[at-l] OKAY KILLINGTON VT or NH ?????

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

At 10:13 PM 3/10/2004 -0500, ARTCLOUTMN@aol.com wrote:

>In a message dated 3/10/04 2:36:27 PM, ellen@clinic.net writes:
>
> > The yuppie condo owners around the ski resort objected to paying to 
> educate
> > kids in poorer communities. Since New Hampshire doesn't have such a law,
> > Killington folks voted to join New Hampshire in hopes of lowering their 
> taxes, the hell
> > with those poor kids.
> >
>
>That's where Killington is wrong.   NH does have such a law.   I know because
>I live in a doner town.   We pay a large share of the education funding for
>the state and get a very small portion of that back for our local schools.
>Most of the homes in my town are vacation cottages owned by people from 
>Mass.
>The owners are supporting the schools throughout the state but cannot send
>their own children to these schools.
>
>                 Art

As does NY. In fact the bulk of school funding in NY has always come from 
the state in NY (or at least during my lifespan) with only a tiny fraction 
raised by local taxes. Vermont changed their funding a few years ago from 
all local taxes to a statewide system because there was a huge disparity in 
the quality of schools depending on how much the local property owners 
could afford. The state legislature decided that there needed to be 
equality of educational opportunity. Some of those in the more well off 
communities don't feel they should have to pay taxes that support schools 
in poorer communities. If the AT was funded that way, only the communities 
it goes through would pay taxes to support it.