Hmmm, I think what irks me the most is the feeling that people without children should pay less. I feel like that's a slippery slope which ends up with no public libraries, no public schools, no snowplowing, no road repair. Yes, that's extreme, but... Also, the assumption that older people without children in the school system shouldn't have to pay really annoys me. Because, it's not like their children benefitted from having public schools anyway.
I'd like to say that there wouldn't be so many moving in to town that'd make that much of a difference, but having just gone through house-hunting and having rejected several towns because rich people with kids are desperate to get into the school system and driving up house prices.
Though rising housing prices means more property taxes, too, so that kind of takes care of itself. And can go the other direction, which is a real problem for those of us looking for a good school.
*flails a bit*
Does that make sense to you? It's hard to articulate what irritates me so much about this article.
I think Medfield's problem is that they've hit a limit. They point out that they've got the most kids (per capita) of any city in the state, so they're trying to balance their demographics so that they can better afford the kids they've got.
The problem is that their logic can be applied to places where it's not understandable -- where there aren't already a zillion kids. After all, if you bring in a lot of kids, you'll have to raise taxes on your current residents, who will vote you out of office.
It's one of the reasons why this sort of problem tends to involve your state or federal governments. That way, you can deal with the problem without screwing up your demographics.
It's one of the reasons why this sort of problem tends to involve your state or federal governments. That way, you can deal with the problem without screwing up your demographics.
Hmmm, I guess the older people paying less wasn't in that article. I hear that sort of argument about not paying for libraries ("I don't go there, why should I pay.")
(While re-reading the article, I really felt like I was reading a toally different article than the one I read before. Maybe I'm less pissy now... :})
I can see balancing demographics, but they really seem to be trying to find ways to make the town less inviting to children. The lower-income housing is all 1 to 2 br rather than larger homes. I dunno. It just struck a wrong chord for me.
*hides tomatoes behind her back*
Hmmm, I think what irks me the most is the feeling that people without children should pay less. I feel like that's a slippery slope which ends up with no public libraries, no public schools, no snowplowing, no road repair. Yes, that's extreme, but... Also, the assumption that older people without children in the school system shouldn't have to pay really annoys me. Because, it's not like their children benefitted from having public schools anyway.
I'd like to say that there wouldn't be so many moving in to town that'd make that much of a difference, but having just gone through house-hunting and having rejected several towns because rich people with kids are desperate to get into the school system and driving up house prices.
Though rising housing prices means more property taxes, too, so that kind of takes care of itself. And can go the other direction, which is a real problem for those of us looking for a good school.
*flails a bit*
Does that make sense to you? It's hard to articulate what irritates me so much about this article.
Reply
The problem is that their logic can be applied to places where it's not understandable -- where there aren't already a zillion kids. After all, if you bring in a lot of kids, you'll have to raise taxes on your current residents, who will vote you out of office.
It's one of the reasons why this sort of problem tends to involve your state or federal governments. That way, you can deal with the problem without screwing up your demographics.
Reply
Yeah - very much agreed!
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
(While re-reading the article, I really felt like I was reading a toally different article than the one I read before. Maybe I'm less pissy now... :})
I can see balancing demographics, but they really seem to be trying to find ways to make the town less inviting to children. The lower-income housing is all 1 to 2 br rather than larger homes. I dunno. It just struck a wrong chord for me.
Reply
Leave a comment