ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Hempfield voters will have say | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Hempfield voters will have say

Still stunned by outrageous property assessment challenges by the Hempfield Area School Board targeting individual homeowners, I thought that there is no better time to revisit the topic than now.

Hempfield homeowners were set upon by bounty hunters (actually attorneys, but why argue semantics?) hired by a majority of the school directors to challenge the assessed value of their residences. A successful challenge by the surrogates of the school board could almost double victims’ annual school taxes.

These barbaric antics triggered a Hempfield Township supervisor’s suggestion that the school board was “out of control.” Many homeowners thought so too, and turned out for school board meetings in sufficient numbers to convince the board to cut it out. The directors did that, sort of, when they adjusted an arbitrary threshold they set up for assessment appeals. This took most homeowners off the hit list, but the foundation of the policy still exists and the threshold could be reversed by the stroke of a pen.

Three apparent proponents of the assessment ripoffs are on the May 21 ballot seeking renomination to the school board. So if you want to live with the possibility that your taxes could rocket at the whim of just a few individuals, then vote for incumbents Paul Adams, Jeanne S. Smith and David Iwig.

Those who don’t care to endorse the reassessment scheme can consider some new faces in Paul Berginc Jr., Vince DeAugustine and Mike Alfery.

The candidates are all cross-filed, which results in voters having no idea of a candidate’s party affiliation.

George Beidler

Hempfield


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.