|
News
|
|
Written by Ozaukee Press
|
|
Wednesday, 09 January 2013 17:44 |
|
Wisconsin has cut aid to public schools more than any other state over the past two years, according to some statistical comparisons.
That was the doing of the state Legislature, however, and it would be a mistake to conclude from it that the people of Wisconsin do not understand the need to adequately fund public education. There are many signs to the contrary at the local level.
A few examples:
In school districts across the state, more school spending referendums were approved by voters in the 2012 fall election than in any Wisconsin election in recent years.
In the Port Washington-Saukville School District, school board candidates who campaigned on cutting teacher compensation were trounced in the 2012 spring election.
At Port Washington High School, a magnificent Steinway concert-grade grand piano graces the auditorium stage.
The last example requires some explanation. The piano was not bought with tax dollars. It was bought by people who pay their fair share of school taxes but then gave more in the form of donations to enrich the music program in Port Washington-Saukville public schools.
More than $65,000 was raised by the Music Boosters to buy the Steinway. This was not a case in which a few donors stepped up with big checks. Rather, the money came in hundreds of small donations from people who simply wanted to do something for students beyond the school support required of all citizens.
The result, officially unveiled in a concert Saturday night, is not only an utterly splendidmusical instrument, but a gleaming symbol of the community’s commitment to public education. The piano, 13 years old (barely broken in as concert pianos go) and in perfect condition, is the Steinway model—a Model D Concert Grand—that can cause concert musicians to go weak in the knees in appreciation of the lovely quality of its sound. It replaces a worn-out grand piano that was nearly a century old and unfit for serious performance. The new Steinway will be available for use by students in all Port-Saukville schools at the discretion of their teachers.
The wrong message to take from this achievement would be that it somehow demonstrates that school districts should be prepared to seek private funding when tax revenue is insufficient to adequately support school budgets.
Public schools should exist wholly dependent on public funding. That’s the idea—universal education paid for by everybody. When tax revenue is inadequate to support schools at a level necessary for quality education, it’s not a sign that private resources are needed, but that the Legislature is not fulfilling its obligation to provide sufficient state aid and flexible enough limits on local tax levies.
A piano as costly the school district’s new acquisition is not essential, of course, and no one would expect funding for it to be included in the school budget. It is an enhancement, a marvelous one, that will benefit music students and those who hear their performances for generations to come.
The piano should also be seen as a testament to the public’s high regard for the admirable music education program in Port-Saukville schools. That appreciation is regularly shown in standing ovations at the excellent school band and choral concerts that showcase student talent and elevate community culture. Now it is also being shown by the presence on that auditorium stage of a truly “grand” piano.
|
|
|
News
|
|
Written by Ozaukee Press
|
|
Wednesday, 02 January 2013 16:18 |
Congressional dysfunction is pushing American families toward another cliff—the food price cliff
Milk prices could double early in 2013 if the House of Representatives does not pass a new farm bill.
With an incentive like that—the obvious need to act to avert sticker shock for family food budgets and economic misery for dairy farmers resulting from the inevitable reduction in milk consumption—Congress will act quickly and decisively, right?
Wrong, most likely. This is the Congress, after all, that has proved itself incapable of meeting its responsibilities to the American people even when the alternative was to push the country over the fiscal cliff of drastic tax increases and spending cuts. Why would we expect this increasingly foolish-looking legislative body to be able to deal with the nation’s food supply?
The Senate passed a farm bill in 2012 that would avert the milk crisis, and the House Agriculture Committee approved a version of it. But Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor have not allowed the measure to be debated by the full House—apparently something to do with government spending.
If a farm bill is not passed by Jan. 1, the government’s farm policy will revert to a law passed in 1949, which includes an obsolete formula for calculating the price of milk that would push today’s prices to unheard of levels.
Farm policies involve subsidies—it’s the government’s way of balancing the needs of food consumers and producers to ensure bountiful food resources for the nation’s population.
Billions have been spent on dairy subsidies, but as agricultural subsidies go, the amount is relatively small. In the past 15 years dairy subsidies have cost about $5 billion. During the same period more than $80 billion was spent on subsidies for corn production.
The corn number is another reason to revamp farm policy in a new bill. Corn growing doesn’t need to be subsidized by direct payments to corn growers, as it is now, because corn prices are high.
So are some food prices, and corn is the culprit. The price of corn affects the prices of numerous foods, from livestock to processed food products, and the price of corn has gone through the roof. The drought of 2012 is one reason. The other is ethanol. Nothing can be done about the drought. Plenty can be done about ethanol: Congress can end mandates for ethanol use and subsides for ethanol production.
Using food to fuel automobiles is folly no matter what the price of corn. But with the price of corn high, and going higher because of ethanol, it’s indefensible.
Forty percent of the corn produced in America is used to make ethanol—more than 5 billion bushels in the past year.
Ethanol is good for corn growers and ethanol makers, but it’s hard to find anyone else who benefits. It’s an inefficient fuel that hasn’t made the U.S. less dependent on imported oil. It raises the price of gasoline into which it’s blended. Its net effect on the environment is negative when the impact of corn production is factored in—cultivation and transportation costs, chemical fertilizer use and depletion of soil nutrients and water resources.
Meanwhile, the mandate to feed the gas tanks of motor vehicles with corn ethanol pushes up the cost of feeding human beings.
Congress has ensured this trend will continue with its mandate requiring the use of 15 million gallons a year of ethanol by 2015.
The spending scolds in the House of Representatives profess to love the free market. Here’s their chance to prove it. Put an end to ethanol mandates and subsides and let the market decide how much corn will be used to make fuel.
That would lower the price of food. Imagine that—a positive achievement from this Congress.
|
|
|
News
|
|
Written by Ozaukee Press
|
|
Wednesday, 26 December 2012 19:14 |
The Common Council’s declaration that a tavern business is incompatible with redevelopment plans is a detrimental intrusion into downtown investment
In an assertion of power rarely if ever seen before in the city, the Port Washington Common Council last week used its tavern licensing authority to override the city zoning code.
The council’s denial of a license for a tavern in the 200 block of Franklin Street on grounds that it would be incompatible with redevelopment plans was an unwarranted intrusion by the city government into the realm of downtown investment and business.
It had been clear for some time that city officials were not happy with plans for a new bar business in the space occupied for a number of years by Foxy’s tavern. Police considered Foxy’s a trouble spot. Aldermen and other officials indicated they were not convinced things would be different under the new operator.
The council has ample authority to refuse to issue a license on those grounds, yet in denying the license it not only cited concerns about bad behavior by bar patrons but also suggested that a tavern is not a desirable business to be near a development such as the Boerner Mercantile Building.
The aldermen didn’t specify which school of urban planning they consulted in determining that taverns, even though they are allowed by zoning, are somehow not a proper use of downtown property. The guess here is that the answer is none, for this is an absurdly narrow view that conflicts with the well understood need for diversity in downtown development.
It also sows uncertainly among downtown investors. What is the council’s message, for example, to the owner of the Schooner Pub? This has been a mainstay downtown business through thick and thin, for years a bright spot of commercial vitality amid empty storefronts, vacant restaurants and a deteriorating bank building and now thriving as a popular place of enjoyment for residents and visitors alike. The owner has steadily improved the property and pays a hefty tax bill that includes a levy that helps fund the Port Washington Main Street program.
But this, after all, is a tavern, and it happens to be located squarely between two of the stars of downtown redevelopment, the Duluth Trading Co. and the building soon to be the Port Washington Historical Society’s museum. What’s more, it’s just one door away from a proposed gentrification project that will create 18 residential units.
Does the Schooner Pub have to fear for its license because it is incompatible with redevelopment plans?
The owner of the Pier 6 tavern at the north end of the business district, another solid business that has invested in the downtown and contributes to the city economy, might ask the same question.
And what about the owners of the building whose tenant was denied a liquor license? The street-level of this structure has always been a tavern; it was built expressly for that use and for decades was the home of a much respected downtown business, the Bodega tavern. Telling the owners who put their money in that property that their building can’t be used for the purpose for which it was designed is an odd way to encourage downtown investment.
The taverns mentioned here have been part of the downtown for most of a century. They were there when downtown Port Washington was a thriving commercial center, adding to the diversity of a business district that was replete with bakeries, drug stores, a high-end restaurant and shops catering to families. No one called them incompatible.
Ald. Jim Vollmar voted against the license denial on the solid ground that the action would create another downtown vacancy.
Ald. Paul Neumyer voted with the majority to deny the liquor permit, but explained that he did so because he thinks the city should make its tavern regulations more stringent.
Good point. Taxpayers expect their elected officials to apply ordinances to prevent public nuisances. If that’s what’s needed here, do it. But setting a precedent that taverns are unsuitable enterprises to be near other downtown businesses is an overreach the council should hasten to take back.
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 7 of 62 |
