{news} Tom Sevigny - "Property Tax: Poor Way to Fund Schools"

[John Battista]

Excellent opinion piece by Tom Sevigny.

> >
> >
<http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-plcsevigny0619.artjun19
> > ,0,7591060.story?coll=hc-utility-opinion>
> > Property Tax: Poor Way To Fund Schools
> > By TOM SEVIGNY
> >
> > June 19 2005
> >
> > Another spring has arrived in Connecticut, and with it the obligatory
> > haggling over town budgets. As usual, you have one side that stubbornly
> > demands no increase in what it rightly perceives as already too high
> > property taxes, and another side that decries what it views as draconian
> > cuts to the education budget. Neither side ends up winning.
> >
> > A modest increase in the mill rate is usually finally approved after
> > lengthy hearings, but never enough to fully fund all the wished-for
> > education programs. Both sides leave the process dissatisfied, angry,
and
> > all too quick to blame their local elected officials. The most tragic
> > aspect of this yearly ritual, however, is the fact that both sides do a
> > lot of talking and shouting, but they never really take a step back and
> > listen to each other. If they did, they would discover that we are all
> > players in a game in which the rules are stacked against us.
> >
> > In Connecticut we have connected our highest priority and
fastest-growing
> > expense in local budgets - public education - to the slowest-growing
> > source of revenue - local property taxes. Connecticut's local public
> > education system is more reliant on the local property tax than all
other
> > states in the union because the percentage of education funding coming
> > from state revenues - 37 percent - is near the bottom (45th) among the
> > states. As a result, the property tax burden in Connecticut is the
> > third-highest in the nation per capita and ranks as the 11th-highest in
> > the nation when it comes to the percentage of personal income going to
> > property taxes. These "rules" are a prescription for strife, whether
> > evident in failed local budget referendums, constrained educational
> > investment, or intergenerational struggles over priorities.
> >
> > Furthermore, Connecticut's property tax structure has created a
> > competition among the 169 towns for property tax funds and has put
> > pressure on local officials to build the grand list by commercially
> > developing available land - the so-called fiscalization of land use - to
> > offset the high cost of residential development they can do little to
> > control. The result is urban sprawl, the loss of farmland and open
space,
> > increased traffic congestion, and a decline in the quality of life in
far
> > too many of our communities.
> >
> > With the rules as they are, local officials are pretty much constrained
as
> > to what they can do about these budgetary and land-use problems. Local
> > officials are almost forced to produce the results that citizens,
> > frustrated by high taxes, improperly funded education programs and bad
> > land-use decisions, find so aggravating.
> >
> > I am in no way attempting to absolve local officials from blame. In my
> > hometown of Canton, for example, buying open space could have been made
a
> > priority years ago as a way to mitigate the impact of residential
> > development. Instead, we get an open space commission with almost no
money
> > to purchase property. In addition, far too many of our local elected
> > officials continue to believe that we can grow our way out of our
> > financial problems.
> >
> > For example, the Shoppes at Farmington Valley were hailed as the
economic
> > savior of Canton, yet here we are still unable to fully fund an
education
> > budget despite a 9 percent increase in our grand list. What is going to
> > happen next year without such an increase? The fact is that we would
have
> > to build almost the equivalent of the Shoppes every year to offset just
a
> > 3 percent yearly increase in Canton's overall budget. If we are unable
to
> > control residential development, no amount of commercial development
will
> > be able to offset its impact on our budget.
> >
> > Residential development attracts more commercial development which, in
> > turn, attracts more residential development - it is just a vicious
cycle.
> > Property taxes, already some of the highest in the country, will simply
> > continue to rise.
> >
> > So what do we do? First, we need to acknowledge that the rules of the
game
> > are stacked against us. Whether you are for increased education budgets,
> > lower property taxes, or the preservation of open space, we are all
going
> > to lose. Second, we need to pressure our elected state officials to
change
> > the rules. How the state funds local education needs to be completely
> > overhauled. Simply put, the state needs to pay its fair share of local
> > education expenditures.
> >
> > It is imperative to increase the state's share to rectify the imbalance
> > between state and local contributions to support local education. We
> > should employ a diverse range of taxes with a broad base, with balance
> > among income, sales, and property taxes. This means we should
specifically
> > avoid a heavy reliance on the local property tax, which hurts families
and
> > businesses, grows revenues slowly, and contributes to urban sprawl.
> >
> > Someone once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same
thing
> > over and over again and expecting different results. If we don't change
> > the rules of the game, we will continue to see the same fruitless
results
> > every spring. It's time we embrace the spirit of spring and begin to sow
> > the seeds of change.
> >
> > Tom Sevigny of Canton is a board member of Canton Advocates for
> > Responsible Expansion, a member of the Citizens Network "Financing Local
> > Education" study committee and a member of the Green Party.
> >
> > Copyright 2005, Hartford Courant <http://www.courant.com>
> >
> >
>