by Dermot Mackey

    Yes, this is yet another letter on the contentious Loveland School Tax levy.  I feel compelled to write to you because I feel the large NO signs that dot our community, and the various articles that I have seen published in our newspapers from anti-levy campaigners, do not address all the facts of this important community issue.  Let me begin by stating that I am not a member of any organized campaign, school board, or outside pressure group.  I am a concerned parent and homeowner, with one child in 2nd grade and another approaching Kindergarten, who feels that his neighbors and the larger community should have all the facts at hand, and understand all the implications of their decision, beyond simple property tax payments, before voting on March 4th.

    Firstly, the statement that “taxes will go up 21%”, 8.5 mills,  or $260 per $100,000 of assessed value, is misleading.  If you consider no other factors, then this statement is true.  However, the fact of the matter is that this rise will coincide with a rate reduction of approximately 3.5-4 mills, roughly $120 per $100,000 assessed value, due to reduced interest payments on a 1998 bond levy.  The resulting tax increase that homeowners will actually see, and therefore the only figure that really matters, is $140 per $100,000.  Based on the average price of a home in Loveland, which is $212,149, the average home owner will pay about $25 a month more in tax.  If thats' what it takes to keep our schools excellent then I'm willing to pay it.

    Another key fact is that the anti-levy Fair Tax group do not actually oppose all tax increases, just property tax increases.  Their  proposal is a 3/4% earned income tax.  If you're retired, which several spokesmen for the anti-levy group are, then I guess you might call this fair.  However, if you're like me, a middle-income earner who is the sole-provider for a family of four, then you may not be so quick to agreed.  Whether we like it or not, property taxation is the primary source of funding for our public schools, and it has always been the responsibility of all property owners, whether working or retired, to invest in this cornerstone of the community.

    However, what's really the big picture here?    I think its much more than a simple question of whether you can afford, or not afford, $25 more per month on your tax bill.  It's a question of investing in the future of our children and maintaining the reputation of the community.  Loveland schools have been able to achieve an excellent rating for the last seven years in a row.  It is one of only a handful of districts in the state to do so while keeping the dollar cost per child below state average ($8,700 last year compared to $12,688 in Montgomery).  Our teachers, school staff members, school board and hard-working students should be commended for achieving such success, not penalized.  The NO signs in the community demand fiscal responsibility.  How much more fiscally responsible can we get?  If the anti-levy campaigners believe there is tangible waste in the school district then the onus is on them to present their plan to save the district roughly $5m a year (the amount of revenue that the levy will generate).  If it means cutting bus services, increasing class sizes, reducing school curriculum and compromising standards then it is indeed a heavy price.

    Finally, our schools are one of the main selling points for our real estate to prospective home-buyers.  They are one of the main reasons I moved my family to Loveland in 2005.  I know many families, mine included, who would have chosen to live in Mason, West Chester or Montgomery if Loveland schools had not been rated excellent.  Can we afford future home-buyers to turn their backs on Loveland and live elsewhere?  What type of community will we have if that happens?  There is much food for thought.

Dermot Mackey is a resident of Loveland and the Loveland School District