To the Editor:

I would add now only these points to the letter below: 1) renters pay property taxes in the form of increased rents charged them by their property-owning, tax-liable landlords; 2) the bond referendum, whether split or not, should be postponed until the November Election Day, to allow the School Board sufficient time to assemble necessary financial-impact information and to present this material in a comprehensive way to a voting public that cannot be expected to vote in ignorance on matters of great import to their financial lives.

———

To Steven Cochrane and Members of the Princeton School Board:

I am terrified about the tax consequences of this bond ordinance (if passed) upon each and every segment of the Princeton population.

Has the Board conducted a tax analysis of the consequences of this debt upon the major income brackets of our population? If not, why not?

You should all realize that presenting figures concerning an ”average” rise in taxes is not sufficient. We all need a breakdown of consequences for every income “group”:

1) Those earning above/below X-$$$,

2) in each of which years?

Dollar-estimates you have presented so far are based only on value of homes owned. This is nuts: not everyone in Princeton owns a home whose average value is $857,000.

Princeton is committed to “diversity” and “inclusiveness” for the entire community. Will the passing of this bond issue jeopardize the lives of some who already live here? Is that social price too high to be worth paying if it results in the drain from Princeton of some of our population who are most vulnerable (and still in need of tax relief after the devastations of the 2010 re-assessment)?

You are all obligated to present the true numbers before this school bond initiative can be considered by the public.

Thank you for your immediate assistance. I cannot personally vote for this bond issue until I know its impact upon Princetonians across the financial spectrum.

Daniel A. Harris

Dodds Lane