Posted on 11/22/2005 8:20:11 PM PST by FairOpinion
Texas school districts illegally tax property owners to pay for public education and the state must find a new way to fund schools by June 1 or classrooms will remain closed in the fall, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
Texas' highest civil court ruled that the property taxes for schools have become an unconstitutional statewide property tax and charged lawmakers with repairing the $30 billion funding system. State funding would be stopped if the deadline isn't met.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
LOL....that's so funny the way you put it and so true....sadly.
Income tax, was never properly amended. Never properly ratified, yet, we still are ALL paying it.
Well you all have encouraged me to go out and read the opinion before spouting off about it, but I can't pull it up on Westlaw. W
hat little I do know suggests that (1) a vague constitutional provision requiring the state to provide some sort of public education system + (2) a judicial ruling that the current means of funding is flawed in some respect = higher taxes and more money thrown down the rathole of modern public education.
I won't disagree with you there...
There was a bill introduced last session to only allow bond issues on the ballot when a major election is being held. I favor that highly.
I'd also favor audits of all districts before any new millage or bond elections.
The Pubbies in the Texas Senate need to have rivals in their primaries - candidates who are not RINOs and are not in bed with the education lobbyists.
"You people must be crazy. This is judicial activism at its worst, and is a giant step toward totalitarianism"
I am not sure I agree but only because I am not familiar enough with the Texas system. I like the 15 mill cap.
Maine allows school funding on a local basis. This is rife with problems. In my town over 60% of the electorate rent and seem to be oblivious as to the relationship between education spending through property taxes and their rents. The union contracts are negotiated in secret and then approved by the city council, absolutely controlled by the Unions.
This has resulted in a 25% increase in our education spending over the last 5 years, all of which has gone to pay and benefit increases for the union menmbers. At the same time the student enrollment has dropped almost 20%. The 'average' classroom teacher in Portland Maine makes 30% more than the median household income. We have the well to do raiding the poor each and every year.
I pay a Mill rate of 20, or $20 per $1000 of value after a generous homestead exemption of $13K. My taxes have gone from an outrageous $1200 in 1998 to an anticipated $4200 next year.
Not one dime has gone for a single book, computer, or classroom supply. Instead it all went to the unions.
There is no end in sight to this stupidity. As long as a majority of non property owners can loot the minority of home owners, nothing will change.
Remove education funding from the property tax and let those with kids fianlly pay their fair share.
free dixie,sw
So true GWB. Corruption follows for sure. Hub and I don't gamble and voted against the lottery. I must say my comment was tongue in cheek. When the politicians and fat cats start telling you something is going to benefit you.....watch out! We were sold a bill of goods just like in Houston where the voters were sold the same bill of goods and got three NEW stadiums (nuttin' wrong with the Astrodome and Compaq Center mind you) and it's too bad alot of people don't see it.
Gambling, the stupid tax that eventually harms us all. And a couple of years from now when the lottery doesn't pan out, our taxes will increase. The John Locke Foundation here in NC released a report showing the states that do have lotteries have higher tax rates than those that don't.
That is exactly what happened, but it's my understanding that subsequent legislation corrected that scam. I believe the Texas state lottery revenue is now allocated exclusively to the education budget.
However, the lottery revenues are only about 2% of the education budget in Texas. The horrendously large bureaucracy of education administrators in Texas can think of ways to waste 2% of the budget over their lunch hour.
Texas has one administrative headcount for every teacher in the state. It's just insanely top-heavy in administration overhead costs.
Sigh...Congress doesn't have the authority to repeal the amendment even if it wanted to do so.
Lawmakers will be called into new special session to give homeowners property tax relief
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
AUSTIN - Texas is using an unconstitutional state property tax to fund public schools, the Texas Supreme Court said Tuesday in a ruling that will force lawmakers to finally give homeowners their long-promised property tax relief.
The high court gave the Legislature until June 1 to find a solution or schools will not open in the fall. Lawmakers failed repeatedly over the past two years to pass a tax package to finance schools.
Gov. Rick Perry said he welcomed the ruling because it would give lawmakers the necessary incentive to finally deliver.
The ruling "validates the demands of Texas taxpayers who are fed up with property tax bills that climb higher and higher with each passing year," Perry said.
He and other state leaders were relieved that the court overturned a lower court ruling that could have forced major spending increases to the $32 billion school system.
Perry said he will call a special legislative session "at an appropriate time" to address the court's ruling. Most likely, the session will be after the March 7 party primaries, when the governor and many legislators will have contested re-election races.
To lower property taxes, lawmakers will have to pass a tax bill that likely includes higher consumer and business taxes. Plans considered by the Legislature earlier this year included sales tax hikes that would have resulted in net higher taxes for most homeowners.
"For the past decade, the Legislature has been shifting the responsibility of funding Texas schools onto local districts and onto the local property tax, but the local property tax can no longer bear this heavy burden," said David Thompson, a Houston attorney representing school districts that sued the state.
In a 7-1 ruling, the Supreme Court said the state's reliance on local property taxes for more than half of education funding has left school districts with no control over their tax rates.
The court noted that 67 percent of the districts, with 81 percent of the students, are taxing at or near the cap of $1.50 per $100 valuation.
"The current situation has become virtually indistinguishable from one in which the state simply set an ad valorem tax rate of $1.50 and redistributed the revenue to the districts," said Justice Nathan Hecht in the majority opinion.
Higher funding not ordered
The ruling forces state lawmakers to lower local property taxes and replace the resulting loss in revenue with new state taxes. That would help the 134 districts that now have to share revenue with poor schools, although the Supreme Court didn't strike down the so-called "Robin Hood" requirement.
Perry and many Republican lawmakers made school property tax cuts a major priority during their 2002 campaigns, but they have failed to act. The most recent failures came during two special sessions last summer, when Perry and legislative leaders couldn't agree on how to draft a new business tax to help pay for property tax relief.
A new Texas Tax Reform Commission appointed by Perry that had its first meeting on Monday is expected to have recommendations for property tax relief ready by next spring.
While the court ruling doesn't require the Legislature to increase overall school funding, Perry said the ultimate decision will be up to lawmakers.
The high court warned that Texas may be headed in the wrong direction, citing wide gaps in student performance along racial and economic lines and high dropout rates. The court also noted low levels of students meeting college preparedness standards and high attrition and turnover among teachers.
But Hecht said the state has met its constitutional requirement of providing a "general diffusion of knowledge" because "the undisputed evidence is that standardized test scores have steadily improved over time, even while tests and curriculum have been made more difficult."
The court noted that there is "substantial evidence ... that the public education system has reached the point where continued improvement will not be possible absent significant change."
Urging 'big-picture reforms'
Lawyers for the plaintiff school districts, which include Houston and many area suburban districts, said they hope the Legislature will do more than the minimum needed to meet the court ruling.
"We hope that the Legislature will heed the Supreme Court's call and adopt big-picture reforms that will place the Texas public school finance system on firm financial footing for years to come," said Mark Trachtenberg, a lawyer representing a group of school districts.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said he is committed to making significant changes.
"To me, school finance is not just about lowering local school property taxes, but improving the quality of education for all Texas children," he said.
And House Speaker Tom Craddick said he is "committed to finding a fair, equitable and constitutional alternative to the current school finance system."
Attorney General Greg Abbott, whose office defended the current school funding system against the lawsuit, said the Supreme Court recognized that "just because we can do a better job does not mean that the job being done now is unconstitutional."
"This is a victory for democracy because it ensures that decisions about education policy-making will remain in the elected Legislature rather than the courts," he said.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which represented 22 property-poor school districts in the case, bemoaned the high court's failure to "remedy persistent inequalities in the present school funding system."
"This case is not about money, but rather about lost educational opportunities for the 2 million-plus students attending schools in property-poor districts. Unfortunately, the court's decision ill-serves the interests of those children and the future of all Texas residents," said Ann Marie Tallman, the group's president and general counsel.
The court noted findings by state District Judge John Dietz, after a trial in Austin last year, that districts statewide are spending more than 97 percent of the revenue that would be available if every district taxed at maximum rates, up from 83 percent in 1993-94.
It also noted that only about one-third of the districts with about a fifth of the student population exceed minimum accreditation standards, a marked declined from 2001, when more than 60 percent of districts exceeded the minimum standards.
Justice Scott Brister dissented, while the newest member of the court, Justice Don Willett, who joined the court while the litigation was pending, abstained.
Brister said the majority goes too far by threatening to close schools unless the Legislature increases funding.
"But there is no end in sight; if the past is any indication, the new funding will not last long, and public education will not change much," Brister said.
Dietz, a Democrat, declared the school funding system unconstitutional in September 2004. He set an Oct. 1, 2005, deadline for the Legislature to change the law, but that deadline was stayed by the Supreme Court's consideration of the state's appeal.
Rich, poor districts joined in
Dietz ruled that the system is inadequate to meet the high standards that lawmakers have set for students. He cited evidence of a widening gap in educational achievement between "the haves and the have-nots" and said Texas faces a bleak future if it fails to spend more on public education.
The case is known as West Orange-Cove after a property-rich consolidated school district in East Texas. Rich and poor districts joined in the lawsuit to criticize the state for allowing its share of education funding to drop to a historic low of 38 percent as rising local property values and higher school tax rates made up the difference.
The districts argued they can't fund new programs needed to help students with the tougher academic tests implemented three years ago.
The existing school finance law, enacted in 1993, is the result of a previous court battle over funding equity between property-rich and property-poor districts.
janet.elliott@chron.com clay.robison@chron.com
One simple answer: ROAD MAINTENANCE AND EDUCATION. IIRC, about 30% is diverted to education, and almost all the rest is used just for repair of existing roads. Add in fed funding and there is money for new roads, but not nearly enough for future needs. And inflation (though mild, adds up over the years) reduces that 20 cents further. Shifting the education part back to roads would help, but still fall well short of the cost of the needed roads (we have 4 of the fastest growing metro areas in the country.)
Further, Perry's PR team notwithstanding, if Texans wanted toll roads, someone would have built them using private money to buy the land. Instead he's condemning a ton of farmland that private roadbuilders would love to buy cheap but can't or won't, and he'll simply GIVE it to the private roadbuilders for years, in exchange for them building a road on it that Texans will pay for!
The Trans Texas Corridor projects are to meet future demand, so they are being planned now but not going to be built next year. Private companies haven't built them yet because demand wasn't there yet, but it will be in the next decade. They also don't have the power of eminent domain, which the state would be providing. The state will own the tollway land, and just lease it out to the toll companies. Without ED the roads become too expensive for a private firm to build, another reason why they don't build them without partnering with the state or a county authority. ED can be abused, but most agree that roads are a legitimate use(one of the few) of it.
Sure, it is a visionary project. The problem is that it is also one predicated on his ability to plan better than the people of the state, and rape landowners through condemnation to achieve a private pass-through. And the people of Texas didn't vote a Republican in to plan for them, to manage their affairs for them, but to keep government small and STOP it from planning for them. And they sure didn't vote for Kelo II.
Rhetorical nonsense.
What Perry's plan is all about is avoiding using the money the way it should be, or cutting programs where it shouldn't be, and shifting more taxes onto the road users who have paid the state already to build and maintain roads it ain't building or maintaining.
No, its about leveraging road funding by bringing in private investors who can build it faster, cheaper, and bond against future toll revenue instead of future taxes. Go look at the budget numbers and you'll find that your assertions are false, the gas tax doesn't and won't bring in enough to pay for anywhere close to all the needed roads. Bottom line, there are 3 options: don't build all the roads (didn't work for DC, Chicago, Seattle, Boston, etc.), raise taxes to pay for all the roads, or bring in private investors to pay for the difference between tax receipts and the cost of needed roads.
Do the math.
Check out my post 98. The 15 mil cap is for one part of the school property tax only - schools are actually capped at 20 mil. When you add in all the other property taxes (with schools being by far the highest portion), the rate goes up quite a bit more. For my Austin property the total mil rate is 34 plus...
Is this a cool state, or what?
Relax, my post was a sarcastic response to some of the comments here.
i thought our property taxes were already done locally? my property tax bill was paid to county not state.
"For my Austin property the total mil rate is 34 plus..."
Is it on the entire value of the home or is some amount exempt?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.