| OCR Text |
Show PRO AND CON OF AMENDMENTS Opposition to the Amendments No. 1 and 2 to the state constitution which will be voted upon at Tuesday's election in largely centered in the fear that their passage would raise the tax burden on real estate. Study of the proposed Constitutional Amendments, Nos. 1 and 2, and comparison with Article X, section 3 and Article Arti-cle XIII, section 7, of the present Constitution which it is proposed to amend, reveal that the amendments do two things mainly. They create (1) a new Uniform School Fund, and to provide revenue for . such fund, and, (2) they set aside "the interest on the permanent school fund, the proceeds pro-ceeds of all property that may accrue to the state by escheat es-cheat or forfeiture, all unclaimed .shares and dividends of any corporation incorporated under the laws of this state, the proceeds of the sales of timber, and the proceeds of the sale or other disposition of minerals or other property from school and state lands, other than those granted for specific purposes....with such revenues as the Legislature may from time to time allot thereto." While the proposed new school fund would not directly use tax revenue, it does take revenue from other funds made up by taxation. It is probable and possible that passage pass-age of the amendments would raise taxation, or at least, preclude the possibility of a decrease in taxes. The amendments do not provide for a specific educational educa-tional program, critics say, as they point out that the proposals pro-posals are of such nature as to be susceptible to more than one interpretation. They were drawn up primarily to open the way to allow poorer school districts to finance better educational programs. The amendments provide for the legislature to allocate the uniform school fund which it would create. In the poorer school districts this is not feared, as the amendments passage pass-age could only provide them with added revenue on which to operate. The districts not so badly in need of financial help, or those who do not need help, clearly see that the legislature may be influenced by lobbies to provide uncertain distribution. From the standpoint of Jordan school district, the a-mendments, a-mendments, if passed, would be of no benefit. While our school district is a relatively wealthy one, its assessed valu ation fluctuates, and the district, as a result, has both lear and good years. Revenue for new funds would be taken from the present pres-ent fund and "with such other funds as may be available" to add sufficiently to the amount raised by taxation or to increase the taxation sufficiently to provide the limit of $25 per school child for the fund. One of the main purposes of creating the new fund, advocates say, is to make possible additional equalization of fu-hool revenues through the use of state funds. A clear picture of the need for equalization is best Kiven by comparison. Taxable property per school child in the state in the richest district is $13,500 per child. The Htate average is $3400. Jordan school district has $12,000 per child. The state equalization fund partly offsets this condition, condi-tion, but there still remains an unfair condition in educational educa-tional opportunities. The district with the highest revenue, with a low tax rate, has $128 per student. The average of the state districts is $86.00. In a district such as Duchesne, with a high tax rate, there is but $G9 per student. This is marked inequality. The business of the state is to assure education to the children of the state. Our present pres-ent state funds are not large enough to asgure equal educational edu-cational advantages, the Utah Educational association states. Voters can only weigh the opinions and explanations given for both sides of the matter, read the amendments carefully, and using their best judgment, decide whether or not the best interests of the majority will be served by the passage of amendments as they stand. |
