(2/12/07)  I have grown accustomed to the local obstructionist strategy of throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.  And while it offends me, this “quantity, not quality” approach to opposition arguments is depressingly effective. 

So I'm not at all surprised to see the same scattershot approach among those opposing a property tax override, with “reasons” running the usual range of rational to ridiculous. But I am surprised, and really disturbed, by the recurring chorus of “non-child households subsidize the schools” and “new residential development might mean more school children.”

Um, yeah.  And the earth revolves around the sun.

These are facts of life.  Educating children is an expensive investment that is the most basic foundation element of our social contract.  We don't educate children merely for their own benefit or that of their families – we do it because that is also of the greatest benefit to society.  Children who “cost money” today as students pay returns on that investment many times over tomorrow as contributing members of the larger community.  We are not subsidizing somebody else's kid; we are subsidizing the future adults who will do extraordinary things – and mundane things, like pay taxes and keep the cycle going.

Because it is a cycle.  And because society has long decided that sharing the cost of the expensive periods of that cycle is in all of our best interests, we do collectively subsidize children, seniors, poor people, disabled people and more.  It is merely an accounting quirk that has us paying for schools with our property taxes while our state and federal taxes fund the rest.  But the bottom line remains the same:  we all share some costs because doing so makes society better.

And would we really want it any other way?  Imagine a society that said – “They're your kids, you pay for them.”  Or “It's your problem that you can't afford food and rent – deal with it.”  Or  “So you didn't save up enough money during your working life to pay for your old age – tough luck.” 

This idea that long-suffering property tax payers have already been generous enough with the schools, is absurdly selfish and misguided.  Talk of discouraging residential development because it might put more kids in the schools is akin to discouraging medical and pharmaceutical advances, because the longer you keep these old folks alive, the more they're going to cost us.  And looking at the schools as a giant budget killer because they “cost” so much, is the same logic as hiring more tax collectors because that department brings in lots of money. 

I have no children, but I firmly believe that the quality of our public schools is one of the factors that makes Amherst desirable.  Living among people who share that priority is another.  Having the community appreciate that many of our shared values require shared costs is yet another.

There are legitimate reasons to oppose an override, though I don't happen to agree with them.  Being concerned that the schools are using the money wisely and effectively is certainly legitimate.  But hostility toward the schools and talk of discouraging future school children is neither legitimate nor rational.

There is a classic bumper sticker that says “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.”  If Amherst's priorities change and the schools suffer, the town would pay a steep price indeed.

-- Stephanie O'Keeffe