The Defeat of a Youngstown School Levy: A Study in Urban-Political Geography

THE DEFEAT OF A YOUNGSTOWN SCHOOL LEVY: A STUDY IN URBAN-POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY Stanley D. Brunn, Wayne L. Hoffman, and Gerald H. Romsa* INTRODUCTION. One of the major issues facing large urban centers at present is the financing of needed services such as schools, transportation schemes, garbage collection, and welfare. The rising cost of these services coupled with an inflationary economy in recent years has usually meant an increase in the per capita taxes, particularly for property holders. It is the purpose of this study to measure the public demand for one service, the financing of school programs, in a major northern city, Youngstown, Ohio. This demand is measured in terms of the citizens’response toward voting for or against the proposed levy. (1) This city attracted national attention in 1968 when the voters had failed then and on several occasions in 1966 and 1967 to approve the recommended school levies. Finally, after six previous failures, it was approved in May 1968. The financing of education projects such as classroom construction, current programs, and increased salaries is one of the most pressing and often most emotional issues citizens face. Within the past two years there have been various cities such as New York City, Detroit, and Chicago that have brought the issue of public education to the public fore. Numerous local “battles” have been fought where proposed hikes in school levies have been placed on the ballot. Often the failure to approve the necessary levies can and does result in several short term effects such as the halt in building expansion, discontinuation of kindergarten classes, cutback in monies for operating, loss of capable teachers and administrators because of no pay increases, and possibly even the termination of extracurricular activities and transportation of students. The long term effects may lead to a severe cutback in all programs, failure to attract qualified personnel, and even loss of accreditation. The opinions of residents toward the financing of schools and associated programs as expressed in their vote are expected to vary over geographic space as they have for other much-needed city services such as urban renewal, flouridation, library funds, and fire stations. When considering school bond referendums, it is often expected that the support simply comes from parents of school-age children rather than older citizens. However, this notion is far too general. There are many segments of a city that must be considered in an analysis that measures the areal response, such as the *Dr. Brunn is assistant professor of geography at Michigan State University, Mr. Hoffman is instructor of geography at Wisconsin State University, Oshkosh, and Dr. Romsa is assistant professor of geography at Western Kentucky University. The paper was accepted for publication in July 1969. 68 So u th ea st er n G e o g r a ph er role of property tax voters versus renters, occupation classes, income groups, labor unions, political parties, and supporters of parochial education. An investigation into the Youngstown vote attests that an adequate explanation into the areal variations ofpositive and negative responses do not substantiate many a priori notions. The first school bond referendum submitted to the Youngstown voters was on December 13, 1966. This failed miserably, as did the next four referendums. The November 5, 1968 levy was somewhat more successful, as it was only narrowly defeated (Table 1). It is the November 1968 vote that is analyzed in this study. (2) The defeats of all six referendums were attributed to a variety of tangible and intangible factors, such as the tax­ payers’ “revolt,” voter apathy even for parents of school-age children, alienation of community toward school policies such as increased teachers’ salaries, poorly timed and planned elections, lack of strong support from labor unions, certain second-generation foreign-born who favored parochial to public schools, and lack of strong endorsement by leading city officials. A number of school and community leaders were very concerned and embarrassed about these defeats because of the then-existing plus possible additional cutback in programs, the immediate and long term consequences to the students, quality of education, and even the image these continued defeats were giving the city. (3) TABLE 1 YOUNGSTOWN SCHOOL LEVY...