education – Northcoast Antiquarian

Ohio’s Tax Burden Inversion

How Two Decades of Income Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Shifted the Load onto Property Owners and Renters

During the most recent reappraisal for property taxes, thousands of Cuyahoga County residents opened their mailboxes to find reappraisal notices that made their stomachs drop. Property values had climbed by an average of 32% county-wide, with East Cleveland residents facing increases of 67% and Maple Heights 59%.

Michael Chambers, Cuyahoga County Auditor, reported that, for 71-year-old Parma resident Agnes Gallo, this meant her home’s value rose by $76,000, pushing her annual tax bill up nearly $950. “This is outrageous,” she said. “People can’t afford to live in their own houses.” He also said that single mother Roni Menefee, facing a 49% valuation hike, admitted she was considering leaving Ohio altogether: “We’re hardly living in Beverly Hills here.”

County officials insist that House Bill 920 prevents taxes from rising dollar-for-dollar with property values. But for seniors on fixed incomes or working families barely hanging on, even modest increases can be destabilizing. More than 20,000 residents filed complaints, with thousands of adjustments granted. Still, the anger lingers—and justifiably so.

The Long-Term Tax Shift

That anger is rooted in two decades of deliberate state policy. Since 2005, Ohio’s Republican lawmakers have steadily cut the personal income tax, reducing rates most sharply at the top. Over time, these cuts drained nearly $13 billion annually from state revenues.

With less money flowing from the state to schools, libraries, and local governments, communities were forced to raise more themselves. And because they are prohibited from taxing investments or capital gains—the kinds of income more common among the wealthy—the primary tool left was the property tax (although many municipalities also increased their local income taxes-Cleveland voters narrowly approved an increase in its income tax from 2 percent to 2.5 percent in 2016).

The outcome: in 2024, Ohioans paid $23.9 billion in property taxes—more than they contributed through sales taxes ($13.7 billion) or income taxes ($9.5 billion). The most regressive form of taxation has become the backbone of public services.

Put plainly: the legislature cut income taxes for the wealthy, and forced everyone else—retired, middle-class, working-class, and poor—to make up the difference through higher property taxes.

The Nonprofit Inversion

At the same time, Ohio has allowed exemptions and abatements to balloon. Nearly $90 billion in property value—17% of the state’s total—is exempt from taxation, up from 14% two decades ago.

The largest single category? Abatements, totaling $26.6 billion. These were meant as temporary incentives to spur growth but are now permanent fixtures. Even utilities, which have captive consumers and guaranteed profits, receive abatements for investments they would make anyway.

And then there are the so-called nonprofits. Their tax-exempt status rests on public benefit, yet their leaders are not infrequently paid like corporate executives:

Institution	Leader	Annual Compensation	Tax/Exemption Status
Cleveland Clinic	Dr. Tomislav Mihaljevic, CEO	≈ $7 million (2023)	Vast campus tax-exempt as nonprofit hospital
Ohio State University	Ted Carter Jr., President	≈ $1.3 million (2024)	University property tax-exempt
Ohio State University	Ryan Day, Head Football Coach	≈ $10–12.5 million (contracted 2025)	Public university benefiting from exemptions
Hawken School (Private)	D. Scott Looney, Head of School	≈ $1.05 million (2023, IRS Form 990)	Elite private school, property tax-exempt

These institutions are sheltered from taxes while ordinary citizens—many of whom can barely make ends meet—are expected to pay “full freight.”

Renters Pay Too

The burden does not end with homeowners. Renters also pay indirectly, as landlords pass on property tax hikes through higher rents.

In 2023, Ohio saw some of the steepest rent increases in the nation:

Cincinnati: one-bedroom rents up 17% year-over-year.

Columbus: also up 17%.

Central Ohio: squeezed further by Intel, Amazon, and data center developments.

Statewide: over 700,000 renter households are “severely cost-burdened,” spending more than half their income on housing.

Even those who do not own property are being priced out of Ohio’s communities.

Populist Anger and the Ballot Box

It is no wonder, then, that frustration has spilled into politics. In 2025, an all-volunteer group began gathering signatures for a constitutional amendment to abolish property taxes entirely. Organizers say they are moving forward “no matter what” lawmakers do, because people feel they “no longer have a voice in this government.”

The proposal is extreme. Abolishing property taxes would blow a $23 billion hole in funding for schools, libraries, mental health services, and parks. Replacing it with sales taxes could require rates as high as 20%. Yet the fact that such a movement exists—and is gaining traction—reveals how deeply citizens feel abandoned.

They no longer trust lawmakers who, for twenty years, cut income taxes for the rich while pushing costs onto everyone else, especially the working class, seniors, and the poor. They see abatements handed to billion-dollar institutions and “nonprofits” with millionaire executives, while seniors in Parma and renters in Columbus face bills that are unsustainable.

The Choice Ahead

Ohio’s property tax crisis is not an accident. It is the inevitable result of two decades of choices:

Cut income taxes for the wealthy.

Hand abatements to billion-dollar institutions.

Shift the burden onto homeowners, renters, and the poor.

The result is predictable: the young leave by choice, the old leave by necessity, and those who remain are angry enough to contemplate abolishing the system entirely.

Eliminating property taxes outright is likely not the answer—it would devastate schools, libraries, and local services. But for many Ohioans, it may feel like the only way to force state leaders to listen. When lawmakers protect the powerful and ignore the cries of ordinary citizens, radical proposals become the only language that carries weight.[1]

And the cry is not simply to be heard. It is to be relieved—to be lifted out from under a system of taxation that has become oppressive, unfair, and in many instances, unsustainable. Until that relief is real and tangible, until fairness is restored, the ballot box will remain the people’s only instrument. And if the choice is between leaving their homes or leaving the system as it is, more and more Ohioans will choose to abandon the system itself.

The choice is no longer between reform or complacency. It is between reform or rupture.

[1] Some might dismiss the property tax abolition initiative as folly that would devastate local services. But terror concentrates the mind wonderfully. When gerrymandered legislative maps silence voters’ voices in normal governance, when the legislature attempts to eliminate or dilute ballot initiatives entirely, and when even successful citizen initiatives are ignored by lawmakers and courts, extreme measures become rational responses. The terror that grips policy makers, and concentrates their focus if voters eliminate $23 billion in local funding, might finally force the political class that has spent decades redistributing wealth upward to confront the unsustainable system they’ve created. Sometimes breaking a captured system is the only way to build a fair one.

The Dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education: A Calculated Assault on the Nation’s Future

***Abandoned classroom***. Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The destruction of the U.S. Department of Education is not merely a bureaucratic restructuring or an attempt at governmental efficiency. It is, rather, a brutal, ideologically driven attack on public and higher education itself—an assault decades in the making. The immediate consequences, such as the callous firing of over 1,300 employees and the gutting of its Office for Civil Rights, are alarming, but they are only symptoms of a broader effort to delegitimize and dismantle the tradition of public education in America. This is no accident; it is a deliberate and malicious campaign waged by reactionary forces who have long sought to annihilate the very concept of education as a public good.

Before addressing the broader catastrophe, it is essential to recognize the dedicated public servants whose careers have been abruptly and callously ended. These were not faceless bureaucrats but individuals who dedicated their lives to ensuring access to quality education, protecting civil rights, and supporting students, parents, and teachers. They are the ones who worked tirelessly to administer federal student aid, enforce anti-discrimination laws, and uphold policies meant to ensure that education remained a pathway to opportunity rather than a privilege of the few. To see them falsely maligned and slandered while being discarded so cruelly is an injustice, not only to them but to the nation they so nobly served.

To understand the scope of this travesty, one must acknowledge that public education in the United States has been under sustained assault—not from bureaucrats, not from educators, and certainly not from the imagined “woke” enemies that conservative demagogues irrationally scream about—but from the anti-public education, anti-higher education agenda of the right-wing forces that have festered in the American political landscape since Brown v. Board of Education so deeply outraged the bigoted sensibilities of many Americans. This movement, which cloaks itself in deceptive terms like “school choice” and “parental rights,” is nothing more than a long-running campaign to dismantle public education in favor of a reactionary, privatized system that siphons resources from the many to enrich the few.

Milton Friedman, the sinister patron saint of the libertarian free-market fantasy, provided the economic blueprint for this war on public education. His advocacy for school vouchers was never about “improving education” or “empowering parents”—it was about facilitating the exodus of white children from integrated schools while redirecting public funds into private, often exclusionary institutions. The modern conservative attack on public education is a direct continuation of this shameful tradition, now infused with fresh venom as it seeks to erase any federal coordination, civil rights protections, and guarantee of equal access to education.

And now, with breathtaking ruthlessness, this agenda is reaching its culmination at the hands of pusillanimous politicians hiding behind false narratives. The elimination of nearly half the workforce of the Department of Education within the first two months of the second reign of incompetence is an unmistakable step toward the total obliteration of the department. The Office for Civil Rights, already struggling to process the nearly 25,000 complaints of discrimination it receives from the public yearly and one of the last remaining institutional bulwarks against discrimination in schools—has been slashed to the bone, ensuring that students with disabilities and others who are discriminated against, whether on sex or race or national origin, will have nowhere to turn for timely relief when their rights are trampled. This is not accidental; this is the plan.

The current Education Secretary, in the grand Orwellian tradition of this administration, has assured the public that these cuts will somehow improve “efficiency” and “accountability.” Such statements are not merely disingenuous—they are outright lies, designed to mask the true intent behind this evisceration: to dismantle any federal structure that protects education as a right rather than a privilege reserved for the wealthy and well-connected.

Adding further insult to this grievous injury, the most aggrieved one has handed the reins of this demolition project to none other than our billionaire tech overlord. This grotesque display of plutocratic interference sees our billionaire tech overlord—who has no experience in education policy but plenty of experience in exploiting workers—granted unfettered access to sensitive government data and decision-making power over federal agencies. Under the laughable guise of “efficiency,” his Technokratische Jugend has set about dismantling the very institutions that serve as the backbone of public education, further centralizing power in the hands of the ultra-rich while leaving working Americans to suffer the consequences.

But let us be clear: this is not just an attack on those in public service. It is an attack on the very principle that education should be accessible to all, that an informed citizenry is essential to democracy, that knowledge should not be hoarded by the privileged few. It is an attack on the American future, a calculated and malevolent act of national sabotage designed to entrench ignorance and subjugation. Presently, the enlightened pro-choice anti-education agenda of our political elite has delivered unto us a nation where 54 percent of adults read only at the 6th grade level—imagine a decade hence where we will be!

Public education is not a luxury; it is the foundation of an equitable society. The destruction of the U.S. Department of Education is not about “efficiency” or “streamlining” government—it is about ensuring that the levers of power remain in the hands of a select few while the masses are kept ignorant, powerless, and too overwhelmed to fight back. This is a crisis of democracy, and it will have consequences that reverberate for generations.

The wreckage of this assault will be vast and far-reaching. Higher education costs will continue to increase as many institutions shutter their doors, vocational training programs will wither, and civil rights enforcement in schools will become an afterthought, if it exists at all. Meanwhile, a handful of oligarchs and right-wing ideologues will gloat over their victory, having successfully reduced one of the last bastions promoting American progress into a smoldering ruin. And continue to pay attention to the war on institutions of higher education, our overlords are not done reducing our heirs into ignorance.

Words Under Siege: In Defense of a Rich and Nuanced Vocabulary

Adam Pendleton
*If the function of dada*, 2017
Galerie Laurent Strouk

Good Lord! First they came for delve, and now they are coming for tapestry. Will constellation be next? I just read an article titled “ChatGPT is changing the way we write. Here’s how – and why it’s a problem,” once again casting aspersions on the use of delve, insinuating that its presence in prose—whether in an essay, school or employment application, or other work—suggests AI involvement. This article also raises suspicions about the word tapestry and other “stylistic” and “scholarly” words.

At this point, I cannot help but take deep offense, as it seems that any vocabulary beyond a third-grade level—essentially, a rich and varied vocabulary—is now suspect. As I have noted before, delve is not uncommon in my writing, and I often employ tapestry and constellation metaphorically. For example, I might refer to “a constellation of factors” when carefully considering a complex issue, or speak of “the tapestry of life,” as I did in a poem where tapestry appeared in both the title and the refrain.

Moreover, I have long used multisyllabic words such as verity, prodigious, exigency, modicum, sundry, and laborious in both my writing and speech, along with Latin and other foreign language phrases—all well before AI ever became a tool available to assist anyone in writing anything. Assuredly, those words would all be marks of suspicion today, if for no other reason than that they are uncommon to those less familiar with an extensive vocabulary—who seem to prefer the vocabulary and style of Hemingway (though this observation is not to disparage Hemingway’s vocabulary or style itself).

The frequency of these articles has become so overwhelming that the suspicions they plant have now ingrained themselves in my mental landscape—so much so that, while recently re-reading a delightful book from 1983, Daniel J. Boorstin’s The Discoverers, I found my equilibrium disturbed upon encountering a form of one of these now-verboten words—delve—used in a quote from Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas de Caritat, Marquis de Condorcet (1743–1794):

“Generally speaking, people have a very erroneous idea of the type of talent proper to the ideal mechanician. He is not a geometrician who, delving into the theory of movement and the categories of phenomena, formulates new mechanical principles or discovers unsuspected laws of nature ….”[1]

I momentarily pondered whether Boorstin or the Marquis had engaged with AI.

I fear that the article’s call to “write clearly” and to eschew all “stylistic language” contributes to the growing pressure to purge one’s writing of any and all suspect words, lest one be accused of literary fraud. This trend will ultimately impoverish poetry, prose, and language as a whole. The insistence on reducing language to its barest bones under the guise of simplicity and her sister clarity threatens to strip away not only the beauty and nuance that more expansive language brings but also the intellectual rigor it offers—more the pity.

Perhaps, if this trend continues, we will soon see an officially approved dictionary—quite slim, of course—purged of all offending words, especially those that are multisyllabic, scholarly, or carry any hint of flourish. Most certainly, this dictionary will exclude anything exceeding two syllables or requiring a moment of deeper thought. The end result? A homogenized language, stripped of depth and elegance, where the richness of expression once celebrated is replaced by a narrow, minimalist vernacular that leaves little room for imagination or creativity. Thus do the times conspire against us.

[1] Boorstin, D. J. (1983). The Discoverers: A History of Man’s Search to Know His World and Himself (p. 67). Random House.

From Obfuscation to Enlightenment: Addressing Narcissism in Scholarly and Artistic Communication

The act of writing for others is often fundamentally narcissistic, driven by the desire to impress or profit. Academic scholars and artists are cited as examples of this tendency, with their use of language and prose serving to elevate their own status rather than effectively communicate with diverse audiences. This points to a broader issue within academic and artistic discourse, reflecting a deeper narcissism that pervades all writing and creative work. The challenge lies in balancing inherent self-focus with a genuine commitment to clarity and accessibility, ultimately creating works that are intellectually enriching and broadly impactful.

Writing for others is, except in the most exigent of circumstances, a fundamentally narcissistic act. The words we compose for others may be necessary, convenient, expedient, pleasing to the reader, and otherwise desirable. However, ultimately, writing for others is an act of narcissism, akin to all creative endeavors by which we seek to express ourselves, profit, or impress others.

If one writes with style, erudition, clarity, and aplomb, while simultaneously instilling a semblance of humility within that writing, one has grasped a technique that few have contemplated and fewer still have mastered. In a previous posting, it was noted that the Ursuline sisters early on admonished me and the other students at St. Luke Elementary School to avoid the perpendicular pronoun, and other first-person personal pronouns, at or near the beginning of sentences. Thus, contemplation of humility in writing persists, though I am fairly confident that I have not grasped this technique with any modicum of success.

The above is a precursor to commentary on some academic writing that I have observed in the past several weeks.

The first example is the most recent I have encountered and served as motivation to write this post. The text reads as follows:

“Or consider Matthäus Schwarz of Augsburg, who while still a child, at the age when the young Dürer painted his first known self-portrait, conceived the ambition of writing an autobiography, an ambition that would become a reality fifteen years later, after he had become chief financier for the Fuggers at age twenty-five. At that time he wrote an account of his private life entitled The Way of the World and simultaneously painted watercolors of himself in various costumes. A more narcissistic project can hardly be imagined. This brilliant mind, this confidant of one of the most powerful men of his time, led a full life yet deliberately chose to indulge himself by concentrating his attention on appearances and frivolities. Having achieved success, the adult cast an eye back on his childhood. His sentimental and mordant commentary suggests what feelings the men of the Renaissance, after generations of self-absorbed literature, harbored toward their youth.” (Braunstein, P. (1988). Towards intimacy: The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In G. Duby & P. Ariès (Eds.), A history of private life: Revelations of the medieval world (A. Goldhammer, Trans., Vol. II, pp. 555-556). Harvard University Press.)

How extraordinary it is that Professor P. Braunstein, a Frenchman writing in an age dominated by photography, high couture fashion, vapid celebrities, and best-selling autobiographies of such celebrities, could pen such a paragraph while seemingly unaware that his own writing—signed, no less—in the liberal arts, particularly medieval history, could likewise be called a frivolous indulgence and a narcissistic undertaking. Today, many would label the good professor an unproductive idler while viewing Schwarz of Augsburg as critical to economic prosperity as the accountant for one of the most important merchant and financier families of the era.

The second example, in two parts from another professor, comes from the first volume of the work cited above. After noting the Roman urban nobility’s preference for idleness and its adherence to rigid class distinctions, the author observes:

“True, we believe that work is respectable and would not dare to admit to idleness. Nevertheless, we are sensitive to class distinctions and, admit it or not, regard workers and shopkeepers as people of relatively little importance. We would not want ourselves or our children to sink to their station, even if we are a little ashamed of harboring such sentiments.” (Veyne, P. (1987). The Roman Empire. In P. Ariès & G. Duby (Eds.), A History of Private Life: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium (Vol. I, pp. 118). Harvard University Press. (A. Goldhammer, Trans.).)

The same author, reflecting the peculiarities of his class and profession, later indulges in sweeping generalizations, as evidenced by this statement:

“Apart from this proverbial wisdom of the people, Rome had an oral tradition of common sense, a tradition shared by all classes of society and pertinent to every sort of problem. It was a veritable philosophy, like Marxism or psychoanalysis, the two varieties of common sense most prevalent in the West today.” (Veyne, P. (1987), p. 178.)

Professor Veyne displays remarkable narcissism in both extracted statements, presuming that the reader shares his class prejudices against shopkeepers and workers, and embraces his social biases favoring Marxism and psychoanalysis. He scarcely considers that the reader may come from a different class or social background than his own, which is likely the case for the volumes translated into English. This vanity is compounded further when these assumptions are inserted without thought or hesitation into a scholarly work, which should strive to reflect objectivity rather than the exclusivity of social and class status, bias, and prejudice.

The third, and final, example is of a different sort—academic jargonistic exclusionist vocabulary. Or perhaps it is just muddled, unedited writing. In any event, the Cleveland Museum of Art (CMA) issues Cleveland Art: The Cleveland Museum of Art Members Magazine quarterly to communicate information about its exhibits and calendar events. Curators with appropriate academic backgrounds write many of the articles. One such article recently caught my attention due to the density and near inaccessibility of its prose for the average reader. The article discussed an art project which will be exhibited in the CMA’s atrium, which has been “activated with contemporary art at various points.” The latest project, and the artist selected for it, was discussed by the curator:

“Her signature ceramic figures represent a bold intervention in colonial legacies of dependency, erasure, and assimilation. The influence of her identity as a Native woman is evident in her work, but she balances her deep rootedness in her heritage with modern methods, materials, and processes, incorporating elements like metal and Pumice-Crete along with clay.” (Fellah, N. R. (2024). Rose B. Simpson’s Strata. Cleveland Art: The Cleveland Museum of Art Members Magazine, 65(2), 9.)

Academic concepts such as dependency, erasure, and assimilation within colonial legacy are not self-explanatory, and those with different educational experiences than the curator or artist may not grasp the meaning of the above, though they could hope to understand it were the presentation less muddled. For my undergraduate honors thesis, I researched and wrote on the socio-political-economic theory of dependency, and I found myself tripping over the excerpt, rereading it at least three times to discern the intent.

Given that the Cleveland Museum of Art has among its organizational values the statement, “Build an audience-centered culture,” and it states in its summary of its strategic plan that, “We must continue to enhance the visitor experience, affirming the welcome we extend to everyone who walks through our doors and providing joyful and enriching encounters with art for schoolchildren, teens, college and university students, families, and older adults,” it is peculiar that it would use highly academic, almost inaccessible language in a general publication. How much more accessible would it have been to write the above in a more straightforward, less narcissistic “I am an academic with a degree” style, such as:

“Her unique ceramic figures make a strong statement against the negative effects of colonialism, such as making people dependent, erasing their cultures, and forcing them to assimilate. You can see her identity as a Native woman in her artwork, where she mixes her deep connection to her heritage with modern techniques and materials. She uses things like metal and Pumice-Crete, along with clay, to create her pieces.”

The above rewrite may not fully explain the concepts of dependency, erasure, and assimilation, or the effects of colonialism, to readers not wholly familiar with them, but I suspect they would have a better sense of the meaning after reading the above than the original excerpt.

While scholarship and creativity inherently involve a degree of self-expression, they should not devolve into exercises in vanity that alienate the very individuals they purport to enlighten. If institutions like the Cleveland Museum of Art truly aim to build an audience-centered culture and enhance visitor experiences across all demographics, then it is incumbent upon them to adopt more accessible language. This shift would not only foster greater inclusivity but also ensure that the profound messages and insights contained within their works are appreciated by all, not just a select few.

The examples provided illustrate a broader issue within academic and artistic discourse: the propensity for language that obfuscates rather than clarifies, and for prose that serves to elevate the writer’s own status rather than communicate effectively with a diverse audience. This tendency reflects a deeper narcissism that pervades all writing, and much scholarly and creative work, where the desire to impress often overshadows the imperative to inform.

In revisiting the notion that writing for others is fundamentally a narcissistic act, it becomes evident that the true challenge lies in balancing this inherent self-focus with a genuine commitment to clarity and accessibility. The measure of effective writing lies in its ability to resonate deeply and universally, transcending the bounds of the page and embracing a shared human experience. By mitigating narcissistic tendencies, we can create works that are not only intellectually enriching but also broadly impactful and inclusive.

Overestimating Abilities: A Continuing Trend Moves into the World of Academia

This short observation notes that professors and many others believe they can identify AI-assisted writing based on vocabulary use, such as “delve,” “interplay,” “intricate,” and “captivated.” The writer reflects on using such words since the 1980s, suggesting subconscious AI use and critiques modern educators for favoring simplistic writing over complex prose. Additionally, he discusses the modern tendency to overestimate individual abilities in various tasks, such as pandemic response and legal document writing.

Earlier this morning, I read an article asserting that many professors are confident in their innate ability to identify papers authored with the assistance of CHATGPT and similar artificial intelligence tools. The article’s comments section revealed widespread agreement among its readers that they could do the same. It appears that one of the primary indicators of AI-generated content in their collective minds is the use of certain vocabulary, including words such as “delve,” “interplay,” “intricate,” and “captivated.”

This conclusion struck me as somewhat amusing, as it suggests that I have been subconsciously employing artificial intelligence in my writing since the 1980s. It seems AI must have been implanted in my psyche at birth, only to be activated when I commenced my collegiate writing endeavors. Upon reviewing several of my papers from that era, as well as some recent compositions, I noticed the word “delve” frequently appearing, often within the introductory paragraph. By contemporary academic standards, it appears I would be accused of plagiarism frequently, and without merit, by today’s professors, whom I consider to be lacking in literacy, vocabulary, and style.

These modern educators seem to favor a style of writing that is monosyllabic and nearly without style, characterized by grunts and groans, rather than the intricate and complex prose that I believe leads to captivating reading and meaningful conclusions.

It further reminds me of the modern predilection of individuals to overestimate their ability to perform almost any task, whether it be land an airplane, conduct research on how best to respond to pandemics (as opposed to, say, listening to individuals who studied for years at University on the topic), or writing that complex legal document that attorneys labor for hours to write precisely to avoid unpleasant surprises later even if it seems like something anyone should be able to jot off in minutes.