BOE Elections (SOMSD)

yahooyahoo said:

weirdbeard said:

yahooyahoo said:
We need a new superintendent. Where do the candidates stand on the search?
The current BOE needs to be held accountable for this debacle.

 What debacle?  Hiring Ramos?  That was several years ago and I agree was a debacle.  Dr. Ficarra, on the other hand, has been the best super this district has had in years.  It's a shame that by law he has to be an interim.  He has made definitive and hard choices that urgently needed to be made, and has brought in skilled interim admins who have started whipping some of the departments in shape that had previously been left in shambles.  Bringing him in was one of of the best things the board could have done.  My opinion, of course.

Totally disagree.  Ficarra needs to go asap.
You must have no children in the high school.

 I do.  While there have been some bumps in the road, I see vast improvement across many fronts.

annielou said:
Do we have any numbers on how many senior home owners are facing consequences of rapidly rising taxes? I understand some of the meeting addressed housing but this issue specifically seems to have no remedy

The meeting did not specifically address the issue of taxation.  That is a separate discussion which needs to be held.  Unfortunately, as Sheena said in her statement, there is no immediate remedy to this problem.  

There are some programs in existence that can help, most, such as the senior tax freeze and homestead rebate are income based.  Others, such as the ordinance permitting seniors to take in two or more boarders, which helps with expenses, are available to all home owners of qualifying age.  None of this was covered at the housing forum.  Check with the appropriate person at your municipal offices for more information since some of this varies by the town.

annielou said:
No disagreement on that, but a fixed income often can’t handle even a $50 swing in a monthly budget. I also understand that the main problem is how schools are funded, but there’s little comfort in having to wait for that monster to be resolved. There are hundreds of families who have been paying their fair share for years but now simply can’t afford to do so. It’s a difficult problem when you are looking to “age in place”.

 Why do seniors on fixed income get special consideration?  Who’s not ‘on fixed income’?   Plenty of us are struggling to be here while still years away from making the decision about where we will age.   

It’s not just seniors on fixed income. As I stated in an earlier post, I also mentioned average wage earners. Not everyone who lives in SOMA has the advantage of two substantial incomes, but everything is relative. Personally I am disappointed that there are no actual remedies, although there seem to be two programs available. To tell long time taxpayers that other options involve taking in boarders or living in a group home is bewildering and totally unacceptable. 

I didn't see anyone here say they had two wage earners in the house.  But population pressure isn't going to stop pressing us here, or anywhere around here.  Most of us are going to reach a point where it is in our interest to move.  In the meantime, we have to address this problem with the schools.  No more kicking it down the line, as has been done here for far too long.

FilmCarp said:
I didn't see anyone here say they had two wage earners in the house.  But population pressure isn't going to stop pressing us here, or anywhere around here.  Most of us are going to reach a point where it is in our interest to move.  In the meantime, we have to address this problem with the schools.  No more kicking it down the line, as has been done here for far too long.

Agreed.  I wish people would stop bemoaning the inability to afford to 'age in place'.  It creates a elder-vs.-younger division.  Again, there are plenty of us two-income families struggling to stay here while we are still working,   

Divisions actually result from comments that imply that the best course is to pack it up and move if you can’t afford skyrocketing taxes. Wow! Not so age friendly and not so encouraging to families to do want to put down roots here. Unfortunately several people have left already, no loss I guess.

Red_Barchetta said:

annielou said:
No disagreement on that, but a fixed income often can’t handle even a $50 swing in a monthly budget. I also understand that the main problem is how schools are funded, but there’s little comfort in having to wait for that monster to be resolved. There are hundreds of families who have been paying their fair share for years but now simply can’t afford to do so. It’s a difficult problem when you are looking to “age in place”.

 Why do seniors on fixed income get special consideration?  Who’s not ‘on fixed income’?   Plenty of us are struggling to be here while still years away from making the decision about where we will age.   

It is not just seniors who are struggling to afford the real property taxes/rents in our community.  I was asked about the comments made at a recent Housing Forum aimed at helping seniors age in place.  Thus, the programs, services, and housing adjustments mentioned were aimed at the 65+ set.  The Senior Tax Freeze Program and boarder provision have an age requirement.  Others do not.  Unfortunately, most of these programs have an income restriction set at a level below what most households in our community earn.  Seniors frequently find themselves having reduced income upon retirement and/or death of a spouse.  Seniors also tend to face additional maintenance costs as deteriorating physical ability makes it harder for them to perform basic maintenance tasks they could previously perform on their own.  Decreased income, movement from married to single status, and deteriorating health can affect anyone. 

annielou said:
Divisions actually result from comments that imply that the best course is to pack it up and move if you can’t afford skyrocketing taxes. Wow! Not so age friendly and not so encouraging to families to do want to put down roots here. Unfortunately several people have left already, no loss I guess.

What is happening in Maplewood will soon enough be happening to our entire country.  We have collectively (well, the wealthy, more so), partied on money that should have been spent on maintenance and on pension plans for many, many years.  The bill will be coming due in the next 10-20 years.  There's no place to hide, really, unless you want to find another country.

South Orange, with an average property tax of $17,875, has the 15th highest property taxes in the state. Assuming the additional cost will add $700 a year to the average South Orange property tax bill, South Orange would be in 13th place. 

There is no question that these costs have to be incurred and I don't think anyone is arguing against them, but the harsh reality is that the high taxes are going to take a toll on house prices, which have already started to see some weakness because of higher interest rates and the loss of the deduction for state and local taxes. 

https://patch.com/new-jersey/brick/every-nj-towns-average-property-tax-bills-newly-released-list

I would like to live in a more heterogeneous town age wise but, barring some massive change that would probably have to come at a statewide level, I can't imagine being able to stay in MAPSO after my kids are done with school.  Its like trying to grow avocados in Greenland, you can't do it and you'd be a fool to try.

That's not the way I want my town to be, its just the way it is and tinkering with the local taxes isn't going to change it one way or the other.

So, I am voting for Trzaska and Cutler but I don't have a third candidate.  Any suggestions as to who would be like minded?

I think we should all balance needs and fiscal responsibility as we vote, but I think it is selfish to look at our serious deferred maintenance, under capacity and other building issues and ignore them.  We reaped the economic advantage of underfunding maintenance and upgrades over at least the 22 years I’ve lived here, and have to  pay the price now.

I sympathize with economic concerns (senior or other), and have my own, but the issue is that we don’t have a full price range of housing available, and many in the community have routinely argued against building at less expensive price points.

I think we need to define our terms.  I am absolutely fighting for Medicare, for Social Security, for development of housing that makes downsizing in our own community appealing and possible.

But I’m against hurting the schools or shifting tax burdens to those younger than me to make sure that middle class seniors (including myself in a few heats) can always age in the homes where they raised their families.  I see that as a privilege available if one is sufficiently padded financially to maintain the increasing costs of home ownership (including paid maintenance and regularly increasing taxes). Almost every member of my extended family (and my husband’s) downsized in retirement, some in the communities they had long lived in, some in retirement magnets. I expect to do the same someday, and hope to have good in town options.

So, if you use the term “age in place” to mean make sure that our community has ample choices and support services to allow seniors to adapt to their changing needs and continue to live herr, I am an ally.  If you use the term “age in place” to mean that society should constrain schools and shift the tax burden to younger adults in order to make sure that seniors with inadequate savings can afford to remain in single family homes, then I question your inter-generational fairness.  I think we need to be crystal clear about what goal we are striving toward.

(We’ve gone off topic, but on an important topic)

GoSlugs said:
I would like to live in a more heterogeneous town age wise but, barring some massive change that would probably have to come at a statewide level, I can't imagine being able to stay in MAPSO after my kids are done with school.  Its like trying to grow avocados in Greenland, you can't do it and you'd be a fool to try.
That's not the way I want my town to be, its just the way it is and tinkering with the local taxes isn't going to change it one way or the other.

Personally, I may well stay here, and, like many others, downsize into a low-maintenance condo or apartment, ideally in one of the buildings with covered parking. I can’t imagine staying here in my high-maintenance money-pit of an 80+ year old home, much as I enjoy it now.

susan1014 said:

GoSlugs said:
I would like to live in a more heterogeneous town age wise but, barring some massive change that would probably have to come at a statewide level, I can't imagine being able to stay in MAPSO after my kids are done with school.  Its like trying to grow avocados in Greenland, you can't do it and you'd be a fool to try.
That's not the way I want my town to be, its just the way it is and tinkering with the local taxes isn't going to change it one way or the other.

Personally, I may well stay here, and, like many others, downsize into a low-maintenance condo or apartment, ideally in one of the buildings with covered parking. I can’t imagine staying here in my high-maintenance money-pit of an 80+ year old home, much as I enjoy it now.

 Having watched my parents age, no stairs is definitely a  prerequisite for me.  Although older people do live in them, the stock of two story 1920s homes in our towns are not elderly friendly.

Any thoughts on a third candidate?

Support services for seniors are wonderful but soon there will be fewer seniors who use them.People who have lived here a lifetime cannot afford taxes upon taxes and still maintain any decent lifestyle. Any “adequate savings” would be gone in short order. Somehow, other municipalities elsewhere can handle school funding plus programs that reduce tax burdens on the elderly. There is also a willful blindness to the fact that many newer residents have earnings that far exceed those that seniors had even in their younger work life, when they were indeed able to purchase homes here. We’re placing the same tax increases on a household income of $40,000 as on a household income of $400,000. That seems fair ?

I know this is purely theoretical but what is the rational behind funding local services through property taxes instead of income taxes?

GoSlugs said:
I know this is purely theoretical but what is the rational behind funding local services through property taxes instead of income taxes?

 I've asked this a million times over.  Instead of getting an answer, I received a snarky reply about the definition of the word "fair."  

GoSlugs said:
So, I am voting for Trzaska and Cutler but I don't have a third candidate.  Any suggestions as to who would be like minded?

I consider Narda Chisholm Greene and Michael Laskowski to be like-minded and have noticed that many other people feel the same way, but I cannot recommend one over the other because I have no idea which candidate is more electorally viable.  

spontaneous said:

GoSlugs said:
I know this is purely theoretical but what is the rational behind funding local services through property taxes instead of income taxes?

 I've asked this a million times over.  Instead of getting an answer, I received a snarky reply about the definition of the word "fair."  

New Jersey's all-in property tax levy is over $28 billion and nearly double our $14+ billion income tax collection.

If you only compare those two amounts, it might appear like we overtax in property taxes and undertax in income taxes, but if you do an interstate comparison, our income taxes are still high.  Our income rates for middle-income earners are actually above the national average and our top bracket (10.75%) is the second highest in the US.

In income taxes per capita, our take is well above average.  In FY2016, the most recent year available, New Jersey took in $1,488 per capita in income taxes, which is the 7th highest in the US.  Now with the higher top bracket that figure and our relative ranking will increase.

Contrary to popular belief, New Jersey's state support for public education is exceptionally high too.  If you look at the DOE's whole budget, New Jersey's state support for education is alone about $10,800 per student, which is nearly at the national average for federal+state+local spending.  

If New Jersey wanted to shift property taxes to income taxes our tax brackets at all levels would become the highest in the US.  

Let's say we wanted to move just half of the $28 billion in property taxes onto income taxes, that would require doubling income tax collections. Instead of an individual paying 6.37% for income earned above $75,000, he or she would might have to pay 12.74%.  It would be replacing a property tax crisis with an income tax crisis.

The original idea behind the income tax during the Byrne administration was that it would supplant local education spending and reduce property taxes, but I think that overwhelmingly it has gone to supplement local education spending.  For TPAF, there is a disastrous incentive for school districts and unions to agree to very high end-career salaries because the pensions are calculated on end-career earnings and pension costs are paid by the state, not the locality.

The missing part of NJ's approach to property taxes is that there was not an effective way to check local spending until the Christie/Sweeney tax cap of 2010.  

---

(Note: even if NJ's property tax rate fell from 2.4% to 1.2% it would still be above the national average of 1%)

GoSlugs said:
I would like to live in a more heterogeneous town age wise but, barring some massive change that would probably have to come at a statewide level, I can't imagine being able to stay in MAPSO after my kids are done with school.  Its like trying to grow avocados in Greenland, you can't do it and you'd be a fool to try.
That's not the way I want my town to be, its just the way it is and tinkering with the local taxes isn't going to change it one way or the other.

Once my kids are out of the district, we will be leaving asap.  The taxes are too damn high!

JBennett said:

GoSlugs said:
So, I am voting for Trzaska and Cutler but I don't have a third candidate.  Any suggestions as to who would be like minded?

I consider Narda Chisholm Greene and Michael Laskowski to be like-minded and have noticed that many other people feel the same way, but I cannot recommend one over the other because I have no idea which candidate is more electorally viable.  

Echoing my thoughts, but I think I tip on the side of Chisholm-Greene on both electoral viability and appeal to me.

FWIW, Madhu Pai has endorsed Cutler, Chisholm-Greene and Laskowski.  Since I think Ms. Pai has been an important voice on the Board, I take her thoughts seriously.

susan1014 said:

JBennett said:

GoSlugs said:
So, I am voting for Trzaska and Cutler but I don't have a third candidate.  Any suggestions as to who would be like minded?

I consider Narda Chisholm Greene and Michael Laskowski to be like-minded and have noticed that many other people feel the same way, but I cannot recommend one over the other because I have no idea which candidate is more electorally viable.  

Echoing my thoughts, but I think I tip on the side of Chisholm-Greene on both electoral viability and appeal to me.
FWIW, Madhu Pai has endorsed Cutler, Chisholm-Greene and Laskowski.  Since I think Ms. Pai has been an important voice on the Board, I take her thoughts seriously.

Pai's performance on the BOE, imho, has been very disappointing.  I wouldn't necessarily take her recommendations.

spontaneous said:

GoSlugs said:
I know this is purely theoretical but what is the rational behind funding local services through property taxes instead of income taxes?

 I've asked this a million times over.  Instead of getting an answer, I received a snarky reply about the definition of the word "fair."  

 I think it would take a course in Economics, Political Science and perhaps History to fully answer that.

annielou said:
Support services for seniors are wonderful but soon there will be fewer seniors who use them.People who have lived here a lifetime cannot afford taxes upon taxes and still maintain any decent lifestyle. Any “adequate savings” would be gone in short order. Somehow, other municipalities elsewhere can handle school funding plus programs that reduce tax burdens on the elderly. There is also a willful blindness to the fact that many newer residents have earnings that far exceed those that seniors had even in their younger work life, when they were indeed able to purchase homes here. We’re placing the same tax increases on a household income of $40,000 as on a household income of $400,000. That seems fair ?

 If those residents live in the same $650K (or whatever) house then yes, their tax burden and corresponding increases should be the same.  This is how it is.  Has the senior/$40K family already received the benefit of 3 kids x 12 years of education?  Does the $400K family send their kids to Newark Academy?  Fair is not a word for adult conversation. 

You are plucking examples that are not typical. One of my first questions in this thread was whether there are statistics regarding senior home ownership. Then ,yes , we can have an adult conversation.

annielou said:
You are plucking examples that are not typical. One of my first questions in this thread was whether there are statistics regarding senior home ownership. Then ,yes , we can have an adult conversation.

To answer your question, we would first have to identify who all the seniors are and then where they live.  At the present time, we don't have an accurate means of determining that.  Some data can be gleaned from voter rolls and data indicating how long a person has owned their home.  Both sources have obvious flaws when used for this purpose.  We can look at persons living in senior housing in our two towns but qualifying age for some of this housing is younger than qualifying age for many senior-specific programs and services.  We can look at who has subscribed to the Olde News but there is no age requirement for subscribing.  We can potentially identify the 65+ group if they apply for the Classic Card.  Many in this age group either don't want to apply for the card or don't know the card exists.  Does anyone reading this post have a good idea of how to identify all of the seniors in town so generating the requested statistics could even be attempted?  If so, I would love to hear from you.

GoSlugs said:
I know this is purely theoretical but what is the rational behind funding local services through property taxes instead of income taxes?

 Property taxes are a much more predictable income stream for government.  while in a recession the take from income taxes varies widely, the take from property taxes remains about the same from year to year.  This allows for more effective planning and less likelihood of falling into an unintended deficit.  

Ideally, one would balance income, consumption, fee, and wealth streams in funding government.  Consumption taxes are sales taxes, VATs, and such.  Wealth taxes are mostly property taxes.  Part of the debate over inheritance taxes are whether an inheritance is preexisting wealth or income (to the heir).

max_weisenfeld said:

GoSlugs said:
I know this is purely theoretical but what is the rational behind funding local services through property taxes instead of income taxes?

 Property taxes are a much more predictable income stream for government.  while in a recession the take from income taxes varies widely, the take from property taxes remains about the same from year to year.  This allows for more effective planning and less likelihood of falling into an unintended deficit.  

Ideally, one would balance income, consumption, fee, and wealth streams in funding government.  Consumption taxes are sales taxes, VATs, and such.  Wealth taxes are mostly property taxes.  Part of the debate over inheritance taxes are whether an inheritance is preexisting wealth or income (to the heir).

 I don't disagree with what max_weisenfeld is saying above, but for NJ, the problem is more one of comparatively high local spending and not insufficient income taxes.  Even if you rebalanced NJ's taxes so that money that is currently raised via property taxes were raised by the income tax, you would still have an affordability problem because as you are easing the property tax you are making the income tax worse and NJ's income taxes don't have far to rise before we are hopelessly non-competitive.

For New Hampshire and Texas, and to a lesser extent Illinois, low or nonexistent income taxes do explain why property taxes are high, but New Jersey has one of the country's highest income taxes.

There are different analyses out there of which states have the highest tax burdens (ie, taxes as a share of GDP), but USA Today ranks NJ at #3 behind NYS and CT, however, given the amount of revenue that NYS derives from out-of-staters, I would say that NJ's taxes are really #2 in terms of tax burden.

So it's a spending problem, not a balance problem.

JBennett said:

max_weisenfeld said:

GoSlugs said:
I know this is purely theoretical but what is the rational behind funding local services through property taxes instead of income taxes?

 Property taxes are a much more predictable income stream for government.  while in a recession the take from income taxes varies widely, the take from property taxes remains about the same from year to year.  This allows for more effective planning and less likelihood of falling into an unintended deficit.  

Ideally, one would balance income, consumption, fee, and wealth streams in funding government.  Consumption taxes are sales taxes, VATs, and such.  Wealth taxes are mostly property taxes.  Part of the debate over inheritance taxes are whether an inheritance is preexisting wealth or income (to the heir).

 I don't disagree with what max_weisenfeld is saying above, but for NJ, the problem is more one of comparatively high local spending and not insufficient income taxes.  Even if you rebalanced NJ's taxes so that money that is currently raised via property taxes were raised by the income tax, you would still have an affordability problem because as you are easing the property tax you are making the income tax worse and NJ's income taxes don't have far to rise before we are hopelessly non-competitive.
For New Hampshire and Texas, and to a lesser extent Illinois, low or nonexistent income taxes do explain why property taxes are high, but New Jersey has one of the country's highest income taxes.
There are different analyses out there of which states have the highest tax burdens (ie, taxes as a share of GDP), but USA Today ranks NJ at #3 behind NYS and CT, however, given the amount of revenue that NYS derives from out-of-staters, I would say that NJ's taxes are really #2 in terms of tax burden.
So it's a spending problem, not a balance problem.

 Why is our spending so high?  Is this something that could be solved through consolidation?