Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Shadyside Levy

October 14, 2013

Dear Editor I am a teacher at Shadyside schools and I am so proud to be a part of a wonderful school system....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(13)

uglyassmf

Oct-14-13 11:10 PM

I believe that public schools should be funded by the state and not levies. The state has the money to properly operate the schools and they should do just that instead of over paying politicians and many other public employees. People who send their children to private school should be exempt from levies and don't even blame it on the rich. I know many people who go to catholic schools in the valley and they struggle to pay the tuition. why should they pay for their children and every one else as well. Levies should be against the law. Oh..i forgot..they are.so why do we keep having to deal with them.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Thoughtful

Oct-15-13 12:32 AM

Local property owners should pay based upon value of property. If you want schools funded by the state, expect higher income tax to pay...

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

fedupwithgovt

Oct-15-13 12:58 PM

I agree with you "Ulgyassmf", if a family wants to send their children to a private school they should NOT have to help fund the public edu. system. Isn't it strange that the only people promoting the Shadyside levy are current or ex school teachers? Maybe its not always "For the Children"?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

uglyassmf

Oct-15-13 2:31 PM

@thoughtfull..Why should only prperty owners pay the unfair tax. I know a lot of people who rent not because they can't afford to buy a home. They rent because they don't want to be responsible for a property and upkeep. It's completely unfair to only make property owners whom some have absolutely no children in the school fork out this unfair form of taxation while others with children actually in the school pay nothing??? Fair?? I hardly think so and that is why the supreme court ruled levies unconstitutional. it's time to enforce the law.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobama

Oct-15-13 8:34 PM

So selfish....I'm older, have no children in school but I certainly am not going to complain about a few bucks for a kids education. One may be the one changing your attends in a few years...Grow up..man up and do what's right..or better yet move to Bellaire

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

promo61

Oct-15-13 8:47 PM

Consolidate.....

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

uglyassmf

Oct-17-13 3:59 AM

selfish?..lol..i'm the first one at a benefit tossing a 20.00 bill to some one who needs help. i don't agree with levies to support schools. Might I donate 20 bucks a year..sure..but to be told it's coming out of my pocket regardless of my beliefs is wrong.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TigerBuckeye

Oct-17-13 3:56 PM

Holy moly the ignorance. (1) Public schools are funded by state and local. The proportion and method is wrong. (2) Overpaying public employees is wrongfully directed and not objective. (3) Attending private schools is a persons privilege; however, there is a constitutional obligation to support a public good - a guaranteed right of a public education for the children. (4) Levies are not against the law and the Supreme Court did not say they were unconstitutional. (5) People do pay based on the value of the property.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TigerBuckeye

Oct-17-13 3:59 PM

[continued] (6) As an ex teacher I do support the levy FOR THE CHILDREN. (7) Renters do pay, though indirectly in their rent amount. (8) Consolidation does not solve the funding problem; in fact it is likely to cost the tax payer more.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

uglyassmf

Oct-19-13 2:54 PM

HOLY MOLY is correct and watch when you walk past that mirror for the ignorance. Do a little fact checking before you start name calling.The state high court first ruled that Ohio’s school funding model is unconstitutional in 1997 in DeRolph v. State. The court ruled that Ohio’s reliance on local tax dollars leaves too much to the chance of where someone is born and raised. Property-rich districts could provide an education that property-poor districts could not afford. The court said the inequality plays out worst in urban and rural schools. Also nobody wants higher rent or taxes. Levies are not the solution.They are a continuance of the problem When I see teachers and school employees vote for a 5% decrease in pay and benefits I'll vote for the levy. or shall I say when*****freezes over!!!!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

promo61

Oct-19-13 9:11 PM

Having something ruled unconstitutional and being unlawful are two different things. The current law of funding schools is lawful until our state reps do something to change it. They don't have the backbone to do it so the law stands. Your beef is with elected officials, not school system employees. If you don't like something about the way schools are run, go to a school board meeting and speak up.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TigerBuckeye

Oct-22-13 9:24 AM

Holy moly!!! I do know my facts. It is the over reliance on local property taxes that was deemed unconstitutional not that levies are against the law. Some teacher groups have taken a decrease in benefits; I believe Shadyside is one.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

promo61

Oct-23-13 8:01 AM

UAMF: "@thoughtfull..Why should only prperty owners pay the unfair tax." I believe it was President Obama who stated: "when everybody pays their fair share, it's better for everyone."(sic)

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 13 of 13 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web