Orange County School Board Race

Graig,

> If we're really concerned about funding equality between neighboring

> districts, then we should also advocate for increased funding for

> Durham, Person, Chatham, and Alamance county school districts since

> they also border our districts.

That is an interesting point that I have often pondered during the continuing merger debate. For the reasons you stated, should the fair funding debate be moved to the state level? If we only had state funding and both districts were funded at a level significantly less than we are funded today for the sake of statewide equality, would we all mourn the loss of local control and local funding? How many parents made a choice of residing in our county because of the educational funding?

Do we trust the state to provide this funding? The state trend is to abdicate responsibility for many educational budgetary areas. Class size reductions include unfunded mandates for new classrooms and then eliminate many teacher assistant positions. Then it is sold as "We reduced class size", but you never hear "but your county taxes will have to pay for the new classrooms needed and your TAs are being fired even though the classes are still large enough to need them."

M

One area to examine when looking for waste is the 890 empty seats in Orange County elementary schools. Are we utilizing these buildings wisely when the middle schools are overcrowded?

As a parent and SGC chair in the Orange County Schools and an employee of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, I do not think there is much waste in either district's budget. The largest % of money in a school district's budget is for personnel. There are very few salaries that could be cut without damaging the educational effectiveness of some school or classrom. In general, I think all school districts need to be funded at a level equivalent to these two districts.

Nonetheless, I also think there are lots of things both districts can do to improve without spending more money. And one of the reasons I've been slow to warm to the merger idea is because I think the funding equality argument is problematic. Patrick notes that both districts are at or near the top of funding in the state. If we're really concerned about funding equality between neighboring districts, then we should also advocate for increased funding for Durham, Person, Chatham, and Alamance county school districts since they also border our districts. Not to mention Hoke and the other counties that Judge Manning (in the Leandro case) has ruled are unconstitutionally unfunded.

Graig--while I completely agree with you about making sure all districts are funded equally, I think raising that argument in the case of Orange Co/CHCCS is obfuscatory. Like in the issue of Airport Rd/MLK Blvd, the timing of an argument is as important as the argument itself. Having read other posts you have made, I am not saying you are trying to confuse the issue--just giving you my (unasked for) opinion that we are too far into this conflict to be raising such issues.

Terri

Obfuscatory? Why? Because it broadens the debate to a larger realm? In that case, I think it actually illuminates the point that funding inequities are relative. In this case thinking about that issue helped me come to a conclusion that merging based on proximal inequities isn't a good policy solution.

Or is it because I just brought it up? Actually, I didn't. I've shared this idea in many other places before, just not here. I used it as my primary argument in telling Liz Brown why I wouldn't support the merger initiative. Besides, isn't the debate still open? When does it become too late to introduce new ideas into an open discussion?

One thing to remember is that there is an equivalent way to have a supplemental tax for the Orange County school without a referendum and without merger-- increase general property taxes countywide and earmark the increase for education, then reduce the Chapel Hill-Carrboro supplemental tax by the same rate. There may be some funding distortion because of disparity in the tax bases of the two districts versus the number of students to be funded in each district.

Right on Gerry!

The common misperception is that the only way to increase county funding is via merger. And in my opinion this has been brought up in the most polarizing, least constructive harmonious way. What I don't understand is whether this was done this way intentionally or was an accident.

The distortion is what is surprisingly minimal from what I think people expected.

I think the county school board chair asked for what you mentioned.

Raise property tax 5 cents - earmark it for education (raise the school budget target up from 48.1%) and lower the district tax 5%..

This has been requested already....

A number of you have advocated for more money for our schools.The NC County Commissioners Assoc. 2003 tax and spend survey places Orange County # 2 in the state for local dollars per pupil spending. This does not include the district tax in Chapel Hill. Do you believe that each school system and county government is spending our tax dollars wisely? Is there waste in these budgets, if so where?

Cantaloupe, don't forget that with or without merger, the third highschool, third OC middle school, and 10th CH elementary school will be built. They all have been approved and merger will not stop those projects. Therefore, the $30 million "savings" for the third highschool is a moot point.

Not much discussion here about some smaller choices that might occur within the larger decision to merge.

What if some number of kids elected to attend a magnet program? Perhaps an IB high school or an AG program serving middle grades, for example? This might mean that parents would do the driving/carpooling and the busing issue (which is oversold) might well become moot. More to the point, a smaller program-driven school would tend to be well-supported by parents who felt that this met their kids' needs.

What if a couple of charter schools were approved and actually encouraged by a merged district? They might pick up a couple hundred kids and, again, they would not necessarily have to provide transporation. A high school for the arts or a two year high school program specializing in some of the trades might do pretty well with some real creativity.

Jean,

Those can be done with collaboration without merger. They are not reasons to merge.

Terri,

> What we need to be discussing is not whether or not we should

> have a merger but what are our options for bringing equity to all

> OC children without ruining our environment.

Agreed. Merger was proposed as a solution to a vague set of unstated problems. Funding is Funding. Merger is Merger.

> Certainly economy of scale could be achieved by merger

There is no proof from other school mergers that economies of scale have resulted from school mergers. There were many requests for citations of studies to support this hypothesis during the hearings, but none were presented.

Smaller districts offer better local control.

----

Cantaloupe,

If you delay building of a school by a couple of years, you save the interest on the bond, but you don't save the whole cost of the school. Savings are offset by purchases of buses and by additional bus miles.

----

teacher/mom,

I am not convinced that these schools will be built. Many of the commissioners are not funding reasonable land acquisition costs (HS3), nor costs required to bring water/sewer (MS3), nor costs to comply with required roads and Carrboro appearance and building codes (MS3).

I am concerned that HS3 is being delayed until after the election so it can be nixed for merger.

----

Busing is a real problem with merger, as evidenced by the school system estimates of students who will be bused. You can't have it both ways. The only way to use the capacity is to bus kids long distances to get to it.

M

Mark, I believe that in all reports about merger to date from the BOCC (John Link), it has been understood that those three schools will be built as part of the merged system.

Jean -

as Mark said you don't need merger to have collaboration or set up a charter school open to EVERYONE in the county.

However, it would be HIGHLY recommended to survey parents to make sure enough of them would take kids (by carpool or whatever way you'd like) on a daily basis to make sure such a school would fly and suceed. Have enough users.

again merger is being interwined with other issues in your post....

Merger IS intertwined with other issues. That's part of what makes it so difficult.

What I'm suggesting here is that there are many potential avenues to solve the problems that merger might bring and that solving those each in turn is much more appealing to me than jacking up taxes in the county to equal the city district's level.

But Jean, Merger MANDATES that tax rates are jacked up by 21.8 cents per 100$ this year. Merger mandates the most severe possible tax hike. Other funding solutions allow for smaller and continuously more flexible tax increases.

Please don't confuse the public on what requires the largest tax hike..

The publicly stated Commissioner Carey approach of "the ends justifies the means", "we don't need to know all the answers" and "we can fix all the problems after" don't really seem the thoughtful deliberate publicly informed approach that governance should follow if at all possible.

Jay--please provide a reference for your statements: "Merger mandates the most severe possible tax hike. Other funding solutions allow for smaller and continuously more flexible tax increases." Is there any report that says there won't be a supplemental tax if merger isn't pursued? As I understand it, merger is one solution for making the districts more equally funded. The supplemental tax (proposed) could be imposed whether there is merger or not. I haven't seen anything that addresses the costing of non-merger solutions, have you?

Terri -

there is so much date on the web by clicking through

www.co.orange.nc.us on possible merger that I strongly recommend everyone who wants to be informed read every page of every document.

Literally, 10s of thousands of dollars or more in County Staff time and tax dollars were spent putting them on the web -- and lots of useful information is within them. For instance the student membership projections by 2013-2014 are in there under 12 total reports - each of which downloads as a PDF on my computer. so I don't know how to post a direct link...

From slide #26 of the county manager's power point.....

"Post-merger funding must be at highest five year historical per pupilrate upon effective date of merger"

(note the county manager used a number comparable to todays spending not the 5 year average which would actually be a funding cut for the town schools)

all of the revenue projections are based on holding per pupil funding FLAT in the town district and raising taxes in the county consistently until they are equal. The county manager has chosen to use something close to today's per pupil expenditure. It is possible that the tax hike would not have to be so severe - but that would require cutting non-school related expenditures severely by cutting services - and most people I would think don't see that happening.

What is completely lacking from this report are Expenditure projections -- the presentation is only Revenue projections. Inflation and Increases in per pupil spending for the town schools is not figured into these models. So these models assume that the costs up to 10 years from now will be identical as today -- if I understand this right?

There are over 50 downloadable documents one should read on this web site to understand what merger and supplemental taxes MAY or MAY not do.

One must really read them to understand it well....

slide 36 and on explain the detail of a supplemental tax.

It could be done independently or with merger...

However, it appears a supplemental tax must be voted on and reflect the will of the people unlike merger. If you assume the mangers projections are true than a supplemental tax would generate more per pupil funding in the county 10 years from now than merger would...

read through the reports when you have time..

I don't know what a long bus ride is, but I do think that the bus ride distance has been used unfairly as a scare tactic in this debate. My point was that IF merger was to proceed, there needs to be study teams (with strong community involvement) to identify how it can best be achieved in a way that benefits children. Certainly compromises will need to be made, but those compromises should be based on parameters defined by the study teams. For example, we could set as our goal that no child would have to travel more than 7 miles from home to reach school. Any redistricting/new school construction would then be handled through that guideline.

Graig --

you are right about one thing -- what is a long bus ride is subjective.

I cringe when I hear colleagues who are quite wealthy and decided they would rather have 20 acres in the county than 0.25 in town say that they road the bus 19 miles a day when they were kids so it doesn't bother them if there kids go 12 a day and mine do to.

buying a house takes a lot of thought and presumably parents at some point ask which schools are nearby. If you bought your house -graig presumably you knew which schools it was zoned for. It's not really fair to tell someone - who might be part of a 2 parent working family and carefully chose a house near schools and in between work for both parents to tell them tough luck. "social justice" demands we undo all your careful planning.

What really bugs me is that for those people who are near the chatham border there is already a mechanism in place to annex them into the town schools - IF they are willing to pay the district tax. NONE of the commissioners has bothered to explore or publicize this.

.....

As far as Terri's question farmers pay a very very low tax rate and that would probably not change. (on the flip side they generate very few kids per acre and probably don't use many costly urban services.

......

Cantaloupe -

please click through the www.co.orange.nc.us

site about school merger. in less than 10 years even WITH merger AND 3 new schools that don't exist (including the high school).

Guess what? We will be overcrowded again.

There is NO WAY to avoid building new schools in an area that will increase by 40% by 2020 and will double kids in the school district in the next 10 years. Not building schools today to put more kids on longer bus rides is completely SHORT SIGHTED and not very "smart growth".. Let's not redo the efland soccer fields again....

I'm sure HIllsborough would have loved those fields...

Cantaloupe,

If there is ever a serious discussion about how merger would be implemented, I hope that there are criteria put in place that would obviate any decisions that penalize children--such as long bus rides. Certainly economy of scale could be achieved by merger, but the question we should ask is whether those cost savings maintain level/quality of service. By not building the third high school, the children in the southern part of the county are being penalized IMHO.

Jay--according to the proposal (as I understand it), the supplemental tax has to be imposed even WITHOUT merger if we are to achieve equity between the two systems. You didn't answer my questions about the impact such a tax would have on the agrarian residents of Orange Co. What would happen to our "rural" character with this new tax? What happens to our water quality? What I don't think you are understanding is that equity is going to be achieved, one way or another--with equanimity toward each other or with animosity--it's the right thing to do. What we need to be discussing is not whether or not we should have a merger but what are our options for bringing equity to all OC children without ruining our environment.

Terri-

As an OCS parent, I'm perplexed by the CHCCS parental lament of "no long bus rides." I've heard it in the merger debate and in Chapel Hill's redistricting conversations.

What is a long bus ride in your opinion? 10 mintues, 30 minutes?

I live in the White Cross area. My daughter went to Grady Brown Elementary and now attends Stanback Middle School. Both schools are about 12 miles from our house. We live only 7 miles from the McDougles. Our car ride to school is 15+ minutes. The bus ride is about 40. Other friends live up to 8 miles farther away from school than we do.

I believe that Chapel Hill parents feel unreasonably entitled to "short bus rides." Aren't longer bus rides a small price to pay for educational equity? Which penalizes students more: long bus rides or not enough funding for their schools?

It seems that even with a "equalized funding system" ( OCS tax, 2 systems remain) there are still financial resources that are removed from "operating" uses because of the need to fund new school construction in the city district out of general tax revenues. By using the excess capacity of the OCS,the money formerly needed for bricks and mortar in Chapel Hill could be used for direct instructional costs. For example, if we didn't have to build the third high school , that translates into 30 million in savings, and would potentially provide an extra 1683.00 per child for instructional and allied services. I realize that is a simplistic formula and the actual accounting is much more complicated , but there are real additional monetary costs associated with having two districts, one of which is growing as fast as CH-C, while the other has excess capacity that could accommodate those students. CH residents can't blind themselves to those costs. Many county residents see the population boom of chapel hill as costing their children education dollars.

You're catching on Terri --- what I find particularly appaling was the county report FREEZES per pupil spending in chapel hill carroboro for up to 10 years in the merger plan (the 10 year one).

The problem with a supplemental tax is it could be voted on (or should be voted on by the public). Although I don't know if this is a requirement??

If the 2001 county wide bond referendum is any indicator (a bond for school construction and greenways, parks etc...)

It passed 2 to 1 in Town and lost 2 to 1 in the county. But because of the population density south of I-40 passed overall. Now you may see why merger would lose to some extent at least county control over the schools....

You will also notice Terri that ALL the county school board candidates APPEAR to oppose merger . Even supporters of past promerger folks don't mention merger in their support letters to the editor. For exactly what you mentioned. No one in the county wants to slap a 21.8 cent tax on the county residents via merger....

Thanks for the links. Does anyone know what impact a 21.8 cent tax rate will have on OC land ownership/usage? (vs. 20.3 cent rate for CHCCS citizens) Does the 21.8 cent figure take into account the use value program (property taxed at a reduced rate because it is ag/forestry)? Did the economic development department review/bless the work of the school district staff?

If adding a county-wide tax is as straightforward/non punitive as Mark Peters et al, are claiming, then why is the discussion of merger still on the table? I'm not meaning to pick on you specifically Mark--but you have set yourself forward as the OP advocate for educational equity through the addition of a county wide tax. Care to hypothesize on why anyone, especially someone trying to be elected to public office, would continue to endorse merger given the easy tax solution?

Hi Terri,

You may find this URL helpful in putting Leandro in context. My reading of this and the decision leaves me with the conclusion that we in Orange County are nowhere near the fulcrum point of Leandro and hence any trigger of judicial action. The systems cited were performing so pitifully that basic education was lacking. "Basic Education" is a pretty low hurdle that both our systems clear handily. It is a shame that the systems (not) serving the plaintiffs in Leandro did not.

http://www.ncjustice.org/edlaw/LeandroSum.htm

Al

Terry,

Regarding:

> My issue with the targeted tax hike is the competing opinions about

> whether or not it can actually achieve equilibrium between the two

> systems without being so steep on the county as to force those who are

> land rich/cash poor (farmers, family land owners) to convert

> idle/farm land into development. Some say this is a realistic scenario;

> others say not.

Please help me understand what you mean by "without being so steep".

What if a penny of tax in the city district and in the county district raises the same per pupil funding? The county reports are clear that the current per pupil revenue is almost even now and will favor the county district in ten years.

> Until I hear something definitive from someone who has

> no stake in the merger issue, I will remain against random acts of

> taxation.

Do you consider the county reports on possible merger as neutral enough to meet this criteria?

M

Al--Leandro is about funding formulas and equity. I agree that the issues in Orange Co are not equivalent to the Leandro case, but the philosophical underpinning of the decision--funding equity--is the same. Given the emotional levels in Orange Co. I do see the possibility of a parent taking this issue to court and the precedent would be Leandro. Also remember that Leandro only went to court after kid/parent became so frustrated they saw no other course of action available to them. Personally I think all districts in the state should be funded equally, but no one is asking me.

As far as your position goes, I'm curious as to why you and others in Orange Co. have taken positions against merger before knowing the outcome of the UNC study. As I understand it, the UNC study is looking at *access* rather than *dollars* to determine if there is a real equity issue. I am not advocating for or against merger--my horse in this race is purely about equal access to educational opportunities for all the children in this county. If you don't have enough data to determine if there is equal access/equity, what basis do you have for taking a stand on merger one way or the other?

Terri --

paste this in your browser

http://www.co.orange.nc.us/

click on "Possible School Merger" in red on the left side (the only red box) and then scroll down on the page from september to october of 2003.

there is a power point slide presentation that downloads as a PDF as well as many interesting appendices like "appendix S Hypothetical tax rates".

I think it might have been you who broke this story from the church information session that said the county might be better off in the future alone. In 10 years per pupil funding in the county would be greater than in town per penny of property tax...

lots of good information in all these reports including how "capacity" could be used to bus kids into the other territory and delay (slightly) the building of new schools. In ten years the reports predict ~1400 kids would be bussed into the county to balance "capacity".

Terri,

http://www.co.orange.nc.us/schoolmerger/AppendixS.pdf shows that to generate a fixed per pupil funding amount, the two distract taxes continue to be within 10 percent of each other between the districts and by year 10, the OCS district is projected to have a slight advantage.

M

Al,

I apologize if my comments have negatively impacted yours or anyone elses candidacy for office. However this year's election is a referendum on school merger (whether stated or implied). The issue is not dead and there are people who want us to believe that it is. This is a blog site and as such, I am entitled to express my opinion. I believe I have honored my viewpoints by expressing them thoughtfully. Much of what I have said has simply been the quotation of facts, such as they are.

Mark Peters--do you know where I can find a copy of the staff report you refer to? I would like to read it--especially if it has been written by a representative group of individuals from the school board, the commissioners, and local parents. I didn't find it referenced on the OCSB/county website or on your nomerger.org site.

My issue with the targeted tax hike is the competing opinions about whether or not it can actually achieve equilibrium between the two systems without being so steep on the county as to force those who are land rich/cash poor (farmers, family land owners) to convert idle/farm land into development. Some say this is a realistic scenario; others say not. Until I hear something definitive from someone who has no stake in the merger issue, I will remain against random acts of taxation.

The issue with legislative enforcement has nothing to do with tax rates--it has to do with equity between the two systems. If an Orange Co parent/student wants to force the issue of access to music/AP courses/special services, it is possible that the case could go forward (as far as I understasnd Leandro--which is about funding formulas rather than tax rates).

Hello all,

I am in Alpharetta, GA. on a business trip and received a disturbing call saying that I should look at this web log and see what was being written. Having done so, here is what I have to say about this thread. I am not CJ. While all this stuff was being posted, I was at White Lake on vacation with my family. We had no internet access. I came back to Hillsborough late Friday afternoon to attend Hog Night, then went back to White Lake Friday night. I got back in town Sunday evening and left out again this morning.

CJ (whoever you are),

While I appreciate your grasp of the facts surrounding the OCSB candidates, your hyperbole does you no credit. It also lends aid and comfort to my opposition and casts my candidacy in a negative light. Persons will, as FI has intentionally done, superimpose your tone on my candidacy and what I stand for. I have great respect for the truth and believe it stands without literary assistance. Let your facts stand and thinking people will appreciate you, and them, more for it.

FI (whoever you are),

It is wholly inappropriate to attempt to sabotage my campaign with unsubstantiated innuendo. As Ruby says, "Play Nice." If Ruby wanted to cross-check my IP, she could. I have only posted on OP twice before. Both posts were made over a month ago and like this one, were signed with both my first and last names. Should you, or anyone else, like to know what my ideas are for this system, they are available at www.alhartkopf.com or via email at this email address or that found on my website.

All,

This is not a game. This is serious stuff. Our children's education is not idle sport.

Al

CJ(aka Al Hartkopf)

The question remains: what are your ideas for supporting the school system? You have spent a lot of time talking about the people and ideas you dont like. I am sure you must have some ideas of your own that dont involve criticism of others. When you spoke of people with their 'Harvard degrees in tote' coming down here, it sounds like you resent their being here. I have lived here for quite a few years and I can assure you, that is not the Orange county way. The people in our county our gracious, kind and yes we are concerned about the education of our children and our neighbors children. We champion the underdog and we abhor a bully. One may use every opportunity to criticize your opponents instead of presenting your own ideas, but nastiness is not the same as effectiveness and opportunism is not the same as leadership.

Is there something about a supplemental countywide tax for education that is not worth pursuing - at least more so than merger?

I don't get it - a targeted tax for education provides for the minimum tax hike for county residents that targets the most money for education.

(as far as the seniors and other services provided for by general funds - yes they do not partake in school taxes but this whole Jazz riff of a solo that the commissioners started had do to with spending more money on education to begin with that seniors and others would have to pay for anyhow.)

Also, it is not true the state reps. would ever force merger due to the tax hike alone - not to mention this being a local non-state issue.

Also, the last time I saw the FACTS there were 117 school districts for 100 countys state wide so the stuff about forcing only this one seems bogus....

Ms. Brown,

I don't know what country you vote in but when I go to the polls, I AM required to identify myself before I am permitted to vote. And I think it's nice no one is required to say for whom they voted but I'm perfectly happy to tell anyone who cares enough to ask me.

While there may be some chance that anonymity will "lead to more honest feelings being put forth," There's a far greater chance that people will use it as an excuse to say things for which they have no basis or defense.

Barry Winston

CJ

It is very interesting that you seem to begrudge people with an education. Whether they have degrees from Harvard or elsewhere, does not make them any less deserving to live in our county and to participate in the process of public service. Dont you feel a little hypocritical criticizing someone because they have an education on a web site devoted to discussing a school board race? Isn't getting the best education possible for all the children in our community what supporting our school system is all about? As for your comments on changing ones mind, history is repleat with examples of people who changed their course in order to do what they thought was in the public's best interest. Was it weakness when the United States as a nation finally decided to change its course and do away with slavery? Was it weakness when we finally decided to change course and give African Americans and women the right to vote? All I have heard from you is negativity. You are against merger. You dont care for this candidate or that. What are your ideas for supporting our schools? Incidently, I like the signs you have put up around the county saying that you are running for school board. The blue and white colors are very easy to read. Well done you.

FI,

Wow. What wild claims and at 12:30am on a Saturday night. I hope my comments haven't been keeping you up! While I have a lot at stake based on the outcome of the election (my childrens education), I am not a candidate and I haven't put up any signs. I also didn't begrudge anyone with an education either. Those are claims _you_ made.

I have already posted this once, but I will do so again. This time I will type slower: Changing ones mind is one thing, acting duplicitous is yet another.

The facts speak for themselves and they are what they are: the truth. These facts are not flattering towards Liz Brown, James Henninger, and Dana Thompson, I admit. However, that doesn't make them any less true or even negative. They are just the facts.

- Liz Brown co-founded two pro-merger organizations FFICS and ROB-CH

- FFICS used Orange County School Children as a conduit to distribute their inappropriate politcal messages. Liz Brown got in trouble for taking advantage of the school children in that manner.

- Dana Thompson used her position as a OCSB member to promote the ROB-CH organization and was 'called-down' on it by the OCSB. Dana Thompson's pro-merger activities are what led the OCSB to have to adopt an Ethics Policy, a policy that she resisted.

- Dana Thompson, Liz Brown, and James Henninger are all good friends by their own admission.

- Liz Brown fought for school merger along side Dana Thompson during the entire course of the discussions and public hearings on merger.

- It wasn't until AFTER she filed to run for school board that Liz Brown announced that she was anti-merger.

- James Henninger has stated that the issue of merger is a DEAD issue.

- James Henninger has stated that if the condition of the school board degrades, the judicial system will force merger.

- With the exact same vigor that they supported the merger of our school system, pro-merger supporters are working for Brown and Henninger.

So while your points about changing ones mind are taken, they are not applicable in the case of Liz Brown. Her actions and statements simply do not match up. I predict that Orange County residents are much smarter than Brown/Henninger/Thompson figures them to be.

Here is one more parting quote regarding school merger -

"Elected officials often have to make choices that go against what they hear lots of grown-ups saying. This issue is about and for the children, the voiceless.” - Liz Brown

Interesting points about tax revenue. Then we have people who move to Orange County from places like Boston with their Harvard Degrees in tote because they want to live in a rural setting. They move into their plush homes built on top of some old farm and have a few children. Then those exact same people protest loudly about any modest growth in Orange County that might increase tax revenues. They support County Commissioners who want to eliminate growth in the county altogether while allowing Chapel Hill to grow practically unhendered. Then they have the unmitigated gall to claim to be fighting for "fair funding" and "social justice" ... "for our children, the voiceless." Oy vey!

It seems like evry one wants to live off the government doesn't it?

And Mark i agree there's to much waste in about all forms of government.

I noticed in the Durham paper on Wed. that a few days before the vote on the Iraq War that our own senator John Edwards bought stock in several different defense companies that the government buys from.Then how did Edwards vote? I'm just upset I didn't think of that.

MJ

The waste of our federal and state income taxes aside, there is no question that there's a lot of consumption of goods and services in this county. In many instances, those goods are purchased from stores that we get in our cars and drive to in another county. The service come from businesses located outside of Orange County.

How much tax revenue does New Hope Commons get from

Chapel Hill/Carrboro Shoppers? How much revenue does the Burlington Outlet Mall get from Northern Orange County residents? How much money do Orange County residents transfer to businesses in Wake, Durham, Chatham, and Alamance counties? I just don't understand how, on the one hand, we seem opposed to development in our own county that will generate tax revenue, but are quite willing to use those resources in other counties and give away those tax dollars.

In the New Hope Commons development, originally the developers wanted to position it on the Orange County side of the tract of land. The process at that time was so cumbersome--Orange County was worried about traffic snarls, ingress/egress, environmental pollution, stormwater runoff---- that the developer relocated the development on the Durham county side of the same tract of land and got it approved. All the concerns Orange County had about traffic, pollution, etc didn't go away, it just got shifted a few hundred feet to the other side of the county line. We still have the impact, but not the financial compensation of the tax revenue. .

It's that kind of stuff that makes no sense to me. We have to have a more diversified tax base for a number of reasons--it protects us against a downturn in any particular market sector, it spreads out the exposure to rising costs and it keeps housing more affordable by limiting property tax increases.

Reclaiming more of our income taxes is something I can definitely support, but we also need to work on the local front to both improve our tax base and use our existing dollars to the greatest efficiency.

We know where our tax money is going and who it benefits. Large corporate interests have infiltrated the government and found a way to funnel incredible sums of money into their corporate coffers for war, insurance, and other scams.

How long before we at the local level will stop scraping around for crumbs in the form of a bigger commercial tax base, cutting one program to fund another, etc? We sit in the parlor and argue over pennies for important local needs while million dollar Tomahawk missiles are launched by the hundreds, while Halliburton charges the taxpayers over a $100 for a 4x8 sheet of plywood, while Blue Cross-Blue Shield robs us without rebuke.

We know where the money is, but we don't ever consider taking it back for authentic local needs.

I am not a big business proponent, but the lack of tax revenue generated from commercial taxpayers does have an effect on the schools. The less tax revenue that is available, the less fundswe have for the schools. The County has failed I believe in having a comprehensive policy with goals that can be quantified that would alleviate some of the burden off of the residential taxpayer. I think if we have a concerted and concentrated effort to attract those companies who do not pollute then we can be successful in generating revenue that does not come from homeowners. Surely our area is perfect for such companies. We are near two interstate highways. We have a highly educated and sophisticated population. I would like to see some more activity to attract the kind of industry that can help the tax revenue situation.

Joal Broun

I have really enjoyed all the comments from everyone regardless of who you are. All those making comments about the equality in funding for the schools are missing some important thoughts.I'll throw out some thoughts to ponder and especially in reference to those who spend our money.(commissioners) I'm surprised that none of the candidates for any of the offices never pursue what the real issues are.

I think if you were to go back and look at the tax dollars coming into the county say starting around 1980. Get the dollar amount the county allocated the BOE. See what percentage of the total budget that is for each year. Then you would need to look at each year and find out how much new tax base was created for the next year. Then you would need to see how much the county allocated the BOE for that year.I think if you do that up to 2004 you will find that the county commissioners have not been fair in increasing the dollars to the BOE. And that's not including all the money that the county has collected from an unfair impact fee.

Something along the lines of a user fee would be fairer.

And how can one of the highest paid employees(Full time) of the school system go to all kinds of meeting during the work day that has nothing to do with the school system and still be paid as a full time employee.? I don't think the school system is getting what they pay for.

I'm don't have time to get involved, I'm just one of the many in the county trying to make enough money to pay county taxes.

POOR TAXPAYER

Thanks for straightening me out, Graig. I will try to phrase better in the future. My son was at Stanback and had teammates in the year round program, hence my example of being out of sync with extra-curricular activities. I'm not sure about what the latest status of that program. I thought it was dropped due to insufficient numbers. There is talk of making the new middle school year round, but that seems kind of awkward since it is out toward Mebane.

One disadvantage of being a non-incumbent is that I am not totally knowledgeble with each line item of each school's budget. I would look forward to becoming a lot more familiar, but will not presently say cut this program or that one. In general, I would suggest a meeting of the superintendent and the principals laying out priorities and determining where we can squeeze some extra dollars. I have been told by one principal that they didn't get a final budget until October last year. I would think it would be difficult to properly plan in this way when you don't know your numbers until after the first six week period.

As I said, this year's budget is a rock and a hard place. The commissioners' suggestion is to use money earmarked for opening the third middle school and hope for a better year next year.

I think CJ is correct in advising backing off the county commissioners. I admit to not fully appreciating their position in the past. There is a certain amount of crow that I feel the need to eat as I see that they are quite stymied with insufficient revenue for the county's needs. It's a bad year. I've noticied similar problems in our neighboring counties. That is why I suggested a meeting with the commissioners, school boards, and state reps to try to brainstorm new methods to get revenues.

I also agree that I don't think "slash and burn" tactics are ultimately helpful. One may get something off one's chest, but it doesn't help resolve issues.

CJ, thanks, but that website (and numerous others I found through google) gives no citation. Thanks for the Keith Cook spin on my question though ;) That was a good one.

I only asked because it sounds like the kind of spurious quote that Liberatarians like to throw around all the time. Plato may well have said that, but there are a lot of spurious Liberatarian quotes attributed to the likes of Plato and Jefferson. For a good book on this topic, check out Nice Guyes Finish Seventh by Ralph Keyes - a whole book of famous misquotes.

One way to help the OC Schools funding situation would be to treat our County Commissioners with a little respect rather than placing blame on them for all of the problems and attacking them personally. Rick Kennedy, a Liz Brown, James Henninger, and Dana Thompson pro-merger supporter, put on a fine display of how to decrease the funding for Orange County Schools at one of the County Commissioners Budget Hearings. He raised his voice and called the Commissioners a bunch of crooks. Then he labeled the OCSB as completely incompetent. After he gave his "speech", who gave him a standing ovation? Why Orange County's favorite daughter, of course, Liz Brown. Was she applauding because his behaviour was so outrageous that it was entertaining or because she agreed with his message?

Everyone should be concerned about the path that some of the candidates for school board are encouraging while proclaiming otherwise. Changing ones mind is one thing, acting duplicitous is yet another. Sometimes talking about the truth hurts, but that does not make it negative. We have candidates for school board who have questionable motives when it comes to their own credibility and it is completely of their own making.

Duncan,

I'm with you. At the risk of beating the same old (apparently) dead horse, no one who hides behind a mask of anonymity deserves to have their craven sniveling given a second glance.

Barry

I'm with you Barry -- before people vote in the polls we should make them identify themselves and tell the public who they are voting for.

Why let people keep anonymity -- it will only lead to more honest feelings being put forth.