Chamber of Commers After-Hours
Time to go back to school
Extreme Makeover: Home edition
Dave Larsen writes about higher education.Home > Blogs > On Campus > Archives > 2008 > March > 06 > Entry
Sinclair levy and voters over time
Bill Burges, the Cleveland-based political strategist who helped develop Sinclair Community College’s campaign for its levy, just called me to make a point. A good one, actually.
In my Dayton Daily News story about the levy passing at 52 percent, I compared the passage rate to its last levy request in 1998, when that levy passed at 73 percent.
It wasn’t quite an apples-to-apples comparison. To get a clearer picture of what voters think of Sinclair levies over time, I should be including the 1988 levy too. It was a drop since the last time, yes, in straight math terms. But including the 1988 levy results adds some context to the supposed drop. That was Bill’s point. He’s right.
In 1998, the economy was sailing along - and that time around, Sinclair wasn’t asking for new millage, like it did with this 3.2-mill levy on Tuesday. That one passed at 73 percent.
In 1988, two “levy cycles” ago, Sinclair went to voters asking for new millage, just like it did with this levy - and that one passed at 52 percent, exactly the same rate as this new levy.
So you might make a conclusion here: That if voters are inclined to pass a levy, they’re more likely to go for one that isn’t adding new millage. With a levy that adds new millage, they make choices about whether raising their taxes is worth it supporting the public good. You’re probably thinking, “Well, duh.” But that little sliver of context is important to consider when debating whether or not there is tax fatigue in this area.
I think Bill was trying to say that the levy’s seemingly low approval rate didn’t have anything to do with perceived tax fatigue, but more to do with the economy (people get nervous about a recession) and whether or not they wanted to choose to contribute to a public good. When the economy is better, people feel better about paying for a public good. Sinclair focused hard in its advertising on its link to area workforce development - which it argued is important to training people for attracting good jobs here. And Bill’s statements in my March 5 blog post (about how he knew Sinclair was going to have to work hard to get the votes it got) had more to do with persuading voters to see Sinclair as a public good and go for it, despite troubling economic times.
Here’s a question: When you vote on a levy like Sinclair’s, what kinds of things do you consider before you check that “Yes” or “No” box?
Permalink | Comments (15) | Categories: Sinclair Community College
Comments
By Dave
March 6, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this
Along with taxes and the economy, I also considered the fibs about not dropping any programs in Dayton, the tap dance they did about why they expanded into Warren Co. and why, and why they fought to expand into Greene County, and how they would fund that. A little honest communication might have helped their case a bit.By Rick
March 6, 2008 11:24 PM | Link to this
Sinclair has no debt it is my understanding that it has $100 million in cash and investment. Nary a peep was heard from any of the mainstream media because they love all levies/taxes. They are guilty of journalistic fraud.By Mary
March 7, 2008 7:34 AM | Link to this
I think many are starting to close their eyes, ears, and minds and voting no, routinely. It seems to be the only recourse to pressure public and educational officials to spend tax dollars more wisely and conservatively. There is tax fatigue, but also slogan fatigue, such as “for the children” on school levies. More and more voters seem to think the officials just do not get that there are limits to the public trough. I think the no side is reaching critical mass for most levy votes. After a while, the heavy campaign for yes votes will not be as effective. The no campaigns do not exist, or are meagerly financed, yet they already reflect a significant percentage of voters.By L
March 7, 2008 8:16 AM | Link to this
I chose to vote “no,” because of the increase. I would have vote “yes” for a replacement. It bothers me that so many people who rent in this county can vote to raise other people’s taxes. In this economy, my family is all but tapped out. I work in education, and support education whenever I can. I wish we had a better way to fund it than simply through property taxes. The entire community should contribute.By Ty
March 7, 2008 8:22 AM | Link to this
I second Mary’s comment about slogan fatigue. A lot of levy supporters are so sanctimonious it’s repulsive. On Sinclair’s cash reserves I’ve seen far ranging dollar amounts but I think the most reliable number is $104,789,219 of “Expendable Net Assets” at http://regents.ohio.gov/financial/campus_accountability/ratios/RatiosFY07.pdf. Stephanie I think you said $14,000,000 somewhere but isn’t this $104,000,000 a more accurate number? But I disagree with Rick about journalistic fraud because I think Daily News did a good job of presenting both sides.By Ty
March 7, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this
Sorry the end of that address I posted got cut off. After campus_accountability/ it should be ratios/RatiosFY07.pdfBy Dan Kennedy
March 7, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this
I voted YES for this levy. 1. It was a tiny increase. 2. Citizens of this community, as a region, still need much more post secondary education. With the loss of manufacturing jobs, who thinks that the community can still thrive if most adults stop learning at high school. 3. The South East Priority Board heard a presentation by the SCC levy folks. They assured us that there is NO co-mingling of levy money with the out-of-county offerings. That’s a non-issue to me. 4. I have no reason not to trust the fiduciary leadership at SCC. I have seen no evidence that they squander their resources or bully their neighbors. 5. Classes are affordable for both young adults and working adults. -I have attended some classes at SCC and if you haven’t taken advantage of SCC to freshen up your work skills, you are missing out on a great opportunity! Especially if you voted NO, you’re still paying for it, might as well get some of the benefits of your taxes!By Rick
March 7, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this
Ty, Did the DDN discuss how sinclair has so much in assets and cash and no debt? I did’t see it in the online version but maybe I just missed it. Thanks.By bobby
March 7, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this
It is unfair for nonprofit institutions, that pay no property taxes, to fund levy campaigns that benefit other nonprofits. The hospitals gave large levy campaign contributions for the human services and Sinclair levies. In each case, it was in their own financial interest to support the levies. Cheap tuition for training propective employees paid by taxpayers and multimillions reimbursed by the county is a great deal for the ” nonprofit” hospitals that pay no property tax. The cash reserves of the hospitals are staggering.By Mary
March 7, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this
bobby, you bring up a good point that seems to be bothering some other people. Why do hospitals have so much money they can afford to throw it to school and college levy campaigns and buy astroturf for area schools? A few years back, we used to hear how hospitals were going broke and could not afford to provide health care services to the public. If they have so much money, they should endow the schools and the students with scholarships and cut health care costs for everyone. Something fishy is going on in the health care business - fishy science and fishy finances and fishy politics.By bobby
March 9, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this
The issue of non profits benefiting at the expense of the community is not limited to the hospitals. UD gets millions in state funds for enviornmental clean up of the NCR site. Cleanup thaCare Source will have a new officebuilding financed by the Port Authoity that will be paid by the state and fed so that Care Source can process medicaid claims with the highest rent in downtown Dayton.By Mark
March 10, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
Dan Kennedy: They assured us that there is NO co-mingling of levy money with the out-of-county offerings. This possibility is something that troubled me when I was deciding how to vote. Although they said that all the money from the levy would stay in Montgomery County, that does not mean that they can’t shuffle funds around and take funds that would have otherwise gone to Montgomery County programs, use those for Warren County, and supplement that loss of funds for Montgomery Co. with money generated from this levy. So although the levy funds stay in Montgomery County, that doesn’t necessarily mean that other funds normally appropriated for Montgomery County can’t get shuffled elsewhere. Although no one seemed to be able to address this issue, I reluctantly voted in favor of the levy because of the overall public good that Sinclair produces.By Dennis McFarland
March 10, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this
Why does notn’t Montgomery put a county wide tax on ballot to support Sinclair Community College and Montgomery County Health and Human Services Levies that way the tax burden is shared by all? I think the answer truly is because oif they did this their request for funding would go down in defeat. People are more willing to pass taxes if the the taxes are tageted to one group of peoeple and they do not have to pay for services they enjoy and benefit from. One could say that the same thing thing happens with our federal and state income taxes as well and I would agree. That is why I am in favor of totally ridding the the federal and state of tax loopholes and all deductios and having on flat tax rate. Everyone ‘s share is the same and you know what your tax bill is going to be. We need to wake upBy Dennis McFarland
March 10, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this
Why does notn’t Montgomery put a county wide tax on ballot to support Sinclair Community College and Montgomery County Health and Human Services Levies that way the tax burden is shared by all? I think the answer truly is because oif they did this their request for funding would go down in defeat. People are more willing to pass taxes if the the taxes are tageted to one group of peoeple and they do not have to pay for services they enjoy and benefit from. One could say that the same thing thing happens with our federal and state income taxes as well and I would agree. That is why I am in favor of totally ridding the the federal and state of tax loopholes and all deductios and having one flat tax rate. Everyone ‘s share is the same and you know what your tax bill is going to be. We need to wake upBy Dennis McFarland
March 10, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this
Why does notn’t Montgomery put a county wide tax on ballot to support Sinclair Community College and Montgomery County Health and Human Services Levies that way the tax burden is shared by all? I think the answer truly is because oif they did this their request for funding would go down in defeat. People are more willing to pass taxes if the the taxes are tageted to one group of peoeple and they do not have to pay for services they enjoy and benefit from. One could say that the same thing thing happens with our federal and state income taxes as well and I would agree. That is why I am in favor of totally ridding the the federal and state of tax loopholes and all deductions and having one flat tax rate. Everyone ‘s share is the same and you know what your tax bill is going to be. We need to wake up