Home of Today's Common Sense

Sent 9/15/2004 Published 9/19
I attended the presentation that University and Texas Soutmost College officals provided at St. Marys Church on September 14 and was impressed with the candor that permeated the meeting. I went there with preconceived notions that were dispelled to some extent and forced me to rethink the whole thing.
The event began with Dr. Tony Zavaleta’s imposing presence that transmitted the sense that you are in good hands here and we are going to be straight with you.
University President Garcia, made the case that these were the needs and this is what it will cost; we still need the things that we described in the earlier proposal but we heard your concern over the costs and went back to work. We saw the results of a lot of “hand wringing” in the new refined proposal and a lower estimated tax rate increase of 3.8 cents per hundred dollars of valuation. It was further suggested that the retirement of the 1986 bond issue would result in a reduced tax rate in 2006. It was also said that a hard look at the budget resulted in the tax rate being reduced from .1314 to .1280 or about 3/100 of a cent per $100 of evaluation. While it sounds small, it translates into real money when one considers the total value of property being taxed.
I was especially pleased that a number of the Junior College Taxing District Trustees were there personally standing up for their decision. Dr. Robles who has reached prominence by the confidence he instills, made a compelling argument and the biggest impression on me. How can you doubt someone who has literally held your life in his hands as he did when he corrected some heart problems for a family member. He got his start at Texas Southmost College!
The folks that attended represented a cross section of the community; one who described himself as of very modest means, was a homeowner with an income of about $12,000 per year and was very convincing when he said that an additional tax even as little as $20 per year would be a hardship when considered with all the other taxes. A retiree with a fixed income made a similar case and pointed out that recent large increases of appraised values, in some cases as much as 25%, greatly increased his taxes and suggested that the increased tax receipts resulting from the boom in new construction should be adequate to fund all the expansion for the taxing authorities.
Many, including the ever vigilant Dagoberto Barrera of the “South Texans for Good Government” conveyed considerable mistrust of all the taxing authorities due to flaps in the Navigation District and others.
Was I convinced of the need for a bond issue with an increased tax? No, but I was persuaded to really rethink things in a new light.
I am convinced that there is a genuine need for the improvements and expansion in the infrastructure. I have very serious reservations about increasing the tax rate for what I believe is growth that should be supported by new revenues generated by that growth.
The current annual tax rate of $2.768326 per $100 translates into a tax of fully 2 and ¾ % of the retail value of the property you own or $1,660.99 on a $60,000 house. Home ownership in our community is very broad and something that most of us place as our number 1 priority for our families. I am concerned that the ever increasing taxes will make it a dream that will become out of the reach for many. I am also concerned that continued increases will chase businesses away.
I am not alone as bond issues like this have been dropping like flies and the public officials that proposed them are becoming unemployed at a growing rate. The message is that we are paying enough tax or too much and government must live with the amounts that are there.
This places all of the taxing authorities in competition for the available tax dollars, which was acknowledged during the meeting discussion. The issue boils down to “does BISD – South Texas ISD – or UTB/TSC get the “pay raise” or should the Port of Brownsville get any tax at all and live on their own generated income”. The extra $0.07 per $100 would make a big plus if channeled to education.
Lastly, the issue as to whether the community should be supporting a State University together with the Junior College is still in question in my mind. Is this experiment, which I think is one of only two in existence, a legitimate use of funds for a community so poor that it must get funds from other school districts to support basic education?
My wife and I would be more comfortable with making a private pledge of the $40 per year to support the bond issue rather than approve a tax.
I can be reached at fred@the-drews.com and my Web site is www.the-drews.com