HA ad supporting bond issue - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Oct 31, 2004

HA ad supporting bond issue

Date: Oct 31, 2004

Or, it could be that whoever bought the ad just did not solicit support from faculty.

I agree with the poster (a long time ago) who said that, no matter what individual decisions are made, this bond issue does not need to be a matter where the USM faculty is perceived as taking a stand against USM.

I have mixed feelings about the bond issue, but I will probably vote for it: I've about decided that the potential benefits outweigh the potential for misuse. Call me Pollyana, but I do hope that Bennett gets a much needed lift, and I'd like to see improvements in the facilities used by the less publicized sports.

Date: Oct 31, 2004

I am out of state so I don't get to vote on the bond issue Tuesday. Family remaining in Hattiesburg oppose the bond issue.

One of the concerns I have raised is, if this is so good for the local economy why isn't all of the local economy being asked to participate. Over the last 30 years the economic development of the Hattiesburg area has moved out of Hattiesburg. The shopping areas have been annexed, but the great majority of new homes and thus new home owners in the area benefit from proximity to Hattiesburg without paying their fair share to support the city.

This sounds like a classic Economic Development problem that I am sure Dr. Dvorak can solve once she leads the board.

It is frightening how short sighted the people of Hattiesburg and USM are with regard to what is happening to all the citizens of South Mississippi. What was once a vibrant oasis where people of all walks of life could live and work together has become an empty shell of a city surrounded by the non-contributing suburbs.

Fairley does have a point that something needs to be done for the rest of Hattiesburg. His aim is too low, he should be pushing to annex the new suburbs of Hattiesburg west of I-59 and let them contribute to the tax base, the schools, and city government.

USM needs all the help it can get, but that help needs to come from all the beneficiaries.

There are more palatable methods to raising the money.

Other towns levy taxes for universities
The University of Mississippi built its baseball stadium with proceeds from a tourism tax, similar to the one the University of Southern Mississippi hopes to use to finance a variety of improvements to its athletic facilities.

The city of Oxford collects about $1 million annually from a 2 percent tax on food and beverages, City Clerk Lisa Carwylecq said. About $220,000 goes to Ole Miss to pay the debt on $2 million of its $3.75 million Oxford-University Stadium.

Voters in Hattiesburg go to the polls on Tuesday to decide on a 1 percent tax on hotels, food and beverages to fund $12 million in athletic improvements at the University of Southern Mississippi.

The article from the Hattiesburg American shows that Oxford funded Old Myth athletic facilities as a portion of a city tax. Is Old Myth better at marketing than our superstars of Economic Development at USM?

To those who say not supporting the bond issue is not supporting USM my only answer is I will continue to financially support USM. This support will continue regardless of Shelby Thames, football records and facilities, tier 4 status, and any number of trials. USM has been a part of my life since before I was born and I have no choice.

Date: Oct 31, 2004

Eagle,
I think you are mistaken about the suburban area west of I-59 not supporting Hattiesburg financially. All the commercial property along Hwy 98 to Old Hwy 11 has been annexed, as well as much of Old 11. That includes the Turtle Creek Mall and WalMart. Sales taxes on nearly everything purchased by Lamar County residents (including the extra 2 cents for the convention center on meals) goes to Hattiesburg. The great retail growth in the Hattiesburg area has been largely fueled by people from outside Hattiesburg, often well outside. If the bond issue passes, Lamar county residents will be paying that, too.

Date: Oct 31, 2004

quote: "I

Originally posted by: Eagle
"Other towns levy taxes for universities The University of Mississippi built its baseball stadium with proceeds from a tourism tax, similar to the one the University of Southern Mississippi hopes to use to finance a variety of improvements to its athletic facilities. The city of Oxford collects about $1 million annually from a 2 percent tax on food and beverages . . . About $220,000 goes to Ole Miss to pay the debt on $2 million of its $3.75 million Oxford-University Stadium."

I like your post, Eagle, but I would like to add another wrinkle to it. As you say, Ole Miss athletics is supported by the taxes you cite. But Ole Miss' academic life had not detiorated into the deplorable shape such as is the case at USM. Ole Miss has always valued core academic goals. Academics, not athletics, is what has made Ole Miss what it is today. Once USM gets its academic life in order, I'd say go for the athletic gold. But not until then. Let USM keep its priorities straight - academics first, athletics second.

Date: Oct 31, 2004

Thanks for the kind words Plain Vanilla Eagle. I agree, the first function of an academic institution is academics.

Curmudgeon - I agree the people of Lamar County support Hattiesburg through sales tax just like the people of Wiggins and Collins. The difference is Oak Grove's proximity to the city affords them benefits not reflected in their property taxes.

Date: Oct 31, 2004

Regardless of the merits of the sales tax, it would seem reasonable that a university administration would encourage university employees to support a bond issue that benefits the university. With that premise in mind, I would think it rational that the university administration would not engage in behavior that results in a vote of no confidence by a preponderance of the faculty, and follows that up with an ongoing battle with faculty and other university employees. I object to the bond issue being supported with an additional sales tax because I am against tax increases in general. In addition, I find the justification for the tax, that out of town visitors will pay most of the tax, disingenuous. There are usually 6 home football games and other sports have a rather meager following. Most of the out of visitors live in the Hattiesburg MSMA, but cannot vote on this issue. Given the opposition from Eastern Hattiesburg and the dissonance between the university administration and the university community, getting 60% of the voters to support the bond issue is not likely. I will be surprised if 45% of the voters vote for the Bond issue.

Date: Oct 31, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Cossack
"Regardless of the merits of the sales tax, it would seem reasonable that a university administration would encourage university employees to support a bond issue that benefits the university. With that premise in mind, I would think it rational that the university administration would not engage in behavior that results in a vote of no confidence by a preponderance of the faculty, and follows that up with an ongoing battle with faculty and other university employees. I object to the bond issue being supported with an additional sales tax because I am against tax increases in general. In addition, I find the justification for the tax, that out of town visitors will pay most of the tax, disingenuous. There are usually 6 home football games and other sports have a rather meager following. Most of the out of visitors live in the Hattiesburg MSMA, but cannot vote on this issue. Given the opposition from Eastern Hattiesburg and the dissonance between the university administration and the university community, getting 60% of the voters to support the bond issue is not likely. I will be surprised if 45% of the voters vote for the Bond issue."

I read that Jessie Jackson recently proposed that, as a matter of convenience and in order to get out the votes, polling booths be set up on college campuses. In the unlikely event that happened in the future, and in the unlikely event that an overwhelming number of college students registered to vote in their college town (e.g., Hattiesburg), I wonder if the bond referendum would pass. In other words, would USM students prefer to pay more for food in order to obtain the proposed athletic improvements? My own opinion is that the vast majority of college students, here and elsewhere, really don't care that much about college athletics. Certainly not 60% of them. If they cared, more would attend the games. There would, of course, be a small vocal minority who would support the bond referendum. My guess is that a student vote would mirror a faculty vote on the matter - some would vote yes, but most wouldn't. I like college athletics, but I suspect that members of the general public, and others, have vastly overestimated the level of support which exists on college campuses.