<p>WashDad’s post in another thread about empty nesters and taxes got me thinking about news reports I’d read while visiting relatives whom recently moved to suburban Atlanta.</p>
<p>A headline in the local newspaper quoted County Council officials who were inclined to oppose a zoning revision to allow a particular townhomes/condos project because they feared such housing would attract singles, retirees and childless couples who have no interest in supporting public schools, and thus, would vote no on school levies. Growth in the suburban Atlanta region continues to boom and many suburban schools are already huge. If you sat on a local council or school board would you vote to oppose a new housing development if you believed few families with children will reside at that location?</p>
<p>If they vote that way, then they may be stupid as well as frugal. One of the leading factors that drives up housing prices is the quality of the schools. If you build them, they will come. They will lose money in the long run, unless they don’t recognize their home as a valuable investment.</p>
<p>Weenie, our town has a huge problem with seniors voting down school budgets. Usually for all elections there is a strong network of volunteers giveing seniors rides to the polls. Out school elections are in April, and the volunteers do NOT offer rides. They know they’d be bringing more no votes than yes votes. </p>
<p>I can see both sides here. While Catera is correct about housing values tied to quality of schools, there isn’t much correlation between $$ per student and school quality in NJ.</p>
<p>We have a contingent here who WANT senior/single/childless housing so that the school burden will be lessened. Seniors here vote every chance they get, but single/childless do not tend to vote on the education issues.</p>
<p>Why would seniors really care all that much about real estate values? I know my parents don’t fret- they’re in their late 70’s and look at their house as the last place they live, unless they end up in a nursing home. Any appreciation of their property value might benefit their children (as heirs), but they don’t have plans to sell it and move “up” or spend the money on themselves.</p>
<p>We used to have an interesting dichotomy in our community, before the new Jr/Sr high was built. School zones were split right down the middle of our community; those living to the north of a certain road were bussed to a low-performing high school; those living to the south went to the high-performing school. The same exact houses on the north side of the road were selling for about 75% of those on the south side. Did people care? Not really, only the families that had kids.</p>
<p>Our seniors vote against our outrageous school budgets because in most cases they simply can’t afford to pay any more taxes. Why should they support more and more buses when kids could walk to school and million dollar astro-turf athletic fields anyway? Well, I guess that’s a subject for a different post.</p>
<p>In general, our seniors are paying a LOT and not getting much in return.</p>
<p>Weenie, you hit on a very contentious issue in my town: astro turf fields. The seniors & the academically-focused families are going nuts after the second such field was installed. Families with kids are going nuts because the brick facades are falling off the town’s 90 year old school buildings. Meanwhile, the huge county portion of our property taxes pays for 90% of the school costs for Newark inner city schools (double our own town’s cost per pupil figure, still atrocious schools, with several generations of “poverty pimps” laughing all the way to the bank.) Young adults go nuts each time a new senior bus is purchased or another senior day-care or exercise program is added. </p>
<p>It seems that the more intrusive government has become in our lives, and the more we are conditioned to depend on the government, the more fighting over resources we have.</p>
<p>^ Well, you realize of course that we’re all fighting over scraps. We haven’t even paid a dime for Iraq yet. (The cost for Iraq for my pathetic county alone - $1,654,879,400 and counting.)</p>
<p>I’d like to believe that when my golden years are at hand, I would support school levies. But like StickerShock, I am well aware of the very contentious school financing issues in New Jersey and I know that property taxes for the non-wealthy in NJ are exceedingly high. Also, the senior rebate program and the tax appeals programs in NJ are a joke.</p>
<p>Part of the school experience are turf fields, auditoriums and what not. Just cause you don’t see the need (for me auditoriums and play houses) doesn’t mean that it is not providing a useful service to education. Developing a well rounded person instead of a ROUND smart person with health issues at a young age is part of the education process. </p>
<p>Good playing surfaces (I know SS, your district went funky. did they use the same for the next one?) ESPECIALLY when yhr demand far exceeds supply, is pretty critical. A field turf surface can handle far more traffic than a grass field, plus provide a lesser risk of injury to the student atheletes. </p>
<p>As far as trying to retro fit old buildings, they might be squeezing the last bits of life out of some of these buildings. Then they’ll raze them and build a new school. Most times that is far cheaper than retrofiting and the issues it brings up. Do you build in new systems that can work for 30 years into a building that has 10 years left? Plus in most cases these old buildings require Haz mat containment when retro’d, which just adds cost without substance to back it up. I would think it would be better to wring the last drops out of a building, bulldoze it and put up a new modern building.</p>
<p>For my kids HS sports were an outlet for stress while working their buns off in the classroom. My oldest, now in medschool still uses sport to deal with stress from studies. He just took up Rugby and scored a try this weekend. He is physically sore on Sunday and Monday but his mind is clear for class that Monday. So I will argue with many of you that schools need those things like fields, arts centers and what not to allow the kids to clear their heads a bit to learn more.</p>
<p>^ Ah, but like everything in life, choices have to be made, and taxpayers sometimes can’t pay for everything (especially in regions that are not economically thriving).</p>
<p>I am either more frugal than most (a distinct possibility - perhaps a surprise in a flaming liberal like me) or I just know more struggling people (also a possibility).</p>
<p>“Why would seniors really care all that much about real estate values? I know my parents don’t fret- they’re in their late 70’s and look at their house as the last place they live, unless they end up in a nursing home. Any appreciation of their property value might benefit their children (as heirs), but they don’t have plans to sell it and move “up” or spend the money on themselves.”</p>
<p>Very true. In addition, rising values would mean a rise in assessment and a rise in seniors’ taxes, which they definitely don’t want.</p>
<p>Rising values generally reflect better economic activity in an area which can mean better shopping and entertainment amenities. Flat to declining values indicate the opposite. I’d prefer to live in the growth city.</p>
<p>Another sign of the sound logic of funding education via confiscatory property taxes. When there is taxation with representation, time comes to reduce the potential representation or … mislead the voters.</p>
<p>Exactly what led to the passage of California’s Prop 13 nearly 30 years ago. Strangely, despite predictions to the contrary, California remains prosperous and a desirable place to live, if a population that has grown by about 60% since the passage of 13 is any indication.</p>
<p>EDITED TO ADD: Prop 13 severely restricts the ability of taxing authorities to increase property taxes until a change in title. This does lead to the unusual circumstance that neighbors in identical homes may be paying radically different property tax amounts. At least when I still lived there this didn’t seem to bother most people, who were just grateful that grandma and grandpa could still afford to live in their house, and not have to live with the kids.</p>
<p>“Ah, but like everything in life, choices have to be made, and taxpayers sometimes can’t pay for everything (especially in regions that are not economically thriving).”</p>
<p>Then you would agree with field turf. The ongoing maintaince costs are much lower than grass. And with realestate (land) at a premium, creating a heavy use site is much better finanically than purchasing property. Especially in heavy density communities. </p>
<p>Provided the right surface is put in, it is good use of money.</p>
(The cost for Iraq for my pathetic county alone - $1,654,879,400 and counting.)</p>