Home
Classifieds
Contests
Subscribe
Work with us
Clear,19°
Friday, March 6, 2015
Cutting the fat . . . and the meat, and the bone
(Page 3 of 3)

The cost of insurance and retirement benefits for school district employees now outpaces the growth of funding in New York state. This means that unless the tax cap is raised, or unless these benefits are exempted from the cap to a greater degree than they are now, every school in the state will eventually join the decline.

“All 700 school districts in the state are lined up facing a cliff,” Dr. Herbert Brown, superintendent of Oceanside schools said recently. “The question is not if they will fall off the cliff, but when.”

The savings the tax cap creates play well during elections. It sounds great when a politician tells you you’re going to have an extra $700 in the bank on tax day. But these are false savings. The costs of declining school districts are far larger. Homes values drop; more police are needed to deal with underserved youths; additional substance abuse and gang control programs are required; unemployment rises.

It’s a lot more expensive to solve problems than to prevent them. The tax cap looks good on paper, but it will cost all of New York dearly in the long run.

Comments

3 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment
Gregorio

Someone should ask the 2 Superintendents above if they are cutting into their marrow? Or salary, I should say. The 2% tax cap is one that was put in place in order to help alleviate huge tax increases upon the taxpayers. We are overburdened with the HUGE salaries and pension plans that the administrators of each of our school districts get paid. Am I anti- teacher, NO WAY.... But they work approximately 180 days a year and make an annual salary worthy of those that work YEAR ROUND. Then add in their pensions, WOW..... Its no wonder that we have a glut of professionally trained teachers looking for a job...... Governor Cuomo has said many time that we should be hiring Superintendents for 175K and under, which is MORE than reasonable pay for the position. In Bellmore-Merrick the taxpayers have to hire one for each elementary district and one for the high school district. This is absurd. Put it this way, when we cannot afford to pay more taxes and the pensions and salaries continue at this pace, LITTLE HOUSE on the prairie one school districts will be the rule.

When does it in.

Greg Bashaw

Sunday, March 31, 2013 | Report this
mphoenix5

The people of Baldwin have spoken with their votes. 7% is insane!!!! I voted "NO" to the budgets because I didn't see ANY concession from the Superintendent, 3 assistant Superintendents, directors or assistants of assistants. I absolutely support the teachers and students, many of my family members are teachers. I DO NOT support helping the Superintendent keep up his Mercedes payments. The key word here is "budget" not "bottomless wallet". I'm asking for austerity, frugality and common sense.

-Mary

Wednesday, May 22, 2013 | Report this
mphoenix5

The people of Baldwin have spoken with their votes. 7% is insane!!!! I voted "NO" to the budgets because I didn't see ANY concession from the Superintendent, 3 assistant Superintendents, directors or assistants of assistants. I absolutely support the teachers and students, many of my family members are teachers. I DO NOT support helping the Superintendent keep up his Mercedes payments. The keyword here is "budget" not "bottomless wallet". I'm asking for austerity, frugality and common sense.

-Mary

Wednesday, May 22, 2013 | Report this
Terms of Use | Advertising | Careers | Contact Us | Community Links © 2015 Richner Communications, Inc.