One aspect of the bond debate which often gets overlooked is the hardship caused by inflation. The trouble we’re seeing right now isn’t just the natural result of a cyclical economy. Rather, it was caused by printing trillions of dollars combined with destructive policies regarding energy and foreign policies. And far from being a temporary hiccup, there’s no evidence that the current administration plans to reverse these mistakes.
As consumers, we are already feeling the pain and know that additional taxes will only further erode our finances; that alone is a good reason to oppose a bond at this time. The ones hardest hit will be those on fixed incomes, many of them senior citizens who could be forced out of the only community they have ever called home.
What’s more, no one has mentioned how inflation will affect local government: the city, county and school system will see their insurance premiums, power bills and equipment costs all go up. Even Joe Biden acknowledged last month that the interruption of grain exports and higher fertilizer prices due to the war in Ukraine makes worldwide food shortages a possibility. This undoubtedly will strain the school district's lunch budget in ways that haven’t been considered.
Obviously, these increased costs will translate into higher taxes or cuts to services — probably both. Property taxes are guaranteed to increase just to keep up with inflated costs and the sharp increase in valuations will sting us even more.
The uncertainty of our economic condition, coupled with bad policy at the federal level will be costly for us all. Now, throw in the bond on top of that. How many people can afford for their property taxes to double? How many people could be pushed out of their homes? Does taxing people out of their property or making their rent unaffordable really help to "Grow Hays" and project an image that will bring people in?
Eugenia Spady, Hays