Riverside Info » About Riverside

D96 needs to put taxpayers first

(32 posts)
  • Started 2 years ago by TomJacobs
  • Latest reply from CuriousResident
  1. spatny
    Member

    I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean, but I think we agree on sharing the common tax pot, no matter in whose account it is resting at the moment. All the schools have students that cross the streets. The taxpayers pay in to a tax authority that sends a portion of what they pay to various entities, like all the schools, etc. So your tax money - part of it - is in the accounts at D96, RB, etc. (Not sure about St. Mary's.) I think most people would favor those schools that have a surplus using the money for the intended purposes - education and safety of the kids. So I think the schools that have extra should chip in.

    RB doesn't have it. But kids from Hollywood area go to Hauser and cross streets there. So the guards work for both districts there.

    And complaining, arguing, etc. is the lifeblood of our system. We have primary fights that are very rough, but then people usually come together and work for the party candidate chose by the voters. When another party wins the losers are often disgruntled. Sometimes they refuse to cooperate as we have seen nationally. But life goes on. You probably like some things they do, and others not so much, and question many things. That's OK - but it's not the same as saying "I bet they have secret meetings and break the law" or some such. Everyone can say what they like, but that doesn't make it fact.

    Posted Friday May 21, 2010 10:20 #
  2. corbi296
    Member

    Before we start dismissing each others arguements as "silly", let's try to establish facts about this issue. Like Tom Jacobs has said in the past, I find it very frustrating that in this town we have a hard time even agreeing on the facts. If you can't establish facts, then it's not worth having a discussion on any issue because you have no hope of reaching a mutually agreed upon solution.

    Having said that, do we all agree with the following?

    The pool of people that constitute the taxpayers for Village of Riverside taxing body is not the same as the pool of people that constitute the tax base for the District 96 taxing body, which is not the same as the pool of people that constitute the tax base for the District 208 taxing body, which is not the same as the pool of people that send kids and pay tuition at St. Mary's School.

    Posted Saturday May 22, 2010 07:33 #
  3. TomJacobs
    Member

    Agreed.

    There is a good map on D96 boundaries at http://www.schooldigger.com/go/IL/district/33990/search.aspx

    Boundary for D208 is at http://www.schooldigger.com/go/IL/district/34020/search.aspx

    The real discussion that needs to start is a consolidation of D96 and D208. Are there any better reasons to have 2 small and separate school districts as opposed to one? Administratively, dealing with approx. 3,000 kids instead of 1,500, and for $300,000 a year, seems like an obvious one to me.

    Posted Saturday May 22, 2010 08:07 #
  4. TomJacobs
    Member

    Actually, it should be a consolidation of Elementary School Districts 95 and 96, and High School District 208. Both Brookfield LaGrange Park D95 and Riverside D96 together make almost exactly the same boundary as D208. D95 would add approx. 1,000 students.

    Posted Saturday May 22, 2010 08:22 #
  5. anonymous
    Member

    You are totally correct. We do need to consolidate the feeder schools into the high school district.

    How do we start the process?

    Posted Saturday May 22, 2010 12:32 #
  6. CuriousResident
    Member

    Posted today on the SuburbanLife: District-will-not-pay-for-village-crossing-guards

    Posted Tuesday Jun 1, 2010 13:50 #
  7. stephaniem
    Member

    Good for District 96! They need to put the students education first!- not the taxpayers. It's just like President Jensen said, they passed their referendum to have money, the RCA said the village did not need a referendum. The RCA evidently sees children's safety as wasteful spending. With messed up priorities like this it's no wonder they want to take down parks and rec. Can't wait for the top to bottom unveiling to unveil tonight.

    Posted Tuesday Jun 1, 2010 14:29 #
  8. CuriousResident
    Member

    I can understand some of the frustrations with the village board and it's challenges, but it feels a bit like D96 is "Cutting off their nose off despite their face".

    If the D96 growing surplus was not as large as it is (~1.7mil per year?!), I think more people would be likely to cheer with stephaniem.

    As it stands, there are a lot of people that view it as all coming from the same revenue source (property taxes) and simply not being right to have a safety service go deficient because of bureaucracy.

    If there was a way to reallocate some of (say half?) the surplus revenue from D96 to the village this would be a non-issue.

    Posted Tuesday Jun 1, 2010 15:02 #
  9. stephaniem
    Member

    I am not sure why they would be so frustrated. They said with an absolute certainty there was wasteful spending. They would cut it all out, and now they are frustrated with not being able to find it?

    Let me ask you, if you were doing financially well, and other church parishoners were not, and they approached you to use your savings to fund the church would you? Don't answer. You wouldn't lose sight of your priorities- providing for your household- your family. It would be improper for anyone to put you on the spot looking for a handout. D96 is following the same mentality and they are absolutley right.

    Suppose Brookfield and North Riverside also asked D96 for money, and depleted D96 funds, where would be be then? The village would set a bad precident of having jurisdiction over education.

    Posted Tuesday Jun 1, 2010 16:39 #
  10. TonyM
    Member

    The notion that just because we receive 1 tax bill that all of a sudden the dollars paid become fungible is beyond absurd. That being said, I do agree that District 96 should be a bit more sympathetic and amenable to sharing the burden. The problem I have is the heavy handed nature at which the Village Board declared that District 96 would pay for the crossing guards. I believe that the Village's approach to single handedly deciding what was best forced the retaliatory posture exhibited by District 96. I wonder what the response would have been if the Village Board was a little more conciliatory with their approach - maybe a meeting in the middle?

    Posted Tuesday Jun 1, 2010 17:35 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.