Mayoral veto not the end for school vote

A surprise of sorts came out of the borough mayor's office Monday afternoon, and it was not a happy surprise for the school district. Still stinging from the refusal of voters to approve badly needed new-school bonds in October's election, school district officials have spent the intervening months regrouping and trying to figure out both what went wrong and how to move forward facing the very real problem of overcrowded borough schools.

The best answer was to try again. And plans were made to put the bonds up for a public vote in April. The borough assembly approved, and it appeared that the question of new schools would go back to voters.

Enter Borough Mayor Tim Anderson. Monday afternoon, a day before a public hearing about the planned special election, Anderson said no to that election. It was not a decision that appeared to come easily to the mayor, but it's the kind of difficult, even painful, decision that he was elected to make, and he should be commended for doing so.

As gut-punched as the school district must feel, it is important to note that the issue of new schools does not die with the mayoral veto. The reimbursement deal offered by the state is effective until the end of October, so the question can go back to voters at the regular election in early October.

Not only will this give school district officials more time to organize and get the message out about the great need for and benefits of the new schools, it will save borough taxpayers the $86,000 cost of the special election. Given that voters just weighed in on the measure four months ago, this seems a most worthwhile consideration.

This is not to diminish the importance of bringing new schools online in the Valley as quickly as possible. The area is growing, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to make it stop.

We understand the burden on property-tax payers, and we understand the &#8220enough is enough” mindset that likely drove the bond questions to defeat in October. But we also understand that without new schools, growth is going to be meaningless when it comes to real tax relief.

Sure, people will come, and jobs may even come. But what kind of industry is going to be attracted to an area that double-shifts schools or relies on portables for classroom space?

In many ways, this is an economic development issue as much as it is an education issue. If we want prosperous communities, if we want to be attractive to industries that can fuel prosperity with decent jobs, if we don't want our city and borough budgets to be forever balanced on the backs of property-tax payers, then we absolutely need to send the message that we support schools.

Anderson's veto does not rule out the possibility of that message. In some ways, it may smooth the way for getting it out. The rest, as always, will be up to voters.