Quote:
Originally Posted by Steveo
I don't agree. While some residents without kids will want to have good schools because it increases their property value and other values, I think that some residents without kids will tend to vote against school expenses. Either way they are counter balanced by the residents that do have kids. All non-residents don't have kids attending the schools so they will always side to the "against" side. And because the non-residents are a fairly large number they would skew the numbers to the against side considerably.
|
Well, then I guess that we'll agree to disagree. My main objection is with your use of the word "always," as in "All non-residents don't have kids attending the schools so they will
always side to the "against" side." Using absolutes in any argument can be tricky, and if I were allowed to vote in a local election as a non-resident, I would not "always" vote against school expenses. Who knows, maybe I'm the one exception to your rule, but I doubt it.
As I mentioned earlier, perhaps I'm too idealistic, but I like to think that voting for or against stuff that takes taxpayer dollars isn't always about the individual taxpayer's immediate bottom line; it's also about what you get,
as a citizen, and not directly, for the money spent. Good schools and well-educated kids are a good thing for everyone, not just the parents and families of the school kids. If you're not homeless, do you automatically vote against spending tax dollars on homeless shelters and other assistance? If you don't ever use the town parks and recreation facilities, do you always vote to defund those programs? I hope not, because otherwise, why live in a
community?