Do will of peo­ple

The Times-Tribune - - Editorial -

Edi­tor: Peo­ple of Lack­awanna County were in­tel­li­gent enough to fig­ure out the re­assess­ment ques­tion on the bal­lot and over­whelm­ingly voted against it.

Peo­ple want a way to pay for schools other than prop­erty own­ers pay­ing the freight, es­pe­cially the el­derly who own their homes. The state’s bal­lot ques­tion re­gard­ing do­ing away with prop­erty taxes got a “yes” vote and it should send a mes­sage to those bent on do­ing things the old way. The peo­ple have spo­ken and I hope state of­fi­cials will get mov­ing on this is­sue.

Ad­vo­cates say we need a re­assess­ment to make things fair. What’s fair about only prop­erty own­ers pay­ing for our schools? That is un­fair. To the Greater Scran­ton Cham­ber of Com­merce lead­ers who want a re­assess­ment to raise the cost of homes and bring in new busi­ness, which is un­likely, and at the same time throw older prop­erty own­ers un­der the bus while they lose their homes, I say, “Shame on you.”

Real­tors would like a re­assess­ment so they could make more money on sell­ing homes. I hope re­assess­ment ad­vo­cates got the mes­sage and that ap­plies to The Times-Tri­bune, which presses the is­sue with­out re­gard for el­derly home­own­ers.

As to Ed Cole’s dis­agree­ment with me re­gard­ing renters pay­ing prop­erty taxes (“Faulty as­ser­tion,” Nov. 9) I stand by my opin­ion that they don’t. He sug­gests that re­assess­ment would not cause a hard­ship to el­derly cit­i­zens. Ob­vi­ously, vot­ers who op­pose re­assess­ment voted al­most 2-to-1 against it and didn’t think it was silly. They want a bet­ter and fairer way to pay for our schools.

A large num­ber of young adults liv­ing in sub­si­dized hous­ing have a large num­ber of chil­dren at­tend­ing schools and do not pay prop­erty taxes, ei­ther. Let’s see if our elected of­fi­cials carry out the will of the peo­ple. ANN WIL­LIAMS BLAKELY

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.