To the Editor:

The property tax burden that will be imposed by the Board of Education proposal, despite the obfuscation by the BOE and the conflict-of-interest supporters, can only be accurately categorized as “massive.” There has been increasing public debate and opinion; however, the most serious questions and comments seem to be from those most seriously taxed, with no benefit to be derived, while the support is from those most immediately benefited, with or without tax consequences. 

As has been pointed out by Janet Wolinetz in her letter to the editor [Mailbox, July 25], as well as others, The BOE has been largely opaque on details of this proposal in the public fora.

These important questions have been largely ignored: 

What is the current ranking of our school system, educationally and per student costs, vis-à-vis past rankings? 

What are the educational goals of this proposal?

Where is the evidence that this proposal will achieve those goals?

What are the parameters that will be monitored to measure the success or failure to achieve those goals?

Who will have oversight of the execution of the projects envisioned?

What are the safeguards against cost and time overruns? 

Will this “upgrade” last any longer than the recent, costly renovation of the high school?

Anecdotal experiences aside, overcrowding, less than desirable facilities, understaffing, etc. are chronic problems in a system based on an antiquated and descriminatory method of financing education. “Baby Boomers” went through similar, and possibly worse (split sessions, unqualified teachers, lack of text books) yet school systems still managed to put a man on the moon and make our country the world’s leader in innovation and technology across the board of endeavors, which begs the questions — is it the school’s facilities or is it the students that determine scholastic achievement?

The tax-paying voters must have much more in-depth information on the proposed referendum as well as alternatives to it that may well serve the same objectives.  But first, we need to know those objectives and the BOE needs to understand that there is a bottom to the well of taxation and we are perilously close to it.  The federal tax law overall must also be considered since the increase in the municipal tax burden, should this referendum pass, will be at the expense of other spending, not for all Princetonians, not for the municipality nor the county, whose taxes are in addition to the school tax, but only for Princetonians who are property owners.  Is representation without taxation any less a tyranny than taxation without representation?

One final question. Princeton is a great community in which to live and learn, and for many reasons.  Our neighbor, the University, is one of those reasons, but it is also a significant beneficiary of all this community offers, including the school system to which it sends the children of its graduate students and professors. Where is this “neighbor” in the BOE proposal?

Marc Malberg

Autumn Hill Road