Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Columbus City Schools Levy Proposal 2013

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Columbus City Schools Levy Proposal 2013

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 193 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #97632

    NDaEast
    Participant

    Columbus City Schools Eyes Hefty Levy

    Per $100,000 in home value:

    $235 per year just to avoid cuts in existing activities.

    $17-137 per year for new schools construction

    $90 a year — which is in addition to what we already pay for Columbus City Schools, to half-fund the Columbus Education Commission’s charter schools proposal.

    $45 a year to fund 1,000 new pre-K seats.

    $60 a year to have kids take 3rd grade again when they fail the mandatory 3rd grade test.

    Officials say the panel could scale back on the proposals or seek alternate funding. But stack all those needs into a levy, and the proposed tax increase could top $500 per year on a $100,000 home.

    You’ve got to be kidding … this is arrogance at its worst. Pouring more money into a corrupt school system that won’t even publicly acknowledge its longstanding pattern of corruption. No reform, no money.

    #544622

    labi
    Participant

    I agree. Amazing. I’ve never voted against a school levy in my life, but I guess there’s always a first.

    #544623

    SusanB
    Participant

    That’s an insane increase. I will vote no and inform my tenants that if it passes their rent will go up accordingly.

    #544624

    pilsner
    Participant

    School board and some administrators need be held accountable. I’m not sure voting against a levy is the right way to do that. I don’t want to lose the great things we have at my kids’ schools—great music programs, middle school athletic programs, etc.

    I don’t like that some of the levy will go to fund charter schools. I might oppose it based on that reason but need to do more research.

    #544625

    It is my understanding that many of the people on the Levy Committee do *not* live in the Columbus City School District -so they’re essentially advocating a tax for “other” people.

    I would hope that the CCS Board Of Education would be smart enough to reject a levy option that is this disjointed (a little pork for every pocket). It would make more sense to create one levy option for necessities and one levy option for the pricey, porky Ed Commission suggestions.

    However, I’ve only seen one board member exhibit this sort of clear-headedness. I guess Darwin will take care of the rest.

    #544626

    DTown
    Participant

    SusanB said:
    That’s an insane increase. I will vote no and inform my tenants that if it passes their rent will go up accordingly.

    You’ll only raise their rent 1/2 of 1%? Your tenants would probably be ok with that.

    Perhaps everyone should wait for the actual proposal, rather than somewhat incendiary Dispatch speculation, before making up their minds on something as important as education (not to mention their property values).

    #544627

    SusanB
    Participant

    No i will raise their rent to cover their increase in the dollar amounts, ie for one of my tenants that would be about $20 a month. That’s a lot for some folks.

    #544628

    SusanB
    Participant

    In other words if I have to pay $500 a year more for a property I must pass that cost on (my rents are already very reasonable, below market). So my duplex, which for some insane reason the county appraises at 99k (which I am contesting) would cost me $500 more a year, split between both tenants, an additional $20 a month.

    #544629

    susank
    Member

    I don’t think we should be overly worried yet. Isn’t this the typical hit your thumb with a hammer and then your sore foot feels better approach? Basically a strategy for getting some more money with people feeling like they also won?

    Step 1) List all of the $$$$ you could need (more is better).

    Step 2) alert the press

    Step 3) scale back so people think they are ‘saving money’ by voting for the smaller increase.

    #544630

    DTown
    Participant

    SusanB said:
    In other words if I have to pay $500 a year more for a property I must pass that cost on (my rents are already very reasonable, below market). So my duplex, which for some insane reason the county appraises at 99k (which I am contesting) would cost me $500 more a year, split between both tenants, an additional $20 a month.

    That’s a fairly interesting model of landlording. Your tenants carry 100‰ of any future increases to your carrying costs of the home they rent? Even forgetting any tax advantages to you that would make your realized costs less than 500/year, or the increased value to your property better schools might have.

    I assume you lower their rent the full amount of any cost reductions you get too, right?

    #544631

    labi
    Participant

    We could step back from critiquing SusanB’s rent-setting strategies for a minute and return to: Columbus City Schools is caught red-handed in a lying/cheating/data-rigging scandal of fairly epic proportions, and one year later the school board’s two main accomplishments are having spent tens of thousands of dollars on attorneys and delayed the investigation long enough that the employees most directly responsible will all have had the chance to retire by the time criminal charges hit. The mayor’s heroic role is to suggest a list of new money items for the system, instead of calling for actual accountability. Even Gene Harris is going to ride into the pastel sunset.

    LIke I said, I can tolerate a fair level of go-along, get-along, and I’ve never voted against a school levy in all my decades of being voting age, but this one – I really, really don’t know.

    #544632

    SusanB
    Participant

    If costs exceed income I cannot stay in business. The more a product costs to provide the more it costs the end consumer. Future property value gains are not 1. Realistic in this market, 2. Do not cover carrying costs. There are no tax advantages to an increase in property taxes.

    #544633

    DTown
    Participant

    labi said:
    We could step back from critiquing SusanB’s rent-setting strategies for a minute and return to: Columbus City Schools is caught red-handed in a lying/cheating/data-rigging scandal of fairly epic proportions, and one year later the school board’s two main accomplishments are having spent tens of thousands of dollars on attorneys and delayed the investigation long enough that the employees most directly responsible will all have had the chance to retire by the time criminal charges hit. The mayor’s heroic role is to suggest a list of new money items for the system, instead of calling for actual accountability. Even Gene Harris is going to ride into the pastel sunset.

    LIke I said, I can tolerate a fair level of go-along, get-along, and I’ve never voted against a school levy in all my decades of being voting age, but this one – I really, really don’t know.

    I can agree that our city school system has no shortage of serious problems. I’m just concerned that people are knee jerking to justify not supporting the schools based on pure speculation about what will be asked for, how, and why.

    Things need fixed, but closing minds now isn’t likely to solve anything.

    #544634
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    SusanB said:
    That’s an insane increase. I will vote no and inform my tenants that if it passes their rent will go up accordingly.

    If it passes I’m going to advertise to have my lawn mowed by Columbus Public students for $40 a pop but then I’m just going to stiff them when they’re done and say “you’re welcome!”

    #544635

    NDaEast
    Participant

    DTown said:
    I can agree that our city school system has no shortage of serious problems. I’m just concerned that people are knee jerking to justify not supporting the schools based on pure speculation about what will be asked for, how, and why.

    Things need fixed, but closing minds now isn’t likely to solve anything.

    I’ve got to disagree … closing minds to a levy will solve the problem of a corrupt school system continuing to drain money from my wallet.

    According to Board member Mike Wiles (the only member who deserves to be there), the latest figure on the cost the school board has imposed on the public in defense of its closed meetings and delaying of the State Auditor investigation is $400,000 — the amount encumbered for lawyers. And according to The Dispatch, the lawyers have not billed for several months, however, so they may be running up a bill to be presented to the public for payment after the election. AS I remember from an earlier Dispatch article, the lawyers ran through $200K in a matter of two months. I’m not rushing to dump money into lawyers who are advising the district on how to delay and frustrate investigators and avoid individual or corporate accountability.

    I don’t think it is a knee jerk reaction at all for the public to demand real accountability and reform before considering passage of a levy. I think it is very rational for people to say “I’m not sending any more of my hard-earned dollars to a stunningly corrupt school system.” If a levy fails (which unfortunately is a near impossibility in Columbus), it will be the fault of the corrupt administration and the incompetent Board which did not see any urgency in acknowledging wrong-doing and cleaning house before presenting a levy request to the public. CCS has had plenty of time to clean house, but it lawyered-up instead and has elected to not do so.

    I think it would be incredibly arrogant for any levy-proposed programs (pre-school, innovation fund, etc.) to be presented to the public as funding above and beyond the status quo (“no cuts”) funding levels of CCS operations. We are in the middle of a ten year long scandal of epic proportions, where children were denied services and parents (like me) were denied school choice vouchers. CCS already cheated us out of educational benefits — I’m not rushing to dump even more money into a corrupt environment to pay for pet projects above and beyond the core public function of educating children from K-12 — funding for which CCS is actively fighting in court to keep from me. And let’s remember that the innovation fund was CCS’s idea — the Columbus Education Commission has only proposed a way to maneuver so that it controls distribution of that fund.

    And I have a problem with an initiative (the Columbus Educational Commission) which sets a goal of every public school will be rated A or B school by 2020. That’s just a load of marketing crap and not a remotely achievable goal — there is not enough Pixie Dust in the universe to sprinkle over these kids, their families, and their various issues (as basic as hunger and residential instability) to turn all the public schools into A & B. It is reminiscent of the 90% graduation rate goal set by Superintendent Harris that led to the current cheating scandal where CCS doesn’t record drop-outs and falsifies credits so students who are long gone can be counted as graduates. It harks to the 2008 levy that was pitched based on successes in educating the kids (which we now find out is as likely to be an artifact of data manipulation).

    As far as more taxpayer funding school rebuilding … that has no benefit to the children or their parents and needs to be curtailed until kids are being educated. Rebuilding is something that is good for the construction industry and the bankers, and sometimes for neighborhoods — but has not had an impact on student performance. According to Ohio Department of Education data, after spending $597,108,944.58 on the CCS school building program, the Performance Index for East High dropped from 77.4 to 72.3 (pre- vs. post-construction: School Year 2005-06 vs 2011-12) … Linden-McKinley’s Performance Index fell from 77.7 to 67.1 … South High’s Performance Index fell from 81.5 to 73.0 … and on and on with few exceptions. [Of course we need to put an asterick by all the numbers except the 2012 numbers, which were not scrubbed.] We need to focus CCS on what is important, and stop funding buildings until we can figure out how to educate and graduate the children.

    There is so much to be critical of with CCS, and the public needs to be hyper critical until the organization changes.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 193 total)

The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.

URBAN LIVING TOUR 2020

This year’s Urban Living Tour event has been postponed due to COVID-19, but will be returning later this summer!

CLICK HERE to sign up to be notified when tickets go on sale!