Bond Issue Information

351 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Mirth,

The link was very interesting. The date is 2012. Is there a chance to find a 2014???????? I would like to read a 2014 to see if there has been any changes.

Sincerely,

The Mad Botanist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I am getting a little discouraged. With new Board Members and a new Superintendent I had high hopes that the academic atmosphere would possibly turn around.

What happened? Right out of the box Pennycuff launched the whole district down the rabbit warren of new construction and the new members and superintendent went along for the ride.

Almost all of the school energy is being focused on passing a new Bond Issue, academics seem to have been sidelined again. This is no way to run a railroad.

I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that the Winton Wood System is so damaged that it may be unfixable.

Because of the horrible academic standing, perhaps dissolving the system and having parts of it merge with neighboring systems is the best solution. The system as it is now, appears to be dysfunctional and unrepairable.

Cicero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Cicero,

What happened? Right out of the box Pennycuff launched the whole district down the rabbit warren of new construction and the new members and superintendent went along for the ride.

It was stated during the fall 2006 reconfiguration presentation's, the end goal was a two campus district.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Because of the horrible academic standing, perhaps dissolving the system and having parts of it merge with neighboring systems is the best solution.

The best solution for whom? Do you really expect the neighboring systems to willingly take on the burden of additional students, especially those from a "horrible" school system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If there would be school restructuring, it would have to be implemented statewide with realignment of all of Ohio's School districts perhaps to county schools like many states follow, but no guarantee as to the method. Given the state's or any politician's ability to effectively, fairly manage education without the influence if big money, this prospect is most frightening as well.

****************************************************************************

This is not going to be popular observation but will say it anyway. Communities that support their local public schools financially, with deeds, and good will tend to thrive. So why can 't we?

To understand the underlying sentiment, it is important to examine the past. From what I have heard, the extreme bitterness and anger on both sides was so intense during this merger of GH's and FP's high schools in the early 1990's that it still permeates today. Perhaps wounds so deep that even time has found it hard to heal. But to me, the actual merger is not the cause for today's issues, but rather the manner, depth or desire of our communities' inability to overcome this bitterness has sown the environment we experience today.

I would say the result of our school district has a bit of self fulfilling prophesy over the decades. Continued "self loathing" of our own school district and the secret ( and sometimes not so secret) actions to destroy it are chief culprits as inherently caustic views that are entrenched within the fabric of district.

This is not to say this is the whole of the story but it is a critical piece to fit into the evaluation. Even those who carry no "baggage" from this bitter period have difficulty breaking its' grip.

There has to be a collective point where it is no longer a viable option continuing to withdraw and withhold support (by commitment) for our local public schools. This strategy has aptly demonstrated that no one wins this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Paula, Had the Board of Education and the Administration through the years done their job and paid attention to academics and proper maintenance and repair we would not be in this mess.

Good academic standing can cover a multitude of sins, including a divided community.

Prior Boards of Education, as I have said before , were asleep at the switch while the educational system fell apart around them. We are now in a horrible position of trying to play "catch up" and with the current emphasis almost totally on brick and mortar, the system may be beyond redemption which is indeed unfortunate because we have a number of talented children that live in the system boundaries.

If citizens feel they have no control over the system that they feel is failing them, they can still vote to withhold funding from a system. They have little or no other option to express their displeasure. When funds run short, at some point in time Boards of Education often wake up and get educated.

Cicero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Forwarded to me from someone not on junedale.com......

==========

I have a friend who has rented in Green Hills for the past 2 and a half years while he saved up to buy a home. He is a Marine veteran who now has a nice job at a local bank. He really loved Green Hills as it is a beautiful community with a pristine location. However, at the end of his lease, he will be looking elsewhere to buy a home. The reason, he feels, after the election that the community cares more for its streets than its children. He is looking for a place in Finneytown (higher taxes) as he feels it is a community that does better to support its children. When communities vote in the best interest of the elderly of the community, what is the future of that community? Are you trying to get rid of all the young families so that this can be a retirement community? What is the future of Green Hills if you continually vote for people who will certainly leave the community in 5-10 years?

----------------

I should note that "retirement income" (like the kind earned by Maria Waltherr-Willard) is not subjected to local wage taxes.

GH Income Tax ordinance 191.03 (e) (1).

Interesting how some "retired people" have no issue with me or other current "working stiffs" paying to support their police departments, etc... but then loudly balk at their property tax obligations despite the fact that here are currently provisions in place to help those older than 65 pay those taxes in the first place. While I have no doubt that a lot of the elderly are hurting for money, I would also suggest that quite a lot of them have retirement incomes that rival that of their neighbors. One may argue that the only people that even have money are those that are retired.

Let's use one of YOUR elected leaders as an example of how some folks benefit from current laws and ordinances.

In the 2011 academic year, your elected councilwoman, Maria Waltherr-Willard earned an income (Source: Buckeye Institute) of $83,958 as a teacher for the Mariemont City Schools. Using STRS calculations for retirement, it is safe to say that your elected councilwoman (banging the drum about taxes) has an income IN RETIREMENT that is higher than what I earn as an active teacher.

My point is that not everyone that is "retired" is hurting for cash.. especially when they don't pay $500 a year in local wage taxes to support their local city services like current teachers.

Yet, she also apparently believes (Source: Letter to the editor Enquirer 10/24/14) those active teachers should be paying to maintain her aging schools... which is exactly what will happen if you don't pass the bond issue. They will be forced to cut staff, activities, etc. to pay for repairs. Do not be fooled. Cicero and Christine are not voting in another dime of money. Christine will always have a rationale. It is bad enough that those teachers at PN and the MS pay a lot more for Maria-Waltherr-Willard's city services (for which she manages but...again.. isn't really bound to support through her retirement income). No. She wants them to pay for everything else as well.. apparently.

Again, your high taxes are because you CHOSE to live in a district surrounded by a beautiful county park, not because the staff lives well or because the district mismanages money. You don't live in Colerain Avenue or next to an assembly plant. Sure, the demographics changed since 1970, but it is what it is.

Who will pay to fix the boilers, the roofs, and the other upgrades that will be necessary? If people won't vote for an 8 mill bond issue, do you really believe that they will vote in a 6 mill bond issue FOR REPAIRS? Give me a break. That would actually be much less return on investment. This is why the focus groups rejected it. Part of the problem here is that so many of you "stayed home" and let others have the voice.

Don't be fooled by some of the retired people in your community that simply don't wish to pay their fair share to currently maintain it. The "NO" camp believes that the district employees or the district school children will absorb this need much in the same way that they believe the young people should pay for their city services. Not everyone is on their last dime. If this were the case, folks would have moved out of GH a long time ago. If you want to turn GH into some kind of enclave for the retired (and fairly well off), it will be difficult to find younger people that will actually pay the taxes to begin with.

Again, you believe state reports that our school is a failure... but you also completely ignore their other reports that say that our facilities are unacceptable. Can you have it both ways?

That's the point that was made above. What families are you going to attract in the future? Sure. Maria Waltherr-Willard will keep more of her money, but what will the village be like long after all of us are gone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Paula and equalizer - I think you both have crossed the line on your last posts. Paula if you weren't here for the merger you ought to be quite about it. You don't know what was said, who said it, and what was meant by it. Equalizer, I'm retired and I have supported the schools since I was old enough to vote, which is a very long time. What I have been saying all along is you are just asking for too much. Don't start making it personal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Equalizer, you have definitely crossed the line. Shame on you. His post should be removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

EQ, first, if you do get a chance to speak with this veteran, please thank him for his service. I'm certain all on Junedale would like him to know that his sacrifices are recognized and appreciated. And if he chooses to stay here, or come back, we would be honored to have this hero living in our village. As a parent you make choices, if he chooses to leave because he does not believe the villagers of Greenhills support their children, then that's his call and his perception. He has lived here for two and a half years and he's concerned what the next 5-10 years will bring. The fact is many have lived here for 20, 30, 40+ years and we know exactly what the next 5-10 years will bring, that's why people opposed the bond. Not because we don't support our children, the facts state otherwise, but because we are looking for something better for these kids. We may lose him because he believes we don't support our kids, but we are also losing other families because the taxes are too high and people don't perceive this district to be a viable option.

Second, you are passionate about the schools, but unfortunately you are not a good ambassador for the district. There are public servants on this board, and although public servants are open to scrutiny, you really crossed the line on this one. Frankly, your post validates my concerns with regards to the district, and leadership. Remember, you too are a public servant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Paula and equalizer - I think you both have crossed the line on your last posts. Paula if you weren't here for the merger you ought to be quite about it. You don't know what was said, who said it, and what was meant by it. Equalizer, I'm retired and I have supported the schools since I was old enough to vote, which is a very long time. What I have been saying all along is you are just asking for too much. Don't start making it personal

Funny- but at the merger time, I had already graduated from FP high school in 1979 and then choose to move to Greenhills in 1982. MY children started elementary school at Beechwoods in 1987 and on thru the district. So when GH and FP merged high schools, my children were still in elementary school a bit removed for the fervor going on at that time which I consider a good thing allowing me greater objectivity; however, the conversations shared are from several current and past school board members along with many others who were actively part of this transition on both sides of the equation.

And if you are inquiring for even more credentials, my parents lived on Farragut when I was born in 1961 then moved to FP in 1963 so guess this makes me a native of Greenhills. Still my family loves to live here today with my youngest son ready to graduate from WW HS. So the longevity and insight I share are from personal experience and do constitute value.

As a recipient of our communities' education provided to me and then as a long time tax payer residing here within our community supporting the various services including education, it is most admirable for your support over the years; however, it is sad to me for your change of heart demonstrated so generously over the years. Over the decades, countless children have truly benefited and countless more continue to need this support in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The fact remains that Maria Waltherr-Willard sits on a village council which controls a small municipal government. Last year, a teacher working at the MS (living in FP) kicked out about $500 which went to the village of GH. Maria Waltherr-Willard's "retirement" income is greater than the wages of (probably) a lot of teachers down there, yet it would be appear to be shielded from any taxation by ordinance. Perhaps the taxes for everyone would be a bit lower if EVERYONE was forced to pay. She still gets a vote right? She still derives benefit from police and fire services right? Please spare me this line that, once you get to a certain age, you have no more obligation to pay for services.. including building new schools.

My point is that if we are just worried about "retirees", then only "retirees" will live in a place where they feel it is acceptable to let the schools fall into disrepair. Who is then going to subsidize them? I get it. "Fixed income" means different things to different people. If Bill Gates moved to GH, the same unfair taxing practice would also apply.

GH needs young families. The state (which you all believe when it comes to our test scores) says that your schools need rebuilt... but yet you want to fight the old Blue-Green wars again.

Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

EQ., you definitely crossed the line. Mrs. Waltherr is a public official and open to some public scrutiny, there are limits which you churlishly chose to ignore.

Any person who is in any public retirement system in Ohio does pay Federal and State taxes on any retirement received. Anyone living in the Village, which I understand you do not, pays a portion of their property tax to the Village.

If you are upset about what she made as a teacher it is your problem not hers.

Mrs. Waltherr was paid on the basis of not only having a Masters Degree in her field but also 90 graduate credit hours above her Masters Degree and she was paid at a PH.D. level and over 30 years of experience. She also holds Permanent Certificates in Spanish and French, a Certificate you will never see or get. She also had a temporary Certificate in German that she let lapse. She taught Spanish and French at both the College and High School level. During her tenure, she taught 7 classes a day, not including lunch and planning. She prepped each day in five separate levels in two separate languages and sometimes three languages. She also taught AP classes in language.

It is also interesting to note that when the State was giving Foreign Language Exams throughout the State she had at least one, often two or more students score in the top 10 in the State each year, with some years a student who sored first in the State in either French or Spanish. Sometimes she had up to three different levels going at the same time in a class.

My point being, that whatever she was paid was not given to her, she earned it.

Cicero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm not going to get into a pissin match with you two. I don't give a crap about your credentials. You weren't there when I heard what I heard from the then Mayor Forest Park and a current board member. Eq you brought up the so called blue green war. I didn't see anybody on the no side bring it up. I'm done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

My point is that if we are just worried about "retirees", then only "retirees" will live in a place where they feel it is acceptable to let the schools fall into disrepair. 

GH needs young families.

but yet you want to fight the old Blue-Green wars again.

EQ, If your house is in despair, it's your fault. If your lawn is in despair, it's your fault. If your bathroom is in despair, it's your fault. The schools are in despair because the district let them get that way. It's their fault. So place the blame where it belongs. The tax payers of Greenhills, Forest Park and Springfield Township have given generously, the district has failed in their responsibilities.

The bond didn't pass because of your "retiree" scenario, you created that scenario. No one is fighting a Blue-Green war, again you have created that scenario and it's being supported by others on this board who are advocates for new buildings. The only people fighting that fight are those who support new buildings. You're trying desperately to make it an issue, but it's not. That time is past and gone, but we do have to now deal with the results of that decision.

Yes, Greenhills needs young families. Reality is, we do not have the residential or commercial tax base to support the district's vision. Therefore, the district needs to review alternative funding, or split among other local districts and take advantage of their commercial base. I was a proponent for the first option, but I do not believe the district has what it takes to drive that vision, therefore I think we need to start considering other options. What's important is the sustainability of these communities and education for the kids. These communities cannot be sustained by increasing taxes and frankly the kids can get the same education by utilizing other districts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Equalizer...wow. Sour grapes anyone? I tell my children that one of the hardest things about being an adult is admitting when you are wrong or have to take responsibility for failure. Your posts have proven you are not an adult yet, despite what your driver's license may say. And that frightens me because you are a teacher. blink.gifblink.gifblink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Can't believe I'm reading this !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Say what you all want, but is something that bothered me even when I lived in another town. You had "retirees" that had quite a bit of retirement and investment income coming in. It is still subjected to Federal and State taxes. Why are local taxes something different? Their wages were largely shielded from any sort of income taxes that were used to keep the city going. A couple of these "retirees" were on the city council when the council decided to cut the income tax credit for those working outside of the city. I loudly raised the point then and I raise it here too. How can you sit there and raise my taxes when you aren't paying them yourselves? "Retirees" love income taxes because someone else is paying the bill. I have noticed that over the years in various municipal elections. The "YES" vote on them is often 8-1 YES because.. well.. they aren't paying the bills. Keep in mind, that your village taxes are not exactly the lowest around either. Part of that problem may be because.. dare I say it... you aren't getting all the money you should be getting. I laugh when people like Maria Waltherr-Willard write about "high tax burdens" when GH's own ordinances help aggravate that.

Taxes are taxes. Income is income. The same could be said of those living off of a trust fund.

Why is that some people get to have a large voice in the tax structure while their "income" is largely shielded from those taxes? Think about it. Honestly, I wouldn't mind a "shield" up to the poverty line ($15,000 or so), but not every retiree is on their last dime...as the NO camp would loudly claim.

I stand behind what I said and I will repeat it. An out of town teacher (or even the out of town clerk at Ameristop) is paying for city services that Maria Waltherr Willard gets to rule over but not necessarily pay for... at least as far as any STRS income from Mariemont is concerned. By campaigning against a bond issue, she wants to force those teachers to cover the costs of those repairs going forward. It is bad enough that they probably pay a lot more in local income taxes that she does.. they have to fix the school too, apparently.

Do you all think that she will be out there trying to pass a 6 mill repair levy? Please. At some point, you will have trouble getting anybody to work here or even move here. Think of what the "product" will look like then.

If the only people remaining in GH are the "retirees" like the Willards, who will be around to actually pay your taxes? It is a fair question. Look at the comment made by the person that I quoted. Young people actually want those new buildings and really expect them. Don't misundertand. The system is what the system is. There are plenty of "retirees" that believed (on Nov. 4th) in paying it forward and we are grateful for that. Some "retirees" are all about "gimme gimme gimme".

Again, if the state is lying to you about the conditions of our buildings, why do you believe their word on the academics? Answer: Whatever fits your reality. It has always been that way, right?

Finally, this is hardly a personal attack. Mrs. Willard and her husband wrote the letter to the Enquirer and she is a public figure by virtue of being a GH council member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

EQ, now that your true colors are showing, your "message" is getting lost. This is the ego/pride "thing" I've been talking about. You will choose "you" over the district every time. Nasbe chose her "ideology" over the district every time. The Board chose "their vision" over the district every time. And, Pennycuff chose his "everyone will see themselves as Winton Woods residents" every time. The sad thing is that you simply don't see it. It may be time to consider another approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Say what you all want, but is something that bothered me even when I lived in another town. You had "retirees" that had quite a bit of retirement and investment income coming in. It is still subjected to Federal and State taxes. Why are local taxes something different? Their wages were largely shielded from any sort of income taxes that were used to keep the city going. A couple of these "retirees" were on the city council when the council decided to cut the income tax credit for those working outside of the city. I loudly raised the point then and I raise it here too. How can you sit there and raise my taxes when you aren't paying them yourselves? "Retirees" love income taxes because someone else is paying the bill. I have noticed that over the years in various municipal elections. The "YES" vote on them is often 8-1 YES because.. well.. they aren't paying the bills. Keep in mind, that your village taxes are not exactly the lowest around either. Part of that problem may be because.. dare I say it... you aren't getting all the money you should be getting. I laugh when people like Maria Waltherr-Willard write about "high tax burdens" when GH's own ordinances help aggravate that.

Taxes are taxes. Income is income. The same could be said of those living off of a trust fund.

Why is that some people get to have a large voice in the tax structure while their "income" is largely shielded from those taxes? Think about it. Honestly, I wouldn't mind a "shield" up to the poverty line ($15,000 or so), but not every retiree is on their last dime...as the NO camp would loudly claim.

I stand behind what I said and I will repeat it. An out of town teacher (or even the out of town clerk at Ameristop) is paying for city services that Maria Waltherr Willard gets to rule over but not necessarily pay for... at least as far as any STRS income from Mariemont is concerned. By campaigning against a bond issue, she wants to force those teachers to cover the costs of those repairs going forward. It is bad enough that they probably pay a lot more in local income taxes that she does.. they have to fix the school too, apparently.

Do you all think that she will be out there trying to pass a 6 mill repair levy? Please. At some point, you will have trouble getting anybody to work here or even move here. Think of what the "product" will look like then.

If the only people remaining in GH are the "retirees" like the Willards, who will be around to actually pay your taxes? It is a fair question. Look at the comment made by the person that I quoted. Young people actually want those new buildings and really expect them. Don't misundertand. The system is what the system is. There are plenty of "retirees" that believed (on Nov. 4th) in paying it forward and we are grateful for that. Some "retirees" are all about "gimme gimme gimme".

Again, if the state is lying to you about the conditions of our buildings, why do you believe their word on the academics? Answer: Whatever fits your reality. It has always been that way, right?

Finally, this is hardly a personal attack. Mrs. Willard and her husband wrote the letter to the Enquirer and she is a public figure by virtue of being a GH council member.

You are so out of line. I sure hope you don't live in the village. Talk your crap when your on a fixed budget at 65 years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Mrs. Waltherr was paid on the basis of not only having a Masters Degree in her field but also 90 graduate credit hours above her Masters Degree and she was paid at a PH.D. level and over 30 years of experience. She also holds Permanent Certificates in Spanish and French, a Certificate you will never see or get. She also had a temporary Certificate in German that she let lapse. She taught Spanish and French at both the College and High School level. During her tenure, she taught 7 classes a day, not including lunch and planning. She prepped each day in five separate levels in two separate languages and sometimes three languages. She also taught AP classes in language.

It is also interesting to note that when the State was giving Foreign Language Exams throughout the State she had at least one, often two or more students score in the top 10 in the State each year, with some years a student who sored first in the State in either French or Spanish. Sometimes she had up to three different levels going at the same time in a class.

My point being, that whatever she was paid was not given to her, she earned it.

Cicero.

There are dozens of teachers in Winton Woods schools with similar credentials. Why do you defend one and attack the others?

They have all earned their pay and benefits and they do their jobs under much pressure and scrutiny and yet you often blame THEM for perceived poor educational outcomes, I wonder why that is?

Teaching in Winton Woods is a challenge to even the best teachers, including Mrs. Waltherr. If she had spent her entire career at Winton Woods would you then blame her for the educatonal outcomes in this district? Or would she, single-handledly, have raised educational outcomes to such lofty levels as Mariemont or Sycamore?

Are there other factors at work here, Cicero, than just the ones you choose to highlight? And do those other factors present challenges to even the best teachers? And is it possible that these teachers are doing a magnificent job under trying circumstances, but playing against a stacked deck?

You seem to know a great deal of detail about her credentials, education, and experience. I wonder how that is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I don't plan on belaboring this point. Not all "retirees" and "pensioners" are equal. Some of you are angry that I held an elected official up to scrutiny. I'm having difficulty knowing what line I crossed. Mrs. Waltherr-Willard (and her husband) took it upon themselves to be the voice of the NO camp. When you hold public office, you have more of a megaphone by which you can impose your views on others. We don't live in North Korea.

I will stipulate for the record that Maria Waltherr-Willard was an excellent teacher at Mariemont. I will take Cicero at his word when her credentials are cited. I suppose I could do a google search or file my own FOIA request to verify the claims, but I will leave that to people with more time on their hands. I will take the honorable Cicero at his word.

Awesome. Worth every penny.

But (again if you read my original post), I didn't really question any of it in the first place.

According to the Buckeye Institute, Maria Waltherr-Willard earned $80,000 in each of her final 3 year(s) at Mariemont (basis for STRS retirement calculation). This figure was was just to demonstrate an example of how GH has an ordinance that forgives about $1200 a year in taxes to one of our village council members. This is not her fault. This is the ordinance, but it does highlight a bit of a problem when elected officials are running around talking about "high taxes" and what people can afford. Part of the problem is that not everyone is actually bound to be paying some of those taxes. It also points out a bit of irony that this woman talks about people "not being able to afford" additional taxes when, certainly, people 10 miles away, were able to afford her salary... as a public school teacher.

So much for "Pay it Forward".

It also is ironic that an out of town clerk at Ameristop has more "skin in the game" via wage taxes than some retirees in the village. But hey, the law is the law.

---------

What does this have to do a bond issue?

I am not naive. Cicero, Christine, and some of the brain trust on here have no intentions of giving another dime to this school district. You all have been pretty clear on it and I respect that. However, the needs that have been outlined are clearly not going away. Where will this money come from?

Sure, we could hold a Spaghetti Fundraiser to pay for some new paint, but the substantial repairs outlined by the state (the same state that apparently is only truthful when they tell you how bad we suck) will have to come from existing money in the district's budget.

So the burden will ultimately fall to personnel either through staff cuts or possibly pay freezes. Some of you may say

"Yeah, till the product improves.. no raises".

Okay, but loyalty works two ways. Staff won't stay.

Who will be left to teach in our district?

"I know a great teacher at St. James in the Valley that would jump at the chance..."

Perhaps. But we aren't playing by Catholic School rules here, right? How long will they stay once they find out that this is not Roger Bacon.

Now, Christine might claim that "yeah, but the taxes will be under control".. and then the other shoe drops.

Families are also not going to move to places where the schools are not supported properly and the teaching staff is just "who showed up today". A school with almost all new teachers is not a selling point. This is why Maria Waltherr-Willard commanded that $80K salary. Those teachers won't exist here.

So, who will buy those houses if young families gravitate to the glitz and shiny schools? Will they buy the line that "Hey, the roof leaks, the heat doesn't work.. but by GOLLY...."?

No.

Retirees, perhaps will buy the houses. After all, they probably bought the house at a deep discount so they aren't really losing much when they sell. School is more of a non issue for them. But again, like Mrs. Waltherr-Willard, you aren't getting any income taxes from those people.

Renters? Sure. Good luck tracking down those wages. Here today, gone tomorrow. Without a doubt many of the houses in GH make great investment properties. People wanting to "put down roots" in a place with a strong sense of community? I don't know.

Christine, in her regular lunches, will tell you that they clearly aren't moving here.

I also don't know how we ever improve this district if we only want to accept some realities and flat out reject others. I think that we need to be honest about what some of the issues are even if it knocks us out of the comfort zone.

So who will prop up the village if you run out all of your residents that are currently paying taxes? Who will pay for Maria Waltherr-Willard's share of police, fire, and EMS? Who will move to Greenhills and pay the premium in wage taxes when they are getting very little in return?

I don't intend to comment more on this issue. It really is a side issue to the needs at hand. You need to keep people "bellying up to the bar". There are risks to voting against bond issues, despite what you are being told by folks that had pretty good careers thanks to voters that valued their work. We just wish that folks like Maria Waltherr-Willard would pay it forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"We just wish that folks like Maria Waltherr-Willard would pay it forward".

Who are "WE"?

Don't know either the wife or husband.

Giving out personal information to me, just isn't right.

I'm 68 and A "retiree".

My wife will work till she is 67, so we can live somewhat comfortable.

How in the world will the homeowners in Greenhills be expected to cover 67 million of tax money when their home values are slowly going down fast. A house on Ingram just sold for 47,000. Our estimated value on our home has went from 117,000 in 2005 to now 89,000. We keep doing good things to our home and right now it is just money probably pissed away.

With the taxes taking a dive, it just seems impossible foe the "homeowners" to cover this burden.

Interesting side bit of news. I was in GD on Sunday and an elderly woman in front of me was checking out with 3 $1.00 sodas. She gave the clerk the $3.00 and he asked if she had food stamps. She said no and the clerk said, I have to charge you tax. Food stamps for sodas are not taxed. We support paying tax and in the end we still support. Tough to figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It also is ironic that an out of town clerk at Ameristop has more "skin in the game" via wage taxes than some retirees in the village.  But hey, the law is the law.

---------

I am not naive.  Cicero, Christine, and some of the brain trust on here have no intentions of giving another dime to this school district.  You all have been pretty clear on it and I respect that.  However, the needs that have been outlined are clearly not going away.  Where will this money come from?

Sure, we could hold a Spaghetti Fundraiser to pay for some new paint, but the substantial repairs outlined by the state (the same state that apparently is only truthful when they tell you how bad we suck) will have to come from existing money in the district's budget.

So, who will buy those houses if young families gravitate to the glitz and shiny schools?  Will they buy the line that "Hey, the roof leaks, the heat doesn't work.. but by GOLLY...."?

I think that we need to be honest about what some of the issues are even if it knocks us out of the comfort zone.

So who will prop up the village if you run out all of your residents that are currently paying taxes?  Who will pay for Maria Waltherr-Willard's share of police, fire, and EMS?    Who will move to Greenhills and pay the premium in wage taxes when they are getting very little in return?

Equalizer, I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with you using a public figure as an example to the so-called plight of the vote NO bond.

As a matter of fact, the fact that there was a recent issue in the latest Greenhills Journal telling everyone how "wonderful things have been going in the high school had me a little bewildered. A Junedale Senior, posted the Cleary talking points and pointed out the fact that classrooms have been devised for smaller work groups and they have been successful doing such a thing (in a place where this has been seen lately as impossible?).

I sincerely feel that you have cut through your own crap with your latest posts and I applaud that. I don't agree with at least some of it. But, I do appreciate your comments.

There are many people who don't live in Greenhills, or in other places for that matter, who pay property taxes to a municipality, but don't get to vote on issues which will directly affect their pocketbook. Is that FAIR?

Where will the money come from for expenditures to school buildings? The same place they been derived from before. The BOE and the Facilities Manager better think out of the box starting now.

Who will change things? Who will prop up the schools. Why don't we start with an overly aggressive school superintendent with a NO-tolerance clause? Why don't we then demand ACTION from the BOE towards the administrators? What about the PTO? Is there an effective PTO?

I think we need to be honest as well. EVERY teacher needs to be fired after this year and then they should have to re-interview for their jobs beginning in 2015. Or, is that against Union policy? Get results and the money will come. Is that the real issues?

Who will prop up the village if you run out of all of your residents.... Greenhills has been a retirement community since about 1985. Get your head out of the sand. Who will pay for all of the high taxes? I think Jonathan Gruber has said that best recently.

Lastly, the council members of Greenhills has NOTHING to do with schools. ANYONE who believes that is foolish. And, in my opinion, anyone who listens to any of them for advice about voting issues should not be allowed to vote.

Equalizer, you've taken a lot of lumps recently. I sincerely appreciate your words. It doesn't mean I have to agree with you, though. I appreciate your passion on the issue.

I think you can see the other side of the issue. When/Where does 50-50 happen? Maybe that's the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now