Cap the property tax increases for school districts at 4 percent? No more votes for it? Those are among the centerpieces of a plan to deal with education funding that Governor David Paterson and Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi brought forth this week.
The plan received a big rollout and came complete with pros and cons from many sides of the story.
Attempts at easing the property tax crunch for paying for education have been feeble in the past. Governor Pataki's much vaunted STAR program simply lowered the taxes for some, without addressing how that funding would be made up.
The new plan is more multi-faceted than that, but still deals with juggling formulae for property owners to pay, still depends on property taxes. A 4 percent tax increase is higher than what was projected in budgets passed at Onteora, Highland, Ellenville and Rondout Valley. The city of Kingston's school district budget failed despite a 3.1 percent hike. Saugerties passed with a 4.92 percent increase, New Paltz approved a 4.88 percent hike. Marlboro's proposed 6.6 percent tax hike failed, as did Wallkill's 8.9 percent.
Under the plan, districts could still hike taxes up to 5 percent if 55 percent approve it in a vote, higher if 60 percent approve.
Teacher unions don't approve. They like to see the property tax, a stable tax base, they believe, be a source of funding that can make districts grow. What they especially won't like is a provision to freeze teacher step increases while new contracts are negotiated, putting a considerable crimp in their ability to wait out a recalcitrant administration.
There are things to like in these proposals, such as mandate accountability - having an understanding of what requirements actually cost, though not actually requiring the state to pay for them - and a circuit breaker to immediately help those least able to pay.
But for us, the problem still is with property taxes funding education. It's basic. We would favor ideas like one put forth by Kevin Cahill, who wants the state to do all the funding of education, collecting the money through a graduated income tax. This would far better reflect individual abilities to pay and would not endanger people's homes in a direct way, would not allow for property values (a subjective measurement, in any case) to outstrip income. Even shifting a portion of the property tax - c'mon guys, give us 20 percent, at least - to the graduated income approach would ease the burdens.
We still have to pay. Yes, your income tax would rise considerably. Yes, we'd have to deal with issues of local control versus the control that would come from those who are dispensing the money (as if we don't now...). But neglect education and our very mission as a free and open society fails. There is no question that more money is needed for education in this state, in this country. The state already has paid scant attention to the Campaign for Fiscal Equity's winning lawsuit, in which it was adjudicated that the state must pay more for poorly equipped schools.
It's crystal clear in these days how the splatter has to hit the fan before anything in this glacially paced society changes - the oil prices are finally changing the way we think about driving and what we drive; how we eat; what we can afford to eat; how we think about cities and suburbs; how we live. The ripples are creating tsunamis all around us.
This opportunity to straighten out how we pay for education is upon us and it cannot be missed. The Suozzi-Paterson plan seeks to merely tweak and perpetuate a system when much more is needed.
Read Governor Paterson's press release on the proposed legislation here
Download the Commission on Property Tax Relief's full report (pdf) here
Read Newsday's feature on the proposed legislation here
