Could Referendum Open Door to Fair Funding?

So I think I get it.

The referendum question on the ballot next Tuesday is property tax reform in little pieces.

Unable to agree on a complete package that would replace the revenue from property taxes with something that didn't look like they might be raising state taxes, the members of the nation's second-largest, second-most expensive legislature punted.

But that's not necessarily all bad.

The Constitutional restriction against just offering relief to homeowners and farmers was a real-life legal hurdle and made the whole thing more difficult to pull off.

There were some dubious and, as always,
angry people at yesterday's forum.

If approved, it would only cost $7 billion to replace property taxes lost from taxing homes and farms.

That might be more doable on a statewide basis.

Also, it would allow school districts (and boroughs, townships and counties) to still have the stability of property tax revenues on commercial properties.

Now granted, the open-ended nature of what happens next if this is approved is certainly worrisome, given that it would be in the hands of people who can't pass an annual budget on time.

And you can't really blame Pottstown Schools Superintendent Stephen Rodriguez for calling it "smoke and mirrors," when the very real problem of school funding and opportunity by zip code  remains largely unaddressed.

And he's right to say so.

The potential for shenanigans on this thing in Harrisburg, with this open-ended authority, is certainly very real.

After all, the General Assembly has a history of dumping problems downhill to avoid looking like they're raising taxes -- particularly education funding problems.

State Rep. David Maloney, left, is the prime sponsor of the legislation

which brings this referendum to a voting booth near you Nov. 7.

I mean the idea that Pottstown could replace its lost property tax revenue with a sales tax is laughable, and Marlene Armato was right to call them on it.

But consider this.

The legislature enacted the fair-funding formula then cheaped out on implementing it in full because "it would be too much change too fast."

But what if the money coming from Harrisburg to replace the lost property tax revenue were to be distributed through the fair funding formula?

I mean, they're changing the whole system anyway. Isn't it the perfect opportunity to implement the formula in full?

I recognize, it's unlikely.

I mean after all this is Pennsylvania. We're not exactly a "can do" state.

And there are probably 100 obstacles I haven't thought of that would prevent it,

But still, it is a tantalizing thought and wouldn't it be easier to lobby for since its a major change being implemented already?

It's food for thought if this passes.

In the meantime, if you want to get confused, try following the Tweets from yesterday's forum which was supposed to explain it all..