Fox News 19 in Cincinnati had the story tonight of the Princeton School District’s reaction to Kasich’s budget:

The Governor’s budget cuts tangible personal property (TPP) tax the district receives starting this year.  The tangible personal property tax is monies they receive from local businesses which accounts for 70% of the district’s funding.  The new budget phases out TPP tax starting this year meaning Princeton has to cut another ten million dollars from it’s budget over the next two years.

"We have to look at transportation, schools, how we operate, further staffing.  We have to look even deeper at everything," says Superintendent Gary Pack.  Pack says the district had an operating budget of 86 million dollars in 2006 and by 2013 will have a budget of 50 million.  He says the cuts leave the district no choice but to go to the voters and ask for a levy.

"It’s disheartening for the children in Princeton because of the diversity we have and folks we serve who make us proud every day.  It saddens me for them," says Pack.

The district is reportedly scheduled to hold a special meeting on Monday where they’re expected to start the process of considering putting a property tax levy on the ballot.

Kasich’s raiding of TPP is reportedly costing this school district $10 million ALONE?!?

Every new local levy or other taxes should be labeled “Kasich tax increases.”  All his budget did was balance the State’s budget on the backs of the middle class, schools, and local government.

Tagged with:
 
  • Jason A Haas

    This was my fear. Smaller districts are more vulnerable than larger districts b/c of the TPP/utility phase outs. Those districts often receive little or no money from outside the state and local taxes (i.e., Title 1, etc). There will be more of this.

  • Every new local levy or other taxes should be labeled “Kasich tax increases.” All his budget did was balance the State’s budget on the backs of the middle class, schools, and local government.

    My irony meter just broke. These are the same people who nearly stroked out because they thought President Obama was going to “redistribute wealth”?

  • Littleguy

    This is the first but it won’t be the last. When Gov Krazyich campaigned he told the local soil and water conservation district leaders he would preserve the state match funding and that agriculture was the states no 1 industry. Tonight he cut these folks funding by 40%. These local govt organizations are among the most efficient groups out there. State funds represent half their budget and the county commissioners, who just got hit, represent the other half. It will be devastating. They have no taxing authority and are totaly dependent on state funding. And he got some of their leaders votes probably by campaigning saying he would preserve their state match. The Lying Son of A Bitch. Look out clean water. If you like algae, and the stench of Grand Lake last summer, get ready, more is coming. –

  • Anonymous

    First, a question: Does the budget eliminate the collection of the TPP from local businesses, or does it redirect it and keep it out of the hands of the local school district?

    Assuming the budget ends the collection of the tax, which seems to be the case, the fact that the Princeton School District is going to the voters directly to make up the lost funds is a good thing. This is as it should be, in as much that government provided local services – schools, police, fire services, or roads – should be exclusively funded through LOCAL taxation, authorized, collected, and disbursed, by local officials who can be more closely held accountable by the people most impacted by decisions they make. Channeling these taxes through the state (or the federal government in some cases) only serves to move the power, influence, and consequences of public policy further away from those most impacted, whether they are paying the taxes or benefiting from the taxes.

  • Anonymous

    It’s the later not the former, as I understand it.

  • Anonymous

    I just Googled it. Apparently it’s the former – the proposal phases out the tax completely:

    http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110315/NEWS01/103160348/TPP-tax-phase-out-accelerates?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

    So I can’t feel bad for those districts that will have to go to their voters for money. If the local voters are unwilling to tax themselves to support their local schools, why should other people be expected to pony up? And if the local economy lacks the resources to fund local services, taking the money from another district is hardly a sustainable option. To put it on a larger scale, should the taxpayers in Ohio be expected to fund a infrastructure project in, say, Alabama?

  • Anastasjoy

    And so many of these levies will be impossible to pass because people will have to vote with breaking hearts against them simply because they can’t afford another penny — and remember, the backbone of communities, the reliable taxpayers like teachers, nurses, police offices, fire fighters and city workers are all looking at a drastic downsizing of their lives. Here in Cleveland Heights, we already have one of the highest property taxes in the state. I don’t see how people here can pay anymore. You’re asking working people who are more strapped than they have ever been to pay more to keep their cities and school systems from collapsing, and they just don’t have the resources to do it. This is as cruel and destructive a budget as I’ve ever seen, coming from a singularly arrogant and vindictive administration that clearly doesn’t have the state’s best interests at heart.

  • Pingback: Add Gahanna to the list of school districts planning a Kasich-inspired tax levy()

  • Anastasjoy

    The tax was intended to be a temporary substitute for lost revenue that school districts depended on, with a long time-line phase out. It’s money that was promised and relied on, and the phase-out schedule gave districts time to plan. Kasich is simply yanking it abruptly and redirecting it to the general fund as a short-term stop gap measure — or in order to reward his supporters and cronies, depending on how you want to frame it.

    And your attitude is very selfish and Balkanized. We’re a state and we have major collective infrastructure as a state because states are the unit of governance in this country, not Ohio/Alabama. You’re comparing apples and tater tots here.

    We hear that we’ll be needing to consolidate and regionalize in order to economize but attitudes like yours undermine that. You don’t want to work with someone across the street. It’s that old “What’s mine is mine, keep your hands off” attitude that is self-deciving, because almost nothing you have came to you through your efforts alone. If everyone took your attitude that they aren’t obligated to help someone next door, then we’re going to see chaos and systemic collapse in the state.

    Luckily, most people are waking up pretty fast and I expect people like you will be a diminishing minority.

  • Anonymous

    Enquirer misstates the budget. See the chart in this post: http://www.plunderbund.com/2011/03/15/about-that-projected-8-billion-budget-deficit-governor/#more-17807

    What Kasich is actually doing is declaring the tax accelerated, but taking that portion of the CAT that was dedicated to funding the offset and directing it back in to the GRF. It’s called raiding a fund.

  • As others have already pointed out, this will be one in a long line.. not just schools, either. Libraries, parks, maybe safety services. This is where the little Tea Partiers start to see the real repercussions of their votes. It’s already happening in Pickerington. Nice suburb, insulated from the “problems” of the city, rich, safe, good schools… Now they’re having trouble passing levies. P2P fees are up to $500 per student, per sport. To “fix” this, they want to cut teacher salaries, which will drive away good teachers, which will bring down the effectiveness of the schools, which will lower property taxes, which will devastate Pickerington. Around and around we go, the spiral keeps heading down. Where will the TPers run to when even the suburbs suck?

  • That sounds nice in theory, but in practice local governance is heavily insulated from the consequences of its policies. Do you even know who is on your local school board? Look at the incumbancy rate in local city councils, no matter how screwed up things get. Plus local elections are so much easier for monied interests to influence. And cases of electoral misconduct at the local level are almost never covered in any depth by shallow local news thats only interested in murders and celebrities.

    I think a balance needs to be struck between local control and state and national standards of quality both in education results and funding.

  • Anonymous

    A-joy, I understand yours and Modern’s point that the change in tax policy is an unexpected and significant deviation from what the school districts were told and planning for. Sure, that is going to cause problems. Alas, that is the nature of our political system, which is really nothing more than a battle to control where the spoils of the state get allocated. Don’t take that as my support of the system – I hate it -as I didn’t vote for Kasich and I’m not a Republican.

    Regarding your tator tots comment. Here’s the point I was making regarding the relationship of between the “units of governance”, as you say: School district is to state as state is to country. Most tax payers in Lake County are no more eager to fund the schools in Belmont County than the citizens of Ohio are willing to fund a water treatment plant in Alabama. In fact you can drill down further – the residents of Kirtland, where I live, are sorta pissed off that the Painesville School District (both in Lake County) is getting ALL new schools with only a minuscule amount of money coming from the residents of Painesville. And before you say it, this doesn’t make the residents of Kirtland mean and uncaring. We care about our schools and our children, so much so that we taxed ourselves to complete a major school renovation and expansion with virtually zero dollars coming from outside the district. Now if you care to tell us that we should happily pay for the schools of kids whose parents are unwilling to pay themselves, then I suggest you make that case at our next board meeting.

    You say I’ve got a selfish attitude. Let me ask – when did “I want to keep the money I earn” become selfish and “I want to take the money you earn” become moral and right? Makes me wonder how you explain that to your kids.

    Regarding regionalization – I’m against it. The more the governance of a people is centralized, the more unaccountable the government will become. It also makes “voting with your feet” harder. If a city government is not doing a good job they may very well see people move to the town next door where the government is more accountable and responsive. But regionalization is just as likely to consolidate stupidity and give it more control over a wider area as it is to increase efficiency.

    Now, as far as your contention that if “everyone took [my] attitude that they aren’t obligated to help someone next door, then we’re going to see chaos and systemic collapse in the state.” Just stop it, would you? If you truly believe that benevolence must be put upon the people by the force of the state, then I guess that doesn’t speak well for the state of mankind, and I feel bad for you. But I suspect that, instead, deep down inside you believe you are a kind and generous person, but everybody else is mean and greedy and they must be forced to pay up for all your good ideas you want to force down their throats.

  • KASICH will not raise taxs but to provide state services local gov. has to pass levies

  • buckeyekelly

    Statewide, with one voice, every single school district needs to say this: DUE TO GOVERNOR KASICH’S CUTS, WE NEED TO ASK THE COMMUNITY FOR XXX. Put them on the defense! ONE VOICE!

  • Anonymous

    Yes, I know my local school board members. These people are my neighbors and friends. Their kids have eaten at my kitchen table. I’ve quaffed beer with them at the local taverns.

    Every contention you make about local governance applies to the federal and state level by an order of magnitude. Except perhaps the news coverage, where I find that most people will read the local news but gloss over the national issues on their way to the gossip column.

  • Anonymous

    “It is admirable to take on the burden of funding your local school district, but you should not have to do it. ”

    Enard, I don’t expect anybody else to pay for our local schools, anymore than I expect you to pay for my next tank of gas, or A-joy to buy my kids school clothes. In fact, I’d prefer that the state and federal government leave us alone so we can run the district according to the preferences, needs, and resources of the parents and children of our community.

    I don’t covet the wealth of others, no matter how much they make. I do take issue with anybody, rich or poor, who uses the government to acquire wealth that they did not work for.

  • So how do you combat poor quality schools in impoverished areas? Do these kids just suffer because people cannot afford the taxes required to support decent schools? Why does a child in Dublin deserve a better education at a safer school than a child in Columbus? Because of how much money their parents make? Because of their zip code?

  • Anonymous

    If throwing money at schools was the solution to poor performance, the problem would have been solved by now. I’ve seen more well-funded magic bullets that were going to “fix the education system” than I can count. You need to consider that it’s time to look elsewhere for improvement.

    A “child in Dublin deserve[s] a better education at a safer school than a child in Columbus” perhaps because the Dublin parents worked and studied hard while they were in school so that they could earn a high enough income to live in a community like Dublin. You don’t ask why kids in Dublin deserve a vacation at Disney World, unlike kids in Columbus, do you? There’s where you’ll find your answer. Yes, it is because of how much money their parents make. You may not like that, but that doesn’t change it. There ought to be rewards for hard work, don’t you think? Otherwise why work hard? Earning a high income is not the result of some lottery, despite what you may believe. Ask Modern how he became a sought after attorney – I’m sure effort and desire plays a big part of his success.

    As far as combating the poor quality of schools in impoverished areas, well, trust me, you wouldn’t like my prescription. It involves changes that over the short and intermediate term the vast majority of people affected by these poor schools would find tumultuous and politically untenable.

  • enard

    Education, to many of us, is a public good. To compare a school to a tank of gas is, to many of us, not appropriate. A well-educated population benefits everyone. A tank of gas does not.

  • Right.. that’s painting with an awfully broad brush, I would say. So every person who lives within the Columbus school district just sucked at school and didn’t work hard, tough on them. Sorry, but I don’t think it takes a genius to see why Ana called you selfish. I would actually call it narrow-minded and ignorant. Education was never designed to be a reward to those wealthy enough to afford it… it is designed to be a path to wealth through your much touted “hard work”. What, Disney vacations, lavish homes and fancy cars aren’t enough of a “reward” for hard work? They deserve smarter kids too? Kids who had no say in what their parents did or did not do or where their parents chose to live just deserve less of an education? That perpetuates a never-ending cycle in which those in poorer districts never get the chance to advance themselves. No upward mobility at all. Your comparison of education to a vacation is as stupid as your Ohio/Alabama comment.. it doesn’t make sense, has no bearing on the argument, and illustrates absolutely no point.

    I certainly never advocated for “throwing money” at schools. However, public school funding should be equalized in order for everyone to have the best possible start. If the anti-socialism crowd doesn’t like it, well.. their wealth will always buy them private schools, won’t it?

  • Anonymous

    Like I said, you may not like it, but that doesn’t change it. I can’t suspend the laws of physics and slam dunk a basketball any more than you can defeat the laws of human economic behavior.

    From my previous post to A-joy:

    “You say I’ve got a selfish attitude. Let me ask – when did “I want to keep the money I earn” become selfish and “I want to take the money you earn” become moral and right? Makes me wonder how you explain that to your kids.”

    The vacation/education, Ohio/Alabama comparisons are analogies. I think most people would understand that.

    And I admire you for admitting you are a socialist. At least you’re up front about wanting to take stuff from some people and give it to others. That’s why I find Dennis Kucinich less offensive than, say, Newt Gingrich. D.K. is truthful about his intentions. Conservatives lie when they say they want smaller government. They are very devious, and they say that to get elected, but deep down inside they love big government, too. Their flavor of big government favors the military, businesses, and foreign governments.

  • Anonymous

    Education does not meet the test for being a public good. A public good is nonrivalrous (I know, strange word) and non-excludable. Meaning it takes more resources to educate each additional child, and there is a way to exclude someone from receiving the service (education). Try Googling it.

    I realize that many people do consider education a public good. I don’t, because it’s not.

  • Anonymous

    Enard, please see my reply to you, above.

    I’m for good schools and well-educated kids also. But at this point, and I’m closing in on 50 years old, I’ve concluded that there are better ways to provide education.

  • enard

    Public schools are not a pure public good, but there are substantial positive externalities to public education which is precisely why the government funds public education in the first place and precisely why we want public education funding retained.

  • Socialists wanting to take all your hard earned money and give it to others is as tired as Democrats wanting to steal all the guns. It’s fear mongering and a misrepresentation designed to demonize thinking that is different than your own.

  • Anonymous

    You said “…public school funding should be equalized…”, right? Does that not mean you (a socialist, as stated on your Face Book page) want to take from people who have more money and give it to people who have less of it? Help me out if I’ve got this wrong.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!