November 2, 2006

Editorial

A narrow interpretation of ‘No’

At Monday night’s Town Hall meeting on Issue 21, the Village property tax levy, Council President Jocelyn Hardman repeatedly said that if the levy fails on Nov. 7, villagers are telling her, through their votes, that the Village can’t afford local human services such as the community use of Bryan Center, the parks or Gaunt Park pool. I suggest that she read the letters to these Community Forum pages, and think again. What she might notice is that many articulate, thoughtful villagers feel deeply disturbed about this levy.

These are not people who simply don’t want to pay taxes. Some are longtime Yellow Springs residents who have been leaders in the community. Some are young adults who moved to the village to raise their children, just the sort of people Council says it wants to attract. Most say they understand that the Village needs a new revenue source and they would be glad to pay their fair share. But they say they feel troubled that this levy may not reflect the values that brought them to Yellow Springs and made them stay.

One of those values is the village’s historic economic and racial diversity. While some Council members link affordability to new economic development, this goal sounds vague and abstract compared to the lives of the real people who already live here and who already have jobs, but who struggle to stay and will struggle more if the levy passes. Some who oppose the levy need assurance that Council has tried its best to do right by these valued neighbors and friends.

These writers also value innovation and out-of-the box thinking. Some say they feel this Council is marching in lockstep toward a conventional model of economic development that may not fit Yellow Springs. They would like to see Council members seriously engage with each other and with the community regarding alternative models of development, and they feel they have yet to hear that conversation.

Some who oppose the levy feel disturbed by the process around it. While the Village has sound reasons to seek new revenues, the rushed levy process, crisis mentality and fear-based arguments used by some Council members seemed to stymie reasoned dialogue. These villagers are smart and creative people who would welcome such dialogue.

Of course, these letters also show that many good people support Issue 21 as the best way to address the Village’s financial challenges; there’s no doubt that Council members and the Village manager have given countless hours and exhaustive efforts to promote the levy. If the levy passes, the Village will certainly benefit from a temporary easing of its financial problems, although the levy’s longterm effects are harder to gauge.

One thing is clear. If the levy falls short, Council members should not kid themselves that Yellow Springers have said they can’t afford the parks and the pool, or that they don’t value these services, or that they hate taxes. They are saying no such thing. They are saying they want to be more fully engaged with Council in finding solutions to Yellow Springs’ very real financial challenges, but solutions that respect the values that they hold dear.

—Diane Chiddister