Prop. tax cap could be destroyer or savior

I am writing to express my deep concern for the future of public education in New York State, should the proposed 2 percent tax cap become law ["State Senate OKs tax cap," News, Feb. 1]. I understand the need for reform in state and local budget preparation and spending practices, but this draconian action may well lead to the demise of many unique and highly effective school programs.

Long Island is blessed to have many wonderful school systems that are graduating tens of thousands of well-prepared, curious, college-bound youngsters with bright and promising futures. At a time when we are expecting our schools to produce tomorrow's leaders, equipped with the skills needed for the coming century, Long Island schools are doing just that. This is not the time to dismantle these programs.

Creative approaches to consolidation of services may be a more effective avenue to explore, but effectively putting an end to so many successes should not be an option. Cutting the funding and dealing with the fallout afterward is a certain recipe for failure.

In the 1980s, similar tax caps were voted into law in California, Massachusetts and other states. In all of these instances state funds were allocated toward supporting the education systems, and still the arts and elective programs were decimated. Twenty-five years later, they have yet to be effectively revived. In 2011, New York has no such funding to support the school budgets if this legislation were to pass.

Please, take note of the history and take heed.

John C. McNeur

Herricks

Editor's note: The writer is the director of music and performing arts for the Herricks school district.

Because of perpetually inequitable distribution of state aid, Long Island schools have been forced into funding a large portion of public education with property taxes. The exact percentage varies by district. Yearly health insurance and pension costs increase at unsustainable levels, and the state does nothing to address this. Local school districts have no control over these costs.

The reality is that a cap would decimate our schools. Do we really want a "bare bones" education for our children, just the three R's in a school where class size is maximized? No extracurriculars to empower children, give them a sense of community and accomplishment, and help them get into a good college? Students without a reason to stay in school?

In addition, if our schools are inadequate, then our home values will decrease even more than they have.

What our elected legislators should be doing is changing the formula that leaves our Long Island schools with such a funding disparity as compared with other areas of the state. Equitable distribution of state aid to education should be their mission.

Lisa Brieff

South Huntington

A tax cap is better than no tax cap. However, the quandary regarding the proposed "soft" tax cap is that it is not a "hard" tax cap. A hard tax cap would not allow taxes to increase above the 2 percent limit.

The proposed soft tax cap allows local school districts to vote to override (increase) the tax cap limitations.

Actually, it is the teachers union-negotiated contracts that are jeopardizing the children. Long Island's swelling and unreasonable teachers union contracts are the source of our perpetually extreme and wounding property taxes.

Many Long Island homes are in foreclosure or behind on their mortgages because of excessively unaffordable school taxation. These houses subsequently become unsellable, as the potential home buyer is deterred to take on the excessive school district tax burden.

To the typical taxpayer's discredit, the turnout for school districtwide elections is modest. It is generally the teachers, employees and the families who vote. Without a hard tax cap, these self-interested individuals will stuff the ballot box.

Alan Stadler

Ridge