Why Not To Vote No On IRSD Referendum

IRSD  On Thursday, March the 2nd, the Indian River School District will again attempt to pass a current expense referendum, following the defeat of a previous attempt.  I have worded the title “why not to vote no” because there seems to be a large number of people within the District who have what they believe to be good reasons to vote no.

I would talk about the cost, an increase of forty-nine cents per $100 of property value, but it could be one cent, per one thousand and the same people would be opposed. I don’t really think they care how much it will cost.

Some say, they are upset about the recent disclosure of the mishandling of funds by the District, and the complete lack of oversight of those handling the money. But this referendum is not the time to settle that problem. In my opinion, the school board and the Superintendent are the people to be held accountable for that, not the students. And since the Superintendent who was in charge at the time has been given a nice cushy state job, that train has left the building. But the citizens of the District can still hold the Board accountable at the upcoming, and future school board elections.

I have been listening to a lot of people talk about why the voters should vote no to the referendum, and I have to tell you, most of it is not about the cost, or even the corruption. It seems as though most of the outspoken people will vote no because of what they perceive as students who do not belong in the District.

The IRSD has stated they need the increase due to an increase in enrollment, more students, more cost. The IRSD has shown that even with an increase in tax revenue, it has not kept pace with the increase in enrollment.

Those who oppose the increase say the increase in enrollment is due completely to an influx of “illegals” into the District, and that the voters should vote no to send a message. But what would that message be? That we want uneducated people?

This is such a small-minded approach, to a much larger issue. Are these people really willing to punish all the children within the IRSD simply to make an immigration statement? Do they not realize that while there are student who may be there as a result of illegal immigration, there are also students there who are of American heritage?

Do these small-minded bigots think they can differentiate between the two when it come to how the money is allocated? Or maybe they would simply bar the students they perceive as unworthy of an education from entering the schools.

When we hear talk of gun control, many 2nd Amendment rights advocates will point to the fact that when Hitler began taking over the nation of Germany, one of the first things he did was confiscate guns. Well when Hitler began persecuting the Jewish people, one of the first things he did was to prohibit Jewish children from attending public schools.

No one can deny that enrollment has increased at IRSD. No one can deny, with that increase the cost naturally goes up. So the question is not whether there is a legitimate need for the increase in the property tax, the question seems to be more about are we willing to punish all students of the District to make a statement on immigration?

(Full disclosure, I do not live within the IRSD, but I do live within the larger society, and if we fail to educate the children around us, they will grow to be uneducated and unemployable adults around us.)

24 Comments on "Why Not To Vote No On IRSD Referendum"

  1. Sussex Sue says:

    Frank, are we our brother’s children’s keeper?

  2. mouse says:

    Education and the educated have always been the biggest threat to conservatives, republicans and bigots

  3. mouse says:

    The thing that amazes me is how rural uneducated folk who call them “Christian” make the illegal issue their greatest obsession, resentment and yardstick to measure all things. Pretty obvious what is going on here. Cultural and racial resentment is more important than their kids future. It’s really sickening. Lower class white people are the biggest threat to their own kids. And once again, these same folk never ever call for the jailing and prosecution of people who hire illegals. Why is that? They admire these types and the robber barons who hide billions over seas in tax havens to avoid their already cheaper tax rates. It’s quite telling. Moral and intellectual bankruptcy is self evident, even for people who hide behind religion to promote their nasty bs.

  4. Old Sussex County Native says:

    My concern is this: we don’t know how much tax increase is required to get DE out of the hole it’s in now. On top of that, Judge Strine is calling for a gas tax increase to build a $200 million new Family Court building. Dept of Corrections wants millions to fix their problems. My home town has been talking tax increases. What will Sussex do if the State has to start cutting funding to the County for things as they cope with this $358 million hole? Here a little, there a little, so much uncertainty. A “small increase” here, a “small increase” EIEIO.

    Was it Ben Franklin who said, “beware small expenses, for a small leak can sink a mighty ship.”

    I’d be a little more inclined to vote yes maybe 6 months from now if the plans for coping with the massive financial crisis were more clear and we had an idea what all of these other tax increase potentials were made plain.

  5. Frank Knotts says:

    Sussex Sue, don’t know about “keeper”, but we all live in the same society, so refusing education to any segment of that society put the entire society at risk.
    Old Native, very good points. Just not sure holding education at ransom is a good idea at any cost. I have always been critical of the Dems for threatening that it will be education and law enforcement that will be cut first in a financial crisis. There are so many other wasteful thing that can go first. It is up to us to steer those officials in that direction.

  6. Rick says:

    … when Hitler began persecuting the Jewish people, one of the first things he did was to prohibit Jewish children from attending public schools.

    Jews were citizens. illegals are not.

    the educated have always been the biggest threat to conservatives, republicans and bigots

    Yeah, like that 98% of the illiterate ghetto vote the Dems always get.

  7. Frank Knotts says:

    Ah, Rick, but if the children were born here, they are considered citizens. Are they not?

  8. Rick says:

    Ah, Rick, but if the children were born here, they are considered citizens. Are they not?

    To me, they are not. To others, they are.

    Is the child of the wife of a courier working at the British Embassy a citizen?

    Hopefully, the question will be addressed by the new Supreme Court. To the best of my knowledge, the question has never been directly adjudicated.

    Often, the court may seek to find “intent” by perusing the Federalist papers, or, debate in Congress at the time preceding the enactment of the legislation.

    For what it’s worth, re: 14th Amendment (natural born clause):

    “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” …….

    John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866

  9. Just Curious says:

    Why should IRSD taxpayers have to pay more to enable scumbags like Patrick Miller to line their pockets at public expense — not to mention general waste and incompetence? It’s time the we got the parasites and grafters out of the school system and lying hatemongers off the blogsites.

  10. Diane Carmean says:

    School Choice adds a number of students to IRSD. That is where the Southern Delaware School For The Arts is. A GREAT school ! My problem would be why school property tax be raised (on those that do pay) when a number a people that own property DON’T !! PLUS IRSD requires that EVERYONE over the age of 21 pay School Capitation Tax of $12.00 . Why have it if you a not going to bill it and collect it ! I do understand that billing alone is expensive, let alone collecting, so put it up to a higher reasonable amount, or Delete it.

  11. Frank Knotts says:

    Rick, I was playing devil’s advocate. I have made the same argument. If a person visiting here from Australia were to have a baby while visiting, that baby would not be an American citizen.
    That being said, I have no problem denying welfare and other entitlements to people here illegally. However, these children are here of no doing of their own, and while they are here, I have no problem educating them, and welcoming them to become citizens, productive citizens who have something to give to our society in general. Because there is a real chance, even after a Trump administration, they will be citizens, or will become citizens, so why wouldn’t we want to educate them.
    Just Curious, as I said in the post, this vote is not the vote to address the issue of misconduct on the part of Mr. Miller, or the lack of oversight on the part of the board. Are you suggesting we punish the children, all children, illegal, legal whatever, for the actions of the board and administration?
    If a man broke into your home and stole your TV, would you go to his home and beat his children?

  12. Frank Knotts says:

    Diane, again, your issues are not with the children. If there is a lack of enforcement, then talk to your representative. Would you like to name them here? Or your Council member?
    The property tax is assessed on all property, so even a rental property is paid by the owner. If they are not paying that tax, there are laws to be enforced.

  13. Gary says:

    I work hard for my home and property so here is my complainants – as much of the enrolment increase comes from families often choosing to live in situations where multiple families live together or the family structure is weak and leads to large families; develop a rental tax that would create income from the appropriate base. I do not mind paying to insure we have a strong education system i just don’t like being penalized for being successful enough to own a home and property. I will be voting NO because I feel I am being taken advantage of, NOT BECAUSE I HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST THE STUDENTS OR STAFF!!!!!!!

  14. Frank Knotts says:

    Gary, what you suggest, sort of sounds like a “head tax”, and I believe that concept has been found unconstitutional. And how would that be enforced? Will we have a revenue officer checking in the middle of the night to see how many people are in the home?

  15. mouse says:

    I have an obscure resentment issue with the school tax so I’m voting against my own kid’s education. And who cares about future generations. I’ve got mine, screw you!

  16. Rick says:

    …who cares about future generations.

    Certainly not the Democrats. They couldn’t care less about the $20-trillion dollar debt the government has saddled future generations.

    Our schools suck. That’s because they are more worried about transgender bathrooms and paeans to Obama than they are math, literature and science.

  17. mouse says:

    Raise taxes on the 1% and the deficit is easily eroded away

  18. Gary says:

    Love it when words are twisted……. Rental tax would take the burden off those with assets and put it on those with a roof over their head not on the head!!!! As many i believe the district budget should be published as well as the sad faces and happy sports wins that are being used to pull on heart strings the strings of those with no purse strings involved in this………. I am sure the many will shaft the few tomorrow

  19. Frank Knotts says:

    Again Gary, your point was multiple families living in one home. So how do you track these situations? What government agency enforces it? What if a daughter with her two kids hits hard times and has to move back in with her parents who own their property ? Is that the same thing? What if the rental has a single man living with a family of four but. They have no relationship other than financial? And the family was only there for six months, Do they have to pay a full years taxes or a pro-rated tax
    The variables are so vast it would make it impossible to apply equally.

  20. Rick says:

    Raise taxes on the 1% and the deficit is easily eroded away

    Go back to math class.

    The fallacy of taxing our way out of debt; Click here

  21. delacrat says:

    “Raise taxes on the 1% and the deficit is easily eroded away” – mouse

    Raising taxes on the 1% means more government spending into the economy and less for asset bubbles for the 1%.

  22. Rick says:

    Around 6% of government spending goes toward interest payments on our national debt. To put this in perspective, education gets 3% and transportation infrastructure gets 2%.

    We have an inept government- but, they know how to steal from the people.

  23. Frank Knotts says:

    Well Rick since we are talking about a local referendum here, technically the people decided, so no one stole anything.

  24. Rick says:

    I wasn’t talking about the school referendum. But it is interesting to note that whenever school referenda fail, they just re-package them again, and keep at it until they pass.

    Of course, in California, when a “proposition” passes and the Democrats oppose it, they simply sue and then a “liberal” judge overturns the will of the people.

    $$$$$ = 00000 in education click here

Got something to say? Go for it!