Clarence: There’s an Election [UPDATED]


If you live in Clarence, Tuesday is election day. I’m willing to bet a lot of people aren’t aware of that fact. If you’re involved in any sort of sports league or club, you probably know. If you pay attention to the goings-on at the board of education you know. If you’re on any of the several mailing lists that local school support groups or PTOs cultivate, you probably know.

From 7am – 9pm on Tuesday November 18th, Clarence taxpayers have a unique opportunity to have the whole state pick up 70% of the bill for making necessary improvements, repairs, and upgrades to the school districts’ buildings and grounds. The vote takes place where school budget votes always do – in the High School Gymnasium, in the back of the building off Gunnville Road. Students will be asked to park in a neighboring lot to accommodate local voters.

There are two propositions on the ballot. Here’s an ad that Fix Clarence Schools (with whom I was involved) published in last week’s Clarence Bee:



Almost all of the cost goes to make repairs and upgrades to the school buildings, many of which have not had significant capital improvements or repairs in four decades. The general maintenance bond will finance things like new roofs, asbestos abatement, improved security systems, updated alarm systems, technology upgrades, and updates to old, inefficient, and potentially hazardous electrical and HVAC systems. Interest rates remain at historic lows, the district’s most recent Moody’s rating is Aa2 (prime), and local taxpayers will only shoulder 30% of the direct cost – the remaining 70% will come from a state allocation.

Some people balk at the 30/70 split, because the 70% still comes from taxpayers via Albany. but that 70% from Albany is already budgeted-for and allocated: either we get it, or someone else will. It’s made up of tax revenue from individuals and businesses from throughout the state – from Scarsdale to Plattsburgh and everywhere in-between. Plus, the money is getting spent one way or another, and given the acute need for Clarence’s physical plant, it would downright negligent to not apply for this funding.

The second bond proposal is much smaller, and its passage is contingent on passage of the general repair bond. Here, Clarence taxpayers are asked to finance 30% of the cost of three separate artificial turf fields at the High School. The reason why this is necessary was perfectly illustrated during the 2013 – 2014 school year, during which 140+ games had to be rescheduled due to unplayable fields. To make matters worse for taxpayers, these fields were unplayable despite the cost associated with maintaining them.

With the introduction of modern artificial turf, the district will have three fields that will be playable in any conditions, so long as there’s no lightning. With the installation of the turf come improvements to the fields’ drainage systems, and once installed, the cost to replace the actual playing field is a fraction of what the initial placement costs.

The three fields will be the football stadium (whose treacherous bleachers, dilapidated press box, and antiquated scoreboard will be replaced under the general repair bond), a multi-use field, and the varsity baseball diamond.

Proposed football stadium turf

Multi-use field and varsity baseball diamond

Here is what the fields looked like in Spring 2014:

People in the community have raised valid concerns about this. The first has to do with the turf infill – an NBC report that came out a few weeks ago broadcast allegations that the use of crumb rubber infill (which keeps the artificial grass blades upright and cushions the playing field) may have contributed to cancer in some players in the Pacific Northwest. Every study that has been done on crumb rubber, which is made from recycled tires, has shown this infill to be perfectly safe, and no study exists to establish a causal link between crumb rubber infill and cancer. Nevertheless, the district takes this very seriously and has many available, within-budget alternatives to crumb rubber that it will consider before construction begins. These include sand, virgin rubber, “Envirofill“, and cork.

The second concern that some have raised has to do with the district’s recent history of budget problems and what many believe to be a catastrophic loss of teachers, courses, and social workers. Why aren’t we issuing bonds to help pay to restore these people and programs? Unfortunately, we can’t. Firstly, the 70/30% financing ratio is only valid for capital building and repair projects such as the ones contemplated here. The district cannot issue a bond – much less one for which the state will cover the majority – to restore items to its operating budget. We don’t just need these teachers and programs for one year, but every year.

Think of it this way: we can issue a bond to buy the Keurig machine; we can’t use it to buy coffee capsules. But if we bond to make these repairs at 30% of the cost, that may likely free up future yearly operating budgets whereby money that would have been allocated to make piecemeal repairs to problem areas can now be reserved for teaching and counseling.

Every way you look at this, it’s win:win for taxpayers and the district.

The cost of both bond proposals for a typical $200,000 home in Clarence will be $46 per year; about $3.83 per month.  Remember – your STAR exemption, which is enhanced for seniors, reduces your taxable assessed value.

Here are two videos Fix Clarence Schools produced, featuring recent Clarence alumnus and Cincinnati Reds right-hand pitching prospect Mark Armstrong:

If you’re a Clarence taxpayer, resident, homeowner, parent, alumni, and current student of voting age, I hope you’ll make the trek out in what promises to be some inclement weather, and vote YES on Tuesday, November 18th to Fix Clarence Schools.

Thank you.


  • Legalized plunder. The vast majority of potential victims of this thievery have no direct say over the outcome. There is no morality or justice to be found in taking 70% of the cost from the State.

    “But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” -Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

    • It’s not “taking from some” to give to “other persons to whom it does not belong”. It’s not “legalized plunder”.

      Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. Once these taxes are paid, that money belongs to all the people. Under laws passed by our elected representatives, that money is then allocated throughout the state for the public good. Like rebuilding schools.

      Your attempts to liken it to theft are unpersuasive and false. Like I’ve said a great many times, if you want to keep everything you earn and have minimal or no government, Somalia may be more up your alley.

      As for me, if my tax money can go to fix up a highway in Westchester, then a fraction of a tax dollar some guy in Yonkers paid last year can go to put a new roof on a school.

      • That sounds to me like a lack of faith in humanity and a justification for theft. I would much rather that people are able to allocate their own resources in a manner they see fit. That is the only way to maximize the potential for all.

      • I must apologize, I should have responded to you directly. A civilized society respects the property of others. Just because something is done under the law, it doesn’t mean justice and morality have been served. My thoughts are not about keeping everything I’ve earned, that is a disingenuous argument. I believe people have the inherent right to decide how to best allocate their resources to achieve the highest purpose.

    • My eyes just rolled so hard I saw my brain.

  • It’s my usual reaction to the “Taxes are theft” nonsense.

Leave a Reply to Michael Rebmann Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.