Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

restricteddata t1_ivg28i2 wrote

Reply to comment by DontBeEvil1 in So who are we voting for that is not going rip us off blind w nonstop tax increases? by Accomplished_Day2991

The problem is that the increases do not seem to be translating into better educational outcomes. A board stacked with people who rubber-stamp every budget increase in the name of "the children" is an opportunity for waste and corruption. A board with several members who are non-union, who will cause every increase to be justified, who will ask how, exactly, the money is being used, not only will possibly keep the tax burden from getting too crazy (nobody expects them to be lowered), but will also push so that the money that is spent is spent well.

Better accountability is a win-win for children, parents, and citizens. The present lack of accountability does not help the children at all. If it did, there wouldn't be anybody questioning it. Nobody on the ballot is trying to gut the system, nobody is anti-child or anti-teacher.

1

DontBeEvil1 t1_ivgdyd3 wrote

You realize everything you said is speculation and not fact? One person on the opposing side, voted once. Everyone from all sides have said they don't want to see taxes continue to increase. You have no idea about all the inner workings of the BoE and exactly where money is being allocated. That 1 one vote that FINALLY brought them up to be fully funded is not going to produce miraculous changes overnight. A seriously neglected school system will take years of investment to build up. All the luxury homes that people are crying about paying taxes on, were sitting on wasteland 10, 15, 20 years ago; those areas didn't go from trash dumps to luxury high rises overnight, so why do you think the school system would? 🤔 Just because someone SAYS they want better accountability does not mean they WILL get and give it once elected and doesn't guarantee you know exactly how they will vote regarding tax hikes once elected. ONCE AGAIN, the ONE PERSON running who voted for tax hikes, was on the Change for Children Slate when she ran and was elected. So you have zero clue or guarantee of how anyone on Change for Children will vote in regards to taxes. And sorry, when I have to choose between actual Educators, experience in many facets of Education, BoE and government, and backing from a teachers Union, OR no experience in Education whatsoever or Government, and backing from Real Estate Developers, I ain't picking the Real Estate Developer Side.

0

restricteddata t1_ivh6bac wrote

One never knows whether a politician will do what they say they will do — that much is clear. But the Change for Children slate has been pretty clear about their views and priorities in the debate and in their Reddit AMAs. So I do feel I have a sense of what their approach is, and that they are serious about making it "work." I went into all of this with a very open mind, but I need to be convinced. I don't take for granted that a union-backed candidate actually cares about educational outcomes more than anyone else, anymore than I would take for granted that a member of the Teamsters' would have a passion for moving freight.

I don't expect miracles. The Change for Children would be, at best, a component of the BOE, which itself is embedded in a much bigger system. I agree with you on that. If you think that three skeptical seats on the BOE would somehow unseat the union, I think you're the one being speculative. At most I would expect them to make it harder for things to be done without some better explanation. Is the money going to the places that it should? That's the question that I don't get any the sense the union-backed candidates care about.

But the opposing slate has said, essentially, that they don't really think the budget should be a major consideration, that they have no problem with raising taxes, and that they don't really believe in any measure of accountability.

So given the two options (plus the independent candidates, who don't seem all that serious), I think the chance is there that the Change for Children slate is more likely to produce accountability and oversight than the other one. I also have just not been impressed with the other slate explaining to me how we would not end up in a situation where our property taxes would go up 4X in one quarter again. That is just not a livable situation; things need to be run better.

I don't love developers, don't get me wrong. But I have not had anyone explain to me what evil developer agenda is going to be enacted here (other than, maybe, the ideal of not just endlessly raising the property taxes — which is not just a developer agenda).

I'm an educator myself (a history professor who teaches in Hoboken), and my wife is a high school teacher in NYC, and we are both products of public schools, for whatever that is worth. I am pro-union when they are in a position to help workers have a voice, but my experience is that when they have unchecked power (whether in education, labor, policing, etc.) then it easily becomes abused, like all unchecked power. So I would prefer a BOE that was not entirely union, for their own sake — if an all-union BOE keeps raising taxes without accountability or showing results, it will ultimately lead to a real anti-union backlash, and that isn't good for anyone.

1

DontBeEvil1 t1_ivhmwcz wrote

"The Change for Children would be, at best, a component of the BOE, which itself is embedded in a much bigger system."

They already have been. And one of them voted to raise the taxes, and is now running on the opposing slate, while another remains on the Change for Children slate.

"But the opposing slate has said, essentially, that they don't really think the budget should be a major consideration, that they have no problem with raising taxes, and that they don't really believe in any measure of accountability."

This is simply not true. I spent the past several days reading interviews with the candidates both together and individually, as well as reading coverage on their debate, and they have said the exact opposite of what you are claiming here they had.

"So I would prefer a BOE that was not entirely union,"

I agree. And it's not. Also, important to note that being Union and being backed by the Union are 2 different things.

0