Why Are Our Property Taxes So Damn High?
RealityForAll said:It would appear that applying Occam's razor to the problem of exceptionally high property taxes in MaSO would deliver you to the simplest solution (namely, eliminate corruption, reduce excessive salaries/pensions of public workers, etc.). Raising taxes more (for example, higher income tax rates for the wealthy) does not appear to be a simple solution to this issue. Am I missing something here (for example, should Occam's razor not be applied in certain situations such as MaSO property taxes)?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor - Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: lex parsimoniae "law of parsimony") is the problem-solving principle that the simplest solution tends to be the right one.
The simplest solution is to look at the tax base first, if you're wondering why residential property taxes in Maplewood and South Orange are relatively high. Oh, look, there's a dearth of non-residential taxable property compared to other communities with relatively lower residential property taxes. Your insinuations about corruption, etc., aren't valid.
it’s absolutely nuts for the district to build internal expertise for other than the most broadly based learning disabilities. Once on-staff, there’s a fixed cost that continues forever, though the population of kids with that specific disability may be non existent. Businesses outsource, the district should too. And when a kid is sent to a school with high level of experience as soon as possible, there’s a greater likelihood they’ll make significant progress and can return in district
Were we to decide to provide a wider range of in-district special education services, would we be able to offset costs by entering into inter-local agreements to provide those services to special needs students from other communities in the region? Would our costs be reduced if we were to enter into inter-local agreements with nearby municipalities where member municipalities would pool resources to provide special education services to eligible children from each of the districts covered by the agreement?
Oh, pleeeease!!!! no more special ed services, that was the rationale used on the last round which resulted in a 25% budget increase in the budget. The BOE decided to introduce a second teacher into the classroom about ten years ago, an initiative whose results were never reported to my knowledge; however, the budget results were clear: it raised the costs permanently whether or not those teachers are still in the classroom or not. It becomes the new normal. The budget game goes like that: if the budget is increased by the cost of living, everyone applauds. If the superintendent has to cut the budget, he knows where the fat is.
I forget the name of the dynamic duo responsible for that stroke of genius, but within a CBOE Education sub-committee meeting he told me that anyone without children should simply move out of the township. So get ready to pack your bags and say goodbye to all your relationships when your children leave school, unless you plan to continue to pay $20.000 in real estate taxes in retirement.
I don't see a way to fix that budget, ever. It would require zero budget increases for a very long time. Special ed wasn't the only reason the budget is bloated. There is a tolerance to educate children from outside the school district as well. The last time that I looked at the minutes of the BOE, we were even paying for children who were attending schools outside the district. One of those students was in a residential unit costing an average of approximately $150,000 for the school year! I wrote about this in a News Record letter to the editor after checking every BOE meeting minutes within a year about four years ago.
And why do they allow these out-of-district children in the school system? could it be that they want to raise the class ranking of their own children?
Is it corrupt? you decide, but don't dismiss the question offhand. All these decisions are minimized by saying: it will only cost you $15 more a year, if you divide it by all the homes in the district. Those $15 decisions have become common practice, and over time you get budgets like the ones you have.
Why does it keep happening? because no one is watching. The TC member of the BOE keeps quiet. If you as an individual say something, then you simply make enemies, get labelled and achieve nothing. People need to organize to stop that, and I never saw a willingness with voters to do that, not even in the hard times of the Great Recession. I sold my house, and moved away largely because of what I witnessed in the BOE.
Special education services are mandated. IEPs carry with them specific obligations as to conditions that have to be met in the classroom. Because our school district does not have the resources to meet some of these needs, a significant number of our children are sent out-of-district at the school district's expense. Question is can the costs associated with providing special education services be reduced by either providing more of these services ourselves or by joining with other school districts in the region to take a regional approach towards meeting this mandated obligation?
joan_crystal Question is can the costs associated with providing special education services be reduced by either providing more of these services ourselves or by joining with other school districts in the region to take a regional approach towards meeting this mandated obligation?
A friend has a special needs child in Newark with an IEP. He gets a portion of his needs met, but not nearly anywhere what be needs. He’s currently in an inclusion class. Ideally she would like to move out of Newark it’s very crowded, as he would do better in a smaller classroom. But she’s been unable to find a good school district with with smaller classes and the level of support that Newark offers, but Newark is disinclined to send him out of district as the costs would be significant even though his teacher and his aide have strongly advocated for it.
We were just musing last week about wouldn’t it be awesome if districts could come together to create a Special Needs Programs for neighboring districts? So no one school district is bearing a disproportionate cost to send one child OOD? Kids who do well with inclusion but need smaller groups? Kids who need more individual attention but for which one teacher could attend to a few?
Right now at his school his aide only works with 1 other kid. 1 teachers aide, 2 kids all day. Of course it’s expensive.
Anyway. Just musing.
nohero said:
RealityForAll said:It would appear that applying Occam's razor to the problem of exceptionally high property taxes...The simplest solution is..
Occam's razor is useful, but not necessarily well suited for the age of social media. I'd like to propose Hokum's Razor -- the position that least challenges my pre-conceived beliefs is the one I'm likeliest to declare right.
Its big advantage over Occam's razor is that it truly prizes simplicity -- what could be simpler than sticking to my already-decided positions?
Copihue said:
Oh, pleeeease!!!! no more special ed services, that was the rationale used on the last round which resulted in a 25% budget increase in the budget. The BOE decided to introduce a second teacher into the classroom about ten years ago, an initiative whose results were never reported to my knowledge; however, the budget results were clear: it raised the costs permanently whether or not those teachers are still in the classroom or not. It becomes the new normal. The budget game goes like that: if the budget is increased by the cost of living, everyone applauds. If the superintendent has to cut the budget, he knows where the fat is.
I forget the name of the dynamic duo responsible for that stroke of genius, but within a CBOE Education sub-committee meeting he told me that anyone without children should simply move out of the township. So get ready to pack your bags and say goodbye to all your relationships when your children leave school, unless you plan to continue to pay $20.000 in real estate taxes in retirement.
I don't see a way to fix that budget, ever. It would require zero budget increases for a very long time. Special ed wasn't the only reason the budget is bloated. There is a tolerance to educate children from outside the school district as well. The last time that I looked at the minutes of the BOE, we were even paying for children who were attending schools outside the district. One of those students was in a residential unit costing an average of approximately $150,000 for the school year! I wrote about this in a News Record letter to the editor after checking every BOE meeting minutes within a year about four years ago.
And why do they allow these out-of-district children in the school system? could it be that they want to raise the class ranking of their own children?
Is it corrupt? you decide, but don't dismiss the question offhand. All these decisions are minimized by saying: it will only cost you $15 more a year, if you divide it by all the homes in the district. Those $15 decisions have become common practice, and over time you get budgets like the ones you have.
Why does it keep happening? because no one is watching. The TC member of the BOE keeps quiet. If you as an individual say something, then you simply make enemies, get labelled and achieve nothing. People need to organize to stop that, and I never saw a willingness with voters to do that, not even in the hard times of the Great Recession. I sold my house, and moved away largely because of what I witnessed in the BOE.
Almost everything in this post is wrong.
joan_crystal said:
Were we to decide to provide a wider range of in-district special education services, would we be able to offset costs by entering into inter-local agreements to provide those services to special needs students from other communities in the region? Would our costs be reduced if we were to enter into inter-local agreements with nearby municipalities where member municipalities would pool resources to provide special education services to eligible children from each of the districts covered by the agreement?
This is the last thing we need - government (education) building more staff, infrastructure, etc. outsource all but the broadest based disabilities.
As a parent of 2 Kids who learn differently, the district couldn’t even come reasonably close to meeting their needs in district. Because of the population density here - there are many specialized education settings here. New York City takes great advantage of those that are more northerly, because, it just makes sense.
To put this in perspective - my one kid was in a regular classroom. first added language support, then math support , then in class aide, then pull outs during lunch, play period, gym. We were up to 6 teachers. And still no progress. Hugely detrimental actually to their emotional and mental health. Worst of all - all this nonsense took over 2 years - which was Lost time for them. The wasted time and cost in administration, case management, assessments, educators was horrid.
There are schools in this area that can fit virtually every specialized education need - if my kid had been placed 2 years earlier into one of them vs being a science experiment in district for things that no one really had any expertise in, I believe things would have been so much better for my kid, emotionally and educationally
Copihue said:
There is a tolerance to educate children from outside the school district as well. The last time that I looked at the minutes of the BOE, we were even paying for children who were attending schools outside the district. One of those students was in a residential unit costing an average of approximately $150,000 for the school year! I wrote about this in a News Record letter to the editor after checking every BOE meeting minutes within a year about four years ago.
And why do they allow these out-of-district children in the school system? .
I have witnessed this dirty little secret and it is amazing that this actually goes on. No other district would allow it. How does it continue and why do people tolerate it?
peteglider said:
joan_crystal said:This is the last thing we need - government (education) building more staff, infrastructure, etc. outsource all but the broadest based disabilities.
Were we to decide to provide a wider range of in-district special education services, would we be able to offset costs by entering into inter-local agreements to provide those services to special needs students from other communities in the region? Would our costs be reduced if we were to enter into inter-local agreements with nearby municipalities where member municipalities would pool resources to provide special education services to eligible children from each of the districts covered by the agreement?
As a parent of 2 Kids who learn differently, the district couldn’t even come reasonably close to meeting their needs in district. Because of the population density here - there are many specialized education settings here. New York City takes great advantage of those that are more northerly, because, it just makes sense.
To put this in perspective - my one kid was in a regular classroom. first added language support, then math support , then in class aide, then pull outs during lunch, play period, gym. We were up to 6 teachers. And still no progress. Hugely detrimental actually to their emotional and mental health. Worst of all - all this nonsense took over 2 years - which was Lost time for them. The wasted time and cost in administration, case management, assessments, educators was horrid.
There are schools in this area that can fit virtually every specialized education need - if my kid had been placed 2 years earlier into one of them vs being a science experiment in district for things that no one really had any expertise in, I believe things would have been so much better for my kid, emotionally and educationally
We send so many of our special needs students out-of-district because we do not have the capability to provide the education these students need within our district. The cost of special education instruction being provided out-of-district coupled with transportation costs needed to get these children too and from school represent a significant portion of the school budget. Question is whether there is a way to reduce these costs while maintaining or improving the quality of education our special needs students presently receive.
HoBo said:
Copihue said:I have witnessed this dirty little secret and it is amazing that this actually goes on. No other district would allow it. How does it continue and why do people tolerate it?
There is a tolerance to educate children from outside the school district as well. The last time that I looked at the minutes of the BOE, we were even paying for children who were attending schools outside the district. One of those students was in a residential unit costing an average of approximately $150,000 for the school year! I wrote about this in a News Record letter to the editor after checking every BOE meeting minutes within a year about four years ago.
And why do they allow these out-of-district children in the school system? .
Where do you witness it, how does it continue after you report it?
HoBo said:
Copihue said:I have witnessed this dirty little secret and it is amazing that this actually goes on. No other district would allow it. How does it continue and why do people tolerate it?
There is a tolerance to educate children from outside the school district as well. The last time that I looked at the minutes of the BOE, we were even paying for children who were attending schools outside the district. One of those students was in a residential unit costing an average of approximately $150,000 for the school year! I wrote about this in a News Record letter to the editor after checking every BOE meeting minutes within a year about four years ago.
And why do they allow these out-of-district children in the school system? .
Because it is fantasy, and we love a good made-up story.
Copihue said:
There is a tolerance to educate children from outside the school district as well. The last time that I looked at the minutes of the BOE, we were even paying for children who were attending schools outside the district. One of those students was in a residential unit costing an average of approximately $150,000 for the school year! I wrote about this in a News Record letter to the editor after checking every BOE meeting minutes within a year about four years ago.
And why do they allow these out-of-district children in the school system? could it be that they want to raise the class ranking of their own children?
You do realize that these are students from SOMA who have been placed in alternative schools, therefore they are NOT from outside the district.
Check the BOE notes for any district and you will find that huge amounts of money are being spent on out-of-district placement for special need students. Its a major expense in most districts.
Most of these alternative schools charge a great deal, I don't know what their profit margin is.
HoBo said:
I have witnessed this dirty little secret and it is amazing that this actually goes on. No other district would allow it. How does it continue and why do people tolerate it?
To report it, the residency hotline is listed on the district's "Who to Contact" webpage:
Our taxes are high because a disproportional amount (compared to most states) of the costs of education (primarily) and some other services are paid via local property taxes AND our community has a lot of residences, very few commercial ratables and aging infrastructure. If more educational and other services were funded at county or state level AND if more funding came via income tax (not allowed at the municipal level as I understand it), then there might be some economies of scale and it would certainly be the case that costs would be spread on a "fairer" basis. (If you get a salary increase - that is money from which a portion can go to taxes. But if your home increases in value, you can't send an extra brick in.) Our towns are not on a "spending spree" and I believe that our per pupil education costs are fairly average across the state. Also, because of our diverse demographics, particularly among school age children, the costs for providing education are (or should be) more than for homogeneous districts, because of differences in preparation, more children from homes where English is not the first language of the parents, more special education needs, etc.
If you care about this issue, you should be researching what is being done at the state level about education funding, pensions, healthcare (for state workers as well as the rest of us) and taxation and advocate/donate/vote accordingly. But, instead, the tendency is to gripe on social media at our local officeholders, when they are working very hard to provide excellent services on ever-tightening budgets. The biggest thing we should be pressuring our local officeholders about in this area is to continue and increase their lobbying in Trenton to improve/reform the situation in New Jersey, which hits towns like ours harder than most.
peteglider said:
it’s absolutely nuts for the district to build internal expertise for other than the most broadly based learning disabilities. Once on-staff, there’s a fixed cost that continues forever, though the population of kids with that specific disability may be non existent. Businesses outsource, the district should too. And when a kid is sent to a school with high level of experience as soon as possible, there’s a greater likelihood they’ll make significant progress and can return in district
The issue is how much is costs to place kids out of the district. The placement of one child at a private school could cost anywhere from $50,000 - $75,000 per year. If you hire one qualified person the investment could be worth it if you bring only a few kids back.
from Bob Roe: Recent study by Rutgers. https://bloustein.rutgers.edu/smaller-municipalities-may-not-be-more-costly-to-operate-says-new-bloustein-local-report/ Ray Caprio was one of my professors at Rutgers Newark.
This year you will only be able to deduct $10,000 of your combined state and property taxes costs, and mortgage interest deductions will be capped at $750,000; this may give you the motivation to look at the school and municipal budgets.
RobertRoe said:
from Bob Roe: Recent study by Rutgers. https://bloustein.rutgers.edu/smaller-municipalities-may-not-be-more-costly-to-operate-says-new-bloustein-local-report/ Ray Caprio was one of my professors at Rutgers Newark.
I agree completely with their conclusions regarding consolidation. Cost savings to the extent that they are there will come from sharing underutilized resources, mostly through shared services and inter-local agreements.
sac said:
Our taxes are high because a disproportional amount (compared to most states) of the costs of education (primarily) and some other services are paid via local property taxes AND our community has a lot of residences, very few commercial ratables and aging infrastructure.
The above is correct, but you also have to mention that NJ's education spending is extremely high too. It isn't just a problem of how school revenue is collected, it's also that NJ is spending a lot of money period.
NJ's school spending is usually ranked as the 3rd-5th highest in the US. Many New Jerseyans who are more tax-tolerant defend that by saying that NJ's cost of living and income are high (and that's true) but NJ's school spending is also extraordinarily high even in relation to NJ's GDP and income.
In fact, NJ's "tax effort," meaning education spending as a percent of GDP, is ranked as the 2nd highest in the US, even by liberal organizations.
This comes back to a point I made earlier, which is that NJ's taxes are high because we spend a lot.
Compared to other New Jersey school districts, the SOMSD isn't on a spending spree, but if you compare statewide systems, New Jersey certainly is.
If more educational and other services were funded at county or state level AND if more funding came via income tax (not allowed at the municipal level as I understand it), then there might be some economies of scale and it would certainly be the case that costs would be spread on a "fairer" basis.
I agree that if education and other services were funded at the county or state level there would be economies of scale, but I think that relatively little savings would come from eliminating what people would consider waste, such as administrative redundancy, since central office administration is only 3% of NJ's all-in education spending and you wouldn't be able to eliminate that entirely.
I think creating countywide districts would, in the long run, cost a lot less because it would change the dynamic of district-union salary negotiations and change voter behavior.
Right now, whenever one district has high salaries or agrees to a large raise, it puts pressure on other districts to match those salaries and you have a salary-competitive environment.
(Indirectly, the ability of rich/high-taxing districts to outspend lower-income/low-taxing districts is what led to the Abbott decisions, since the Abbottist legal doctrines weren't based on insufficient spending in urban districts per se, so much that the spending in urban districts was lower than spending in affluent suburbs.
Since the Abbott regime centered on comparing spending in the 31 Abbotts to spending in all the DFG I and DFG J districts, the state was forced to defund the DFG I and J districts because had it not, it would have required even more money to go into the 31 Abbott districts under the Parity Plus doctrine. In fact, under the original Abbottist plan, the state was going to cease funding pensions in 220 districts.)
I also think that the creation of countywide districts would change voter behavior, since residents would no longer have such a direct link between their own taxes and their own children's schools. The linkages that many people (sincerely) believe exists that high spending = high performing schools, and high performing schools = high property values, would be broken.
I think the changes in voter behavior would also rein in taxes and spending more than the direct savings through greater efficiency would.
ctrzaska said:
But... the allure of home rule.
I wonder if one day the state will reach a point of general unsustainability that will prompt a general consolidation of districts. I think it would have to get pretty bad across the state before the citizens or Trenton would ever reach that point, but it made me wonder what it may look like.
In a relatively rural county, a county-wide district would work. But that may not be the case in our more dense counties - there may have to be two or three districts in those. I wonder if there's research on what the optimal size of a district would be? At any rate, I often look back at my own experiences as a point of comparison (for what it may be worth):
I was educated in the Shawnee Mission School District in Kansas for most of my elementary and all of my junior high years, until we moved out of the area. This district covers the upper half (or third) of Johnson County, Kansas, which is a major suburban area of the Kansas City metropolitan area. When we moved there in the late seventies, it was into a brand new subdivision on the outer edge of rapidly-expanding sprawl -- it seemed like farms were being turned into subdivisions every month. Now I look at Google and see that suburban sprawl goes way beyond where I lived. At the time, the district apparantly had a very good national reputation.
Looking at its history on Wikipedia, the district was formed in 1969 by consolidating 13 town-wide districts into a regional district covering several suburban towns. It currently has over 27,600 students.
The district during my time had five high schools (plus one alternative high school) covering grades 10-12, nine or ten junior highs covering grades 7-9 and probably twenty to thirty elementary schools. Looking at its website now, the same five high schools cover 9-12, and they have consolidated the junior highs into only five middle schools covering 7-8 only, closing or converting the other ones. The zone for my old jr. high is now much bigger but it educates one fewer grade. When we first moved there I was bussed across district to an elementary school for a grade and half before they completed a brand new school that I could walk to.
That district is governed by a seven-member school board. Two members are at-large and each of the other five members are elected from the corresponding high school zones. I don't really understand why we place so much value in hyper-local school governance here. It doesn't seem to result in any greater sense of satisfaction in our districts' accountability or transparency.
Looking back, my impression is that a district of such scale has certain advantages that aren't as readily available to our smaller districts here. Certain accelerated programs were consolidated and optimized. For instance, I was able to particpate in a district-wide honors band program in elementary school and and a district-wide honors orchestra program during junior high (I believe we were bussed to rehearsals after regular school hours). In addition, the expansive gifted program was run out of former elementary school that had been closed. Once a year all of the elementary kids in each school's gifted program had a district-wide G-T day together at that school that provided for very focused programs (it's also where I met one of my good friends who lived a couple of towns away...). I'm sure there were many other programs (special ed, etc.) that also benefited from the scalability.
The large number of elementary schools also afforded the district some flexibility to address ad hoc issues. For instance, my new elementary school was supposed to open at the start of my fifth grade year; however, its completion wasn't quite on time. So for the first month or so of that year, all of the fifth grade classes and their teachers were bussed to another elementary school that had some excess space; the 4th graders were sent to another school, and so on. That way we could start the year together with our new teachers and not have a massive zoning and classroom shift occur during the middle of a school year.
Was there excessive bureacracy or bloat in such scale? Maybe some (I have no idea), but probably much less than at a massive district such as NYC or Chicago.
Granted, there may be some apples-to-oranges issues in making these comparisons. I have no idea how schools are funded in Kansas (or not, given its recent political history...), and I'm curious how the funding would possibly change here as a result of consolidation. But I think there's a good deal of logic in a certain degree of consolidation. Not that I ever expect it to pass the necessary political hurdles.
Anyway, forgive my rambling....
weirdbeard said:
ctrzaska said:I wonder if one day the state will reach a point of general unsustainability that will prompt a general consolidation of districts. I think it would have to get pretty bad across the state before the citizens or Trenton would ever reach that point, but it made me wonder what it may look like.
But... the allure of home rule.
In a relatively rural county, a county-wide district would work. But that may not be the case in our more dense counties - there may have to be two or three districts in those. I wonder if there's research on what the optimal size of a district would be? At any rate, I often look back at my own experiences as a point of comparison (for what it may be worth):
I think there is a possibility of consolidation occurring in rural districts that have experienced enrollment loss. For instance, in 2014-15 Lambertville, Stockton, West Amwell Township together with the already-shared regional high school, South Hunterdon, combined into a consolidated K-12 district which is called South-Hunterdon.
However, even though those three towns merged their governing structure and student bodies, they did not merge their tax bases, since tax apportionment in the three towns is by the percentage of the total student body from each town, not Equalized Valuation. The three towns are similar in wealth, but still, tax rates range from 1.2 to 1.5.
If two economically dissimilar towns merged and apportioned taxes by student enrollment the difference in tax rates would be enormous. For instance, Manchester Regional has an Equalized Valuation/enrollment hybrid and tax rates go from 0.19 in North Haledon to 1.3 in Prospect Park.
---
There are some mergers that rise to the level of discussion elsewhere in New Jersey (like in Sussex County), but I am unaware of any mergers being contemplated between demographically dissimilar districts.
For instance, Freehold Boro is the most commonly used example of a high-FRL district surrounded by affluent districts (with which it already shares a regional high school), but there seems to be about zero interest in merging from Freehold Boro itself. In my conservations with Freehold Boro people, their focus is on receiving adequate state aid, not merging with the towns they already share a regional high school with (Colts Neck Township, Englishtown, Farmingdale, Freehold Township, Howell Township, Manalapan Township and Marlboro Township).
If Freehold Boro were forced to merge with its neighboring districts, and there was any talk of apportioning taxes by student enrollment and not Equalized Valuation, I expect that you would see a great deal of opposition, because a student body apportionment would mean a very high tax rate for Freehold Boro.
So, right now the Latino Coalition of NJ is suing to possibly force district mergers, but I think it is suing for an outcome that is mutually unwanted by racially isolated districts as well as their middle-class or affluent neighbors.
ml1 said:
racism is keeping NJ from consolidating districts
That’s bold but I suspect there is some truth in that statement.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
I could be wrong, but many years ago I remember our district having the reputation of being an accommodating place for kids with various learning disabilities/educational needs. This may have led to some families moving into our district because of the services. However, things changed once the paraprofessionals were outsourced.
Just my theory based on anecdotal evidence.