does not come cheaply AT ANY AGE. If you want to make it work, you try your hardest to do so. No one made us live here. We all chose to do it. The good Lord willing, I’ll be able to retire here and keep my home until they carry me out of it, but there are no guarantees. And these issues aren’t unique to Mt. Lebanon, they’re part of life. Period.
I totally agree that we live in a middle class community. Regular readers here will attest that I make this point all of the time. Today, in many respects, we are more like Sq. Hill or Dormont then we are like USC, Peters or even the Mt. Lebanon of 25 years ago. But to suggest that our municipality should bar the door and proclaim the sky is falling is simply nuts. Since this debate started days ago, I said from the beginning that we have choices to make. We can’t pay for everything. One choice that I personally feel strongly about is the preservation and improvement of our athletic facilities. If the Commission and those who communicate with them see it differently, so be it. I’ll survive and youth sports will too. Please don’t confuse my “pontificating” about issues that are important to me as searching for a handout. Youth sports and the fields they use will be just fine without my help. I’m simply trying – in some small way - to make them better. In doing so, I might just add to the value of the community (and your home) for the next young family who is looking to move into Mt. Lebanon. No need to thank me . . .
If you raise taxes 45% your monthly payment goes up and you can afford to pay less for a home. How does the value of a home increase with sharply higher taxes to be paid?
Voluntary giving is a way to make homes more valuable.
Don't worry Mr Franklin, you won't be hearing any thanks from me.
Simply put, if you consume it, then you need to pay for it.
You're continuing to advocate government provisions for yourself that take the resources of others and provide for your comfort. Have you studied Marx, Lennon, or watched neo-socialism evolve?
Continuing to advocate a redistribution of the wealth in our community isn't the answer, it's the problem.
Again, let's cut the school district taxes, dust ourselves off, and start rebuilding our community.
I've given you my plan - what's yours?
But, what kind of "community" are we if only users pay for the benefits they are able to take advantage of? Why is education only the responsibility of those with children in schools? What does this say about our vision of future generations? Why are sports facilities only the responsibility of the players' families? Are you saying there are no benefits that can be shared with others, let alone the values that those sports teach children (and parents!)? And will those community members (including senior citizens) who dare to watch a game in which a family member is not involved be charged for that privelege?
Parents of children in schools do supplement the support received by the district in their own dollars, believe me. And no sport is free to any player that I have seen. None of that takes into account the volunteer hours that supplement so many programs. The Writing Conference volunteers at the middle schools alone donated hours more than equal to a full-time staff position at each shool every year.
A community that constantly chooses any demographic over another betrays the definition of the word. And I challenge you to find a borough/school district/county that can boast great resale value of homes if those assets that require "redistribution of wealth" are lacking.
Finally, another voice of reason. So far, Mr Ewing and Mr Kendrick have suggested that the municipal budget should help fund the library, but not athletic fields. However, they have not articulated the difference between the two.
Of course, they have ignored my question regarding Outreach Teen & Family Services, drug prevention programs, First Fridays, parades, and all other non-essential items that receive tax dollars. They won't go there because they know that would be unpopular. In reality, their beef is with athletics and school budgets, because I can only assume that neither has any use for them. Heck, Mr. Kendrick believes that a large percentage of our residents shouldn't even pay for the schools at all. That's a system that will work wonders.
And frankly, I'm not sure why they keep bringing up the school spending. The issue on the table is municipal spending. School spending has been debated here for years, and I think we all know each other's position on that issue.
Hi Kim,
Notice that I didn't advocate a user tax. A user tax would have placed 100% of the burden entirely on the users and would not generate the revenue needed. I'm simply saying that if we shift the tax incidence back in the direction of the people making the endless requests and consuming the products and services then that will discourage the endless list of wants and focus more on addressing the problem of scarcity.
The mechanism that we have in operation right now is essentially class warfare. The entire community has been tapped to provide for roughly 22% that have children.
If you're an advocate of neo-socialism or believe in communism that's your choice. I respect a person's right to own and private property.
Quite frankly, I don't want to attack one of the most helpless segments of our society, the elderly, to provide a younger, healthier, and more productive group with comfort.
Nice to meet you though...
... and another comment -
If you think about the impact of my proposal, we would be attracting a more affluent demographic into our community. This demographic is more likely to consume and to invest (as an economist defines investment). Therefore, we are creating a platform for sustainable private sector lead investment, and we know that will lead to long-term prosperity.
View the cost of housing in terms of housing affordability. If a prospective home buyer knows that their municipal school district tax would be $0 wouldn't that property become more valuable to them? Wouldn't they be willing to pay more for that property than another prospect with a hefty tax burden and a 45% increase in their school district tax?
Please carefully consider ALL of the impacts of my proposal.
- and if you feel strongly about making a private contribution, then that is YOUR choice and not a goverment mandate.
For heaven's sake, take your head out of the Econ 101 text book for 5 minutes.
What young family will buy a house in Mt. Lebanon if class sizes are in excess of 30, programming is at a bare minimum, and the entire tax burden is - as you put it - squarely on the shoulders of about 25% of the residents (including this hypothetical young family)? Even if we accept your proposal of slashing the school budget to a bare minimum, placing that burden entirely on 25% of the residents (many of whom will not yet be in their prime earning years) will hardly increase their disposable income.
Or are you suggesting that retirees will now flock to a tax-free Mt. Lebanon, buy big houses, hire landscapers and walk around Beverly Rd with a fist full of $50 dollar bills?
Mr Franklin, I think that you'd benefit from Econ 101. When am I going to hear your proposal? I offered my proposal, but you've never offered your proposal.
You do have a proposal don't you, Mr. Franklin?
On this issue, yes, I have proposal. Specifically, we should support Mr. Miller's proposed ordinance which would require the municpality to stop borrowing money for infrastructure and istead incorporate annual street repairs into the general operating budget.
Thereafter, the Commission should consider what - if any - non-recurring projects the community needs or supports, and then carefully consider whether the same can be satisfied through existing funds, debt, additional taxes or not at all. Like I said, if we can turf the fields through this process, great. If we can't, I'll survive.
I know it's pretty radical thinking for a Marxist like me Mr. Kendrick, but I'm all for letting the system do its job.
I'd like to hear your proposal concerning any proposed changes to the school district tax policy. I offered my proposal and listened to your comments.
You do have a proposal don't you, Mr. Franklin?
If you like, I could email our hosts and offer a seperate topic where you could offer your proposal.
You do have a proposal don't you, Mr. Franklin?
This is not a personal matter. I really don't know anything about you. My impression from your remarks is that you know a lot more about me that I know about you. Still, I'd like to hear other constructive suggestions.
You do have a proposal don't you, Mr. Franklin?
I don't know anything about you Mr. Kendrick. Contrary to some others here, I'm not interested in the details of the lives of people who post comments. I won't send random emails to your work email address or unsigned letters to your home. I’ll leave that to the folks who file endless Right to Know requests or who intervene in lawsuits between our two governing bodies.
I also don't have a proposal for school taxes. I know we don't need a $113 million high school. I know we can't sustain our community's reputation for education with larger classes and less programming. I know that for many, the critical component of their decision to move here is our school system, so any drastic overhaul (like the one you have suggested) will not likely garner much support. I believe all of us should share in the burden of funding our school system, and I acknowledge that this burden may become too difficult for some (even me some day). I don't believe you, I or anyone else has a "right" to own a home in Mt. Lebanon, and we all purchased our homes with an understanding of the obligations that attach to it. I also know that for many the burden has already become too great and they have or are trying to move. I also think that's unfortunate, but not a problem that’s unique to Mt. Lebanon. I know that when the school board members piss me off, I tell them so (although I hate going to the meetings) and I vote.
Other than that Mr. Kendrick, I don't have a proposal per se. Sorry if I've let you down. Generally, I think we do a pretty good job here in the bubble. We don’t get it right every time . . . I don’t think anyone does. I prefer to stick with the devil I know. The school project will undoubtedly test our collective will, but I’m mildly optimistic that in the end we’ll get it (or most of it) right.
Thank you, Mr. Franklin. As you said once before, we simply don't share the same guiding principles.
Nice to meet you Dave. 8)
Post a Comment
<< Home