Shouldn't have to fund school 'extras'

Shouldn't have to fund school 'extras'

I have a couple of questions/observations about a recent article concerning the budget discussions for Naperville Unit District 203.

First, isn't it usual practice that if you want a certain service or product, you pay for it? Why then, in their infinite wisdom, does the district's budget process for the coming year not include an increase in fees but rather an increase in my property tax bill? The school portion of my annual bill is already larger than my entire bill before I moved into town. Why should I have to spend more money for something I don't use?

I'm really not the only one in this predicament. There are other empty nesters in my neighborhood also feeling the pinch. I have never seen as many "for sale" signs from people needing to downsize for retirement. The housing recovery is bringing my home value back to what it was, and I understand strong schools help with this. But it creates a never-ending spiral. The schools and the community keep the value of my house strong, but this increases my tax bill, and on and on. I don't mind paying for the basic schools, but I shouldn't have to fund extras.

Maybe I'll just have to change my timeline since, as a federal employee, my salary is not keeping pace with my increases in property taxes. Instead of my plan to downsize when I retire, I'll have to do it much, much earlier. What a shame.

Fred Wolter

Naperville