For openers…I am not against a multi-purpose building or against a parcel tax. I am against this specific proposal, and would support a more fair variation of the proposal. I am against this proposal because it has been poorly conceived. I attended the recent meeting, where only a dozen or so people attended. In fact, some of the committee members who supported the idea, did not show up. I spoke to a couple of other committee members and they had no loyalty to the idea.

*Why not a sales tax? Official(s) Answer: Because Butchie’s Grocery can’t support it!

*Butchies grocery is not the only business in the School District that can collect taxes for the school.

In fact there are several. Two of my families businesses, with another on the way, collect and pay parish and state taxes. They were not considered in the meeting held at the school. The telephone company, electric company, trash pick up, cable company, propane, water company all do business in the district. We purchase dirt, building materials, equipment, and vehicles at a 6% rate. We sell vehicles and the buyer pays 6%. I’m sure you can think of some on your own. We have people doing business within our community who are collecting taxes for the parish but there is no tax established for the Hathaway School district. This is an untapped resource that could supplement a property tax or parcel tax. To pretend that Butchie’s is the only business in the district is an insult to the other business owners. Picture the district lines in your head and count the businesses within that area. It’s more than you think!

*There is no exemption for persons 65 and older who’s property value is below $75,000.00.

*The parcel tax is set for 10 years instead of 5. Successful or not 10 years is too long to lock the rate.

*The parcel tax does not increase 3% or by any percentage automatically each year to compensate for inflation.

*It’s called a Parcel tax, yet it is based on 911 addressing. Unfortunately 911 addressing can be changed retroactively requiring more people to pay the parcel tax unless exemptions are in place. This can be done without a vote of the people. To clarify, instead of households having 911 addresses, each structure can be added or each parcel of land can have a 911 address, or parcel number. Get the tax passed that requires public vote + change the rules that do not require a public vote = increase tax collections/revenue. If you trust the government to not change the rules after you vote for the tax then by all means vote "yes".

*Current property owners who are not filing homestead exemption and are paying taxes are not exempted from the parcel tax. They pay twice

*Landowners that have uninhabited dwellings and structures on their land, that have a 911 address are not exempt. Inhabited or not, you have to pay the parcel tax along with your property tax.

*A person who owns 3 acre’s of land and puts 2 homes on the property for his children, will increase the value of the property and will no longer be eligible for homestead exemption if the value exceeds $75000.00. He will have to pay property tax and his parcel tax will triple on top of the property taxes.

*Within the next 10 years if the homestead exemption is changed you too may be taxed twice.

*This is a new taxing method! If approved and successful you can expect every governing authority to come at you with their own versions of the same tax, seeking voter approval.   The police Jury, the fire district, the school board will all jump on the bandwagon. The tax-paying public,  will have to rely on voter turn out to foil these attempts. You can end up with a new tax if those who oppose it do not show up at the polls.

*You can waive your right to file homestead exemption. This is a legal fact! If the people had to pay $100.00 for a parcel tax but their tax liabilities by waiving their homestead exemption were $50.00 guess which one people would elect to pay if they were exempted from having to pay both? Every property owner would then pay their share of the tax and the parcel tax would give them the incentive, and it could be deemed "Fair"!

*We have people who are on reduced lunches or free lunches because of economic necessity. They live on a piece of land, they inherited, yet the live on government assistance programs to make ends meet for their kids. Yet these people will not be exempt from this tax. Nobody is exempted and I thought democrats cared more about the working man, than us republicans?

*Several remarks have been made in the newspaper that a certain person complained that he was paying taxes in Jennings that goes towards the Jennings High School. The actual complaint was the fact that residents in Hathaway were pouring millions into the Jennings & parish economy and into the general funds of every taxing authority yet we are not seeing much coming back in return. The general fund of the School Board can only be used for roof repairs and educational materials, and cannot support district maintenance fund shortfalls. That’s how it ends up with a 16 million-dollar surplus. Despite the money collected locally on taxes we still have to wait for State money, which rarely comes, for anything we need. The verbal assault was not on the Jennings School. It was on the School Board's general fund.

"We cannot continue to tax the same property owners and most everyone in the district is claiming homestead exemption." True but many of those property owners paying taxes are generating revenue off the land they are paying taxes for. In many cases it’s a wash! This is considerably different than me paying a tax on land that does not generate revenue for me. The solution lies in exempting people from the Parcel tax if they are already paying property taxes.

*We had a multi-purpose building that was lost in the fire years ago. It was never rebuilt with insurance money. The reason is separate from this fact! For all these years we didn’t need it….now we do!

*A few years ago the school was battling overcrowding and forced out of district students back to their districts. There was no room to build extra classrooms was explained. Again, faced with a shortage of space and teachers, a decision was made for 2 classrooms to be combined for 2 different elementary grades. A single teacher would teach each group their own grade level work in one classroom. I attended that meeting. Then Principal, Carl Langley and School Board member, Mike Heinen, were adamant that this was the only solution and it had to be done. Parents (not me), went to the state level and received a resolution. A JDN reporter wrote a scathing article blasting the parents for opposing the idea and going over the heads of the local principal and school board. It was hammered away again and again there was no space for additional classrooms. Now by some miracle, there is plenty of space for a 7000 square foot multi-purpose building. At the recent meeting, Mr. Heinen replied, while pretending not to understand "we built 2 new classrooms"! Yes, my point exactly. What Mr. Heinen does not understand is that you cannot convince parents that your decisions are based on the fact there is not room for classrooms then turn around and build classrooms because of another reason. It has a tendency to make people think you were lying the first time. The actual fact is…the classrooms that were built and he used in his explanation were actually built before the controversial issue came up. The 7000 sq ft of space needed for the multi-purpose building needs to be reserved for future growth, and the classrooms needed for it.

*When asked if the school board had any property in Pine Island, I was answered with a quick NO! "That land is in the Fenton district". Fact of the matter is, there is 8 acres 5 miles west of the School in the Hathaway District. If you can’t find it, it is in Section 21-A3, which is in the Hathaway district. If not…..then there are kids who live on the other side of it that are "out of district students". This would be a better place for a multi-purpose building (if you must have one) because of space restrictions or move the baseball field to this location and put the multi-purpose building across from the school. Reserve the property on the school grounds for classrooms.

*My first question in the meeting had to do with "the community" having to use the Roanoke gym, Fenton gym and the Bethel Baptist gym for basketball practice. We were informed that there were scheduling conflicts at those times and they cannot allow just anyone to use the gym because of liability. Groups or organizations would need their own insurance. I did not define "community", but I was referring to the "Lil Dribblers", who HAS their own insurance. As for scheduling conflicts, there were none 99% of the time. I personally confirmed it each time we had to go to another school for practice. It was decisions based on some event that occurred previously that upset the decision maker…. One time it was over concession stand cups and popcorn, another time is was because the gym had trash that was not picked up. Another time it was because lights were left on. The list goes on and on! The decision was not based on insurance or scheduling conflicts. It was based on personality conflicts and punishment. The reason this plays into the whole picture is that decisions like this damage "good will" in the community. A valuable commodity that you need when trying to sell the public on a new tax.

*They are attempting to sell the Hathaway community on a multi-purpose building that we once had, and it is questionable about whether we need it, using "good will" that historically they place no value on. That is a poor recipe when you trying to get things done!

*This tax proposal has too many open ends and unanswered questions. For anyone to imply that Butchie’s Corner is the only business in the district proves there wasn’t much research that went into this. Most of the questions I asked at the meeting, I have waited years to ask. I have been waiting for the next time they would come to the community to ask for something.