Help Replace One of Ohio's Oldest Schools?

good evening fellow blogers ,

pro and anti bond / levy advocates

while I can see you all have had a spirited exchange of thoughts today you continue to stir a rotten cup of clam chowder.

While the pro lobby for the tax continues to give examples of their responsible thinking for our community

The anti tax lobby uses statistical analysis to show the poor condition of the educational system.

While both of these opinions have some good honest fruit to their point of view, the primary neglect by both is the fact that discriminatory attributes abound in this subject.  As you know for a fact  the attorney general of the state of ohio has always been compelled to protect citizens rights as the various documents of law provide for.

Discrimination is one of those lengthy laws and bi laws that can bring closure to this subject.

Think about this:

The pro lobby always mentions “tax payers” in their lengthy dissertations for the improvement of a districts

Educational institutions.

They do not specifically say citizen or resident property owners with taxable property in the district.

They assume that because the levy or bond is a property tax burden, that just calling them tax payers is

a good enough identification of the one who will pay the tax.  I  understand their cross reference in conjugation.

What they fail to see , is that property owners are not the only tax payers in the district.

Immigrants who have valid papers, and familys pay income tax. They pay local , state and federal tax.

They are tax payers too.

The school board discriminates against them, and dose not include them in their fund raising efforts.

Ask any immigrant that is legal and pays their taxes, they want to be part of this nations population of citizens with civil  Rights and freedoms. These civil rights and freedoms are not free – as a mere penance  to the sacrifice of generations of immigrants and common citizens, we as current residents or citizens pay our taxes to propagate the dream of America.

To continue to propagate a illegal form of school funding that is unconstitutional , and dose not include all tax payers as described above should be abolished.

 DeRolph v. State was a landmark case in Ohio constitutional law in which the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the state's method for funding public education was unconstitutional. Handed down on March 24, 1997, the 4-3 opinion said that the state funding system "fails to provide for a thorough and efficient system of common schools" as required by the Ohio Constitution and directed the state to find a remedy.

 Its discrimination against the taxpayers as a whole , and it discriminates against property owners who pay property tax. In essence it’s a case of double jeopardy towards all citizens. Consider this why should a resident immigrant with the proper papers who pays taxes , not be included in the tax base for public education ? they have on average at least 3 kids in school during there residency in this country.

What gives the state the right to ask property owners to pay for other law abiding citizens that pay income tax, local state, federal, license tax for automobiles, fishing tax at public lakes, hunting tax during hunting season, business tax in all respects, unemployment tax for their employees, workers comp insurance for employees  ect ect ect .  what disqualifies them from paying the  public school tax ?????

Its simple for the status quo to answer they don’t own property. So they discriminate against that taxpayer for not owning property and then they discriminate against property owners by collecting unequal taxation with out proper representation of the population in their tax base.

You see while all parties in this discussion have valid points in reference to their lobby, pro or against they need to understand this continued propagation of injustice is because they don’t address the main issue.

To better understand this form of discrimination you need to know that schools in rich districts are able to pass levy’s and bonds with shorter terms and as a result more tax is collected from each citizen in that district because of the districts income demographic. This in turn gives this district a advantage to build, remodel, re-invent curriculums for students, offer programs the poor do not receive and in the end flourish as a educational institution while poor districts suffer with the lack of funds.  It all boils down to proportion and relationship. All districts should have equal proportion in funding from the state without funding public education on the backs of property owners. This form of discrimination is so hidden from plain view because the current system uses statistical analysis and surveys to indoctrinate citizens in to a belief that they are doing good for the community, when in actuality they are propagating discrimination based on income demographic funding of public schools threw land tax.

Funding of public schools is straight up a form of discrimination based on income alone.

The poor and lower middle class should not be discriminated against just because of their

income. For 17 years your politicians have neglected their constitutional duty to provide for a thorough and efficient system of common schools" as required by the Ohio Constitution. This concept is in reference that all schools should have a common thread . They should be funded equally irregardless of a districts income or social demographic. In other words the public schools in Indian hills should be a carbon copy of schools in Middletown. Because of income demographics they are not. This creates unfair and unequal funding , a type of discrimination, of all the school districts and relives the state of their constitutional duty as directed by the Ohio supreme court. To change this form of discrimination  all citizens state wide need to vote against all levy’s and bond issues for public education. As a result the state will have no recourse but to acknowledge the citizens vote and legislate a equal , proportioned, funding system that dose not discriminate against any demographic group.

Yep, maybe that school is broken, and needs replaced, or renovated, or demolished, or made in to a local museum of a day gone passed. The idea that any plan to renovate, build new, or tear down and relocate

Educational institutions in any particular district will stop the discrimination propagated by this unequal form of taxation is preposterous.

And one other thing , if your pro lobby was to get this issue passed, and then the state did not appropriate the  matching funds for lack of funding in the state budget (which has not been ratified as of yet) would you

Resend the appropriation of the bond levy ? or since it had already passed would you spend it as needs by the school board dictate ? if you did spend it you need to know that the attorney general of the state of Ohio is well versed in the “bait and switch” concept and has prosecuted against this practice many times.

I’m sure that the school board would not be receptive to a board of inquiry from the attorney generals office.

Ms. Andrew

this is the 4th time i have asked for you to provide a appropriations bill number to legitimize the claim that the 40 million is in the bank. you claimed two days ago  that it has been appropriated. I cannot find it on the state web site that makes public all appropriations and legislative bills. while you might be correct in saying that it is a line item in the state budget, the budget is still in  the approval process and will not go into implementation till july 1-2014.