Growth, School Funding, and Representative Governance
As formerly rural areas become bedroom communities for Ohio’s cities, many are struggling with the increased burden growth is imposing on their schools. The instinctive response is to restrict new residential development or to enact impact fees on new homes. Unfortunately, these efforts are unlikely to resolve the problem.
The current system creates a balancing act between local governments and school districts. The actions of both have “spillover effects” for the other. If, for example, a city limits commercial development, they are implicitly increasing the tax burden that homeowners will bear. By the same token, the rate of property taxes for schools and the reputation of a school district can impact a city’s ability to attract growth and business. [1]
This system works well when the local government and school district boundaries are contiguous. People don’t want to be surrounded by industrial parks, nor do they want to rely only on residential property taxes to fund schools. Through the political process, communities find the right mixture of commercial and residential development.
When several local governments such as townships and cities share a school district, the system can break down. This is especially true in high growth areas.
Pickerington, a small suburb east of Columbus, is a good example of this. Since 1990 the city’s population has grown from 4,000 residents to nearly 10,500. With this growth has come strong pressure on the city’s schools and the backlash has been significant. [2]
Pickerington would like to slow this growth through zoning. Unfortunately for them, Pickerington Local School District is comprised of Pickerington and portions of several surrounding cities and townships, each one with their own view of appropriate growth.
No problem would exist if each area had its own school district. The residents of fast-growing townships who voted for the township trustees would be the same people paying higher school taxes because of increased enrollment. Since they share a district, however, taxpayers in Pickerington have to subsidize the growth of surrounding townships without being able to have their voice heard through the electoral process.
Last November, Pickerington residents passed a ballot issue limiting new housing to two homes per acre. This May, the Pickerington City Council followed up with legislation that limited new home construction for 10 years and imposed an additional tax on most new homes to help pay for schools. [3]
These changes, while seemingly reasonable responses to the city’s growth, do not reflect reality. Placing a housing moratorium or high impact fees within the city will not prevent growth outside the city limits. In fact, these measures may only shift growth to surrounding townships.
Pickerington’s situation is certainly not an isolated case in Ohio. Around the state, growth is placing pressure on communities and forcing fierce debate on these issues.
A possible solution to this situation is to recognize that school district boundaries need to be malleable to reflect changes in population. For rural areas, having several communities serviced by one school district only makes sense. When rural areas become suburbs the justification for shared school districts declines, especially in light of the problem of growth management.
Cities like Pickerington want to slow growth to prevent increases in school taxes and are unable to do so because of shared school districts. While this is an option not to be taken lightly, making it easier for cities like Pickerington to split off into a separate school district would make it easier for communities to manage growth in a way consistent with local values. Local control would be increased and research has shown that increased competition among school districts can increase student achievement while lowering costs. [4]
Representative Larry Wolpert (R-Hilliard) is in the process of forming a subcommittee on land use to review state laws affecting exactly this kind of problem. State policymakers should use this opportunity to evaluate whether regulations at the state level may be contributing to such growing pains and work to remedy them where possible.
Notes
[1] See Joshua C. Hall, Samuel R. Staley, Matthew S. Hisrich and Aengus L. Barry, Education Empowerment Zones: Revitalizing Ohio’s Cities through School Choice (Columbus, OH: The Buckeye Institute, March 2003). Available at: http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org.
[2] Kevin Kemper, “A Building Fight,” Columbus Business First, 11 April 2003. Available at: http://columbus.bizjournals.com.
[3] Dean Narciso, “Pickerington Limits New Homes,” Columbus Dispatch, 7 May 2003.
[4] Joshua C. Hall, “More School Districts Equal Better Education” (Columbus, OH: The Buckeye Institute, April 2003). Available at: http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org.
Matthew Hisrich is a Policy Analyst and Joshua Hall is a Senior Fellow at The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions (www.buckeyeinstitute.org). This article originally appeared as The Buckeye Institute's May 2003 Perspective.
