The Following
clickons will help you understand the consequence of the CFC ruling
Who is the
Campaign for Fiscal Equity?
Opponent ... Lydia Segal, Political
Science, Law, Corruption Professor
Campaign for Fiscal Equity., et al., Respondents –v- NYS et al., Appellants
OPINION OF THE COURT Regarding
the CFE
CFE COURT OF APPEALS REMEDIAL ORDER
THE ZARB REPORT
To the Suffolk County Legislature from Fred
Gorman , March 20, 2007
In 1998 this body
challenged the LIPA-LILCO bail out to protect the utility rate payers of Suffolk County. The date you voted to do
that, Governor Pataki and several State Senators arrived with a hundred LILCO
employees and a grand stand to denounce your vote. You chose to help the rate
payers of Suffolk County over the money elite and
your political parties. At the same time I sued the Governor, LIPA and the
Speakers in federal court because in 1995, the voters of New York State rejected a proposition
that would have given LIPA the authority to purchase LILCO’s stock. Unfortunately,
The US Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that I could not stand in the shoes of
all the taxpayers in New York State.
Knowing that this body’ has
gone beyond it’s responsibilities to protect its constituents and that I can’t
achieve standing, I humbly ask you to consider protecting the property owners
of Suffolk County from Donald Trump and the other property Barons of New York
City by seeking judicial relief from the constitutionally flawed CFE ruling that
is based on absurd findings attempting to nourish an elephant by feeding it
money instead of hey. The Campaign for Fiscal Equity indirectly transfers a
huge portion of New York City’s property and income tax educational
burden to us.
In
the matter of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity -v- NYS. The Courts determined the State Constitution
requires the State to offer all children an education in a suitable learning
environment, consisting of basic literacy, calculating, and verbal skills
necessary to enable them to eventually function productively as voters and jurists.
The courts found NYC
schoolchildren were not receiving a sound basic education and that there was a causal link between the
State's current funding system and such failure. The findings were based on various
"inputs" and "outputs". The outputs demonstrated that NYC
schools have a larger drop out rate and lower literacy rates. To remedy this
inequity the Zarb Commission was formed. With the aid of S&P the commission
determined the best method to achieve better results is to use data from the
25% top performing school districts as measure of success and then adjust
expenses to NYC dollars.
During the process the court
observed:
1.
Serious
gaps in rent-control legislation
2.
The
ultimate resolution lies in the hands of City and State Legislatures, since housing,
well-being of residents, and the property interests of building owners should only
be resolved by the legislature.
3.
State
Legislature has not funded to meet its constitutional education obligation to
children.
In truth, rent-control is
almost non existent and the City has plenty of affordable and section 8
housing.
Since the late 1950’s NYC’s
elite property owners controlled NYC politics. In order to maximize their
profits they steered NYC’s into financial crisis, an income tax and eventually
a CFE ruling that makes the State responsible for a huge portion of their
educational burden. These actions permitted the property barons of NYC to
maximize rental profits and property values. Do you think they could get a million
dollars for an apartment if the property taxes were $15,000 instead of $5,000?
Despite the fact that the Executive and Legislature
are the only constitutional bodies permitted to develop aid formulas, the court
imposed its authority and reached an opinion by comparing the outcomes of the State’s
top 25% school districts to NYC without considering the City’s history of school
corruption, dereliction of duty or taxing system designed to enrich its richest
citizens. Nor did it consider the inequity of reducing state aid to other
districts in order to correct one of the richest city in the world’s educational
deficiencies. Furthermore, several of Zarb’s findings are flawed.
Please consider suing the State Legislature and
City on behalf of the property owners of Suffolk County because:
- The
State Legislature met its constitutional obligation when it developed an
aid formula that provided more assistance to failing districts. This is
why LI receives 13% of the state aid to educate 17% of the State’s students
- The
courts superseded its authority when it arbitrarily decided to place the
burdens of correcting the educational mess NYC created through corruption
and neglect on the rest of the states property owners.
- The
courts decision robs aid from the property owners of school districts that
struggled to meet the states obligation to reward the land barons of the
city that allowed one of the most respected city school districts
deteriorate rather than adjust property taxes.
- Suffolk
Co taxpayers cannot get a fair trial in a state that the Judicial, Executive
& Assembly are controlled by NYC
- The
inputs and outcomes do not correctly compare local control and taxation of
the top 25 Districts to NYC.
- All
accepted class size studies conclude that students in classes of 25 do not
produce better academic results than when the same students are in classes
of 35. thus there is no constructional need to reduce NYC class size
- You
can’t statistically compare a 7,000 person school district to a million
student school district
- You
can’t educate someone who is not interested in education or can’t be
educated to the State’s minimum
- The
Zarb report based its assumption on the top 25% of state districts level
of success and the states minimum educational responsibility. The Court ruling merely required
10. The City’s real-estate and
income taxes has to be equalized to the same formula as Long Island property
11. If NYC was a
state, its $16 billion education budget for 1 million students would rank 7th
in the nation.
- The
2004 per-student difference between Sachem & NYC is $799 (Total $817,915,526)
|
