|
"Those who say it cannot be done should not interfere with those of us who are doing it"© - S. Hickman
| Home Against the Grain Livid Leigh Boilin' Ed D. Tom The Informer Knowledge is Freedom Privacy Links Court Case Contact Us |
© 1994 - 2007
|
Against the Grain
|
Sugar-coating School Bonds Remember the door-to-door encyclopedia salesman explaining it would cost you only "pennies a day" to have a fine set of his books in your home which would help make your children outstanding scholars? School boards sell taxpayers on big borrowing programs the same way. They never - repeat, NEVER - let on what the actual cost to the taxpayer will be. News reporters, who are generally school board promotional agents, rarely mention the total cost, either. It's as if these people don't want citizens to know the cost of borrowing for fear their request will be turned down. One S.C. Midlands school district will dangle before voters in the next few weeks the notion that its construction bond borrowing will cost "only $5.00 a month on a $100,000.00 house." A month? Why not the "pennies a day" argument? And nowhere in its promotion will the total payback be mentioned, yet it's the total of borrowing plus interest property owners must pay. Richland School District #2 has just said it wants voter approval for $175.5 million in new borrowing. "Hopefully, it won't be a big selling job," declared a former superintendent. The school board has not mentioned, yet, that taxpayers will not be on the dotted line for a mere $175.5 million. They will be voting to tax themselves approximately $300 million! The school board knows about the payback of principal and interest, but they'd prefer voters not be exposed to that number. So far, reporters have obliged them. It's like putting details of a contract in tiny print, knowing that it's kinder to mislead voters into thinking they're putting themselves into hock for a mere $175.5 million to build suitable facilities for a growing district. (Heaven forbid youngsters might have to study in so-called "portables." Manufactured housing is fine to live in, but is apparently not suitable for schooling..) People are easy to fool on matters of money. They rarely consider the payback when they borrow. They will buy a house for, say, $150,000.00 and sell it many years later for $250,000.00 and brag about making a nice profit on it. They overlook entirely the total cost of their mortgage or the depreciation of the dollar. Same with cars. A $30,000.00 car financed for four years or more does not cost $30,000.00. Only a fool would think it. Last year voters approved a $381 million bond issue for Richland District #1. Not for a second did voters realize they were adding more than $700 million of new debt to their school tax bill. How could they? The school board wouldn't admit it and it was only mentioned by news media once, if we recall correctly. Another factor voters must consider in November, when they decide whether or not to raise school taxes, is the economic "soft patch" presently worrying the nation. We will be told it's cruel and shortsighted to withhold fine new buildings from the children, but if the nation does not regain its economic footing we may have to ask the children to wait until we get the economy fixed before we load ourselves down with heavier tax debt. The children would probably understand the situation if someone explained it. Sadly, practical information about money is rarely taught in public schools. That's how we get grownups who would vote themselves a new $300 million school tax thinking it's only going to cost $175.5 million. John Wrisley, August 14, 2004
www.wrisley.com
Dear Editor Wrisley: Well, if the people of Horry County want an example of 'Double Dipping" they have only to take a look at their School Board's intention to place two issues on their November 2 ballot asking for funds to do more school construction and repair caused by growth. The first dip, is to seek approval from the people of Horry County to charge themselves 20% more Sales Tax on their purchases, including food and clothing. The second dip is to seek approval for a Bond carrying $240 million for school construction and repair as well. In their wisdom, (?) the School Board at first jumped at the chance to go for that 1c Sales Tax increase on all purchases for 7 years with the option to extend it 7 more years...After receiving guidance from their Financial Manager they now want to try both dips. Our organization, repeatedly told members of the School Board that Sales Tax increases are not the way to go for schools or anything else. They now have finally seen the light and want a bonding back up just in case. This 'Flip Flopping' and proposed 'Double Dipping' comes in the face of their School Board Chairman, Will Garland, telling our County Council, who has been working on a proposal to get the State Legislature to honor a suggested amendment to the Impact Fee law on NEW development, to mind their own business or words to that effect. The amendment to the existing Developer Impact Fee law, if approved, would definitely help reduce our Real Estate Taxes AND supplement school funding. The present law, authored by Rep. Tracy Edge, Dist. 104, is cumbersome and ineffective favoring developers of course. Me thinks our School Board has been infiltrated by 'Developer Friendly' representatives instead of the parents of working families owning property or eating three square. Double Dipping is REALLY slipping and our once Progressive School Board in Horry County is now our Regressive School Board. Our message to the resident voters in Horry County is "AX THE SCHOOL BOARD'S SALES TAX" Bob Logan ATG: The above is a SC statewide problem. Read the related articles concerning the NEA! Is this how you want your tax dollars used? Are you falling for the lies being told by your school boards regarding funding?
|
\