Prairie Village Council Supports Tax?!?!?! Arrrrgh!!!
Much to my consternation and disappointment, the city council voted to officially endorse the Johnson County quarter cent sales tax measure. Personally, the thought of the Prairie Village council endorsing the tax is stupid on multiple levels.
1) It’s not our place to endorse or decry any political issue outside our jurisdiction. As a governing body, we have no impact on the issue whatsoever. We only influence the issue as individuals and we all – as individuals -- have slightly different opinions so we shouldn’t masquerade as though we speak with one voice. . . . . even though the overwhelming majority of us support the tax.
2) Does anyone in PV give a rip about what the council endorses when the council can’t control the outcome?
3) Endorsing the tax makes the council look stupid because the continuation of the tax continues the flow of tax money into the city budget – it gives the council more to spend at residents’ expense.
Anyway, five of us weren’t enough to keep the measure from passing. Somewhere, somehow, you might see a little news article saying that the council says “yea” to the County Quarter Cent sales tax. The mayor didn’t seem to be too crazy about the idea so he might not suggest that the staff to use any and all means necessary to make sure that this is front page news. I’m not saying that’s how things work, but since there was nothing in today’s Neighborhood section of the Star, I just have a feeling. Of course it could be that the Star’s coverage of the city business of Northeast stinks. And that’s not a feeling, that’s a fact.
This is the link for the language of the ballot question:
http://www.jocoelection.org/questions/Election-County-09-27-05.htm
this link is the advocacy page of the Shawnee Mission School District:
http://www.smsd.org/Parents/legislative.htm the county tax is specifically addressed in #6 (actually, “VI.”)
I can’t present the other side of the issue. I’m not sure if there is an organized effort to defeat it.
From the perspective of an “inner ring” suburb like Prairie Village, strong, competitive schools are necessary to keep the area attractive to families. A strong case could be made that the money is important to JoCo schools since the state is not solving the school funding problem. I absolutely support any measure that benefits the continued health and success of the city.
The one thing that I object to is the “dollar spent per pupil” figure. Supporters of the tax say that the money spent per pupil in Johnson county is low compared to some benchmark (I can’t remember what it is). KCMO spends a whackload of money per pupil and it obviously does not result in good schools. The only thing that I would universally support is much higher teacher salaries. But none of this money will go to that. It may continue some very important programs but it won’t make teachers competitive salary wise with engineers or MBA’s. Personally, I think if we paid teachers as a profession consistent with their value to society we’d have a LOT fewer Johnny’s who couldn’t read.
It’s not a new tax, you’re already paying it. Everyone who pays retail sales taxes (i.e., non-residents as well) in Johnson County pays it. Voting yes would be to continue paying it. About two-thirds of it goes to the county which will grant it back to the 7 Johnson County school districts. One third would go back to the 21 cities in Johnson County. The most recent 3 years of the tax generated about $47.5 million for the schools, $27 mil for the cities; PV got about $1.2 Mil.
1) It’s not our place to endorse or decry any political issue outside our jurisdiction. As a governing body, we have no impact on the issue whatsoever. We only influence the issue as individuals and we all – as individuals -- have slightly different opinions so we shouldn’t masquerade as though we speak with one voice. . . . . even though the overwhelming majority of us support the tax.
2) Does anyone in PV give a rip about what the council endorses when the council can’t control the outcome?
3) Endorsing the tax makes the council look stupid because the continuation of the tax continues the flow of tax money into the city budget – it gives the council more to spend at residents’ expense.
Anyway, five of us weren’t enough to keep the measure from passing. Somewhere, somehow, you might see a little news article saying that the council says “yea” to the County Quarter Cent sales tax. The mayor didn’t seem to be too crazy about the idea so he might not suggest that the staff to use any and all means necessary to make sure that this is front page news. I’m not saying that’s how things work, but since there was nothing in today’s Neighborhood section of the Star, I just have a feeling. Of course it could be that the Star’s coverage of the city business of Northeast stinks. And that’s not a feeling, that’s a fact.
This is the link for the language of the ballot question:
http://www.jocoelection.org/questions/Election-County-09-27-05.htm
this link is the advocacy page of the Shawnee Mission School District:
http://www.smsd.org/Parents/legislative.htm the county tax is specifically addressed in #6 (actually, “VI.”)
I can’t present the other side of the issue. I’m not sure if there is an organized effort to defeat it.
From the perspective of an “inner ring” suburb like Prairie Village, strong, competitive schools are necessary to keep the area attractive to families. A strong case could be made that the money is important to JoCo schools since the state is not solving the school funding problem. I absolutely support any measure that benefits the continued health and success of the city.
The one thing that I object to is the “dollar spent per pupil” figure. Supporters of the tax say that the money spent per pupil in Johnson county is low compared to some benchmark (I can’t remember what it is). KCMO spends a whackload of money per pupil and it obviously does not result in good schools. The only thing that I would universally support is much higher teacher salaries. But none of this money will go to that. It may continue some very important programs but it won’t make teachers competitive salary wise with engineers or MBA’s. Personally, I think if we paid teachers as a profession consistent with their value to society we’d have a LOT fewer Johnny’s who couldn’t read.
It’s not a new tax, you’re already paying it. Everyone who pays retail sales taxes (i.e., non-residents as well) in Johnson County pays it. Voting yes would be to continue paying it. About two-thirds of it goes to the county which will grant it back to the 7 Johnson County school districts. One third would go back to the 21 cities in Johnson County. The most recent 3 years of the tax generated about $47.5 million for the schools, $27 mil for the cities; PV got about $1.2 Mil.
posted by Andrew Wang at 9:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home