So the Mayor was listening to his opponents back in 2009. When Mayor Meer ran against Robert McKee, Mr. McKee's political statement for why he wanted to be Mayor was to start this program. In any event, the MC Council and Mayor need to review Hammond's program very carefully. What the N-D says today in the paper is not true, it is not only for Hammond High students, it is for ALL students of families that live within the Hammond City Limits, whether they go to an in-city public or private school or out of city public or private school or even if they are home schooled. They have a very inclusive program because their reason for the program is to get people living in Hammond and paying property taxes. In fact, one thing that must be shown is that the Homeowner has a homestead exemption filed. I am not sure how they handle people that rent, but I think they are also included in the program. Also, how will they handle kids that go to MCHS and don't live within the City limits? The purpose of the program is to get people living within MC to increase the tax roles and the property values. It works great for Hammond and I am very happy to see them looking into this, I just hope they do not exclude families (like voucher kids, home schooled kids and kids that go to schools outside of the city limits, public and private).

The rumor I heard was that it would apply to students in the MCAS only. So if you ship your kids to Chesterton or New Prairie, no money. The underlying goal is to get attendance back up in MCAS, and to save local jobs.

If it does happen that way, it is great that finally someone realizes that the biggest thing holding us back from recruiting high paying jobs here is the reputation of the school system.

I also really hope that they are going to plan on doing this without casino money. Something like this needs an actual endowment fund that is stable and survives economic conditions.

If it does not apply to Michigan City residents in total it defeats the entire purpose of creating jobs that stay here in town. It is too bad this administration would not want to support the poor students that decided not to attend the MCHS and get a voucher for whatever reason or the home schooled kids. Kind of goes against what all of the MC administration Democrats espouse, or do they just pretend to care. Hmmmmm....if taxpayers choose not to attend the local school, they should not get penalized for it.

They would be protectionist of local union jobs. That sounds exactly like Democrats to me. The voucher system is a Republican creation that the statewide Dems hate. They are very anti-school choice.

Hopefully they see the light. If you model it after Hammond's program, anyone attending MCHS and not living within the City limits would NOT be eligible for the program. It is a way to get people to want to live within the City limits and pay the higher City taxes. It would absolutely raise the demand for homes within City, but as you say, the Dems do have other agendas, so it will probably be nothing like Hammonds program. Hammond program, BTW, is excellent and has achieved higher property values and families that have stayed in the City that otherwise would have left.

Today's N-D says what was said before, only MCHS students get the scholarship and ONLY if they reside within Corporate City Limits. So if you live in Trail Creek, Pot Park or rural Coolspring Township, but forced to go to MCHS, you lose too. Wow, these politicians have no business savvy to accomplish the goals they want to accomplish. If it was opened up to all MC residents from any school as long as they reside in MC, 1) and anyone that attends MCHS, they would be able to exponentially increase the tax base and the home values, but with this poor attempt at a scholarship program, it is a dud. They say it is modeled after Hammond's!! HA, it is not even close. Hammond allows any Hammond resident to send their child to a state school for free tuition regardless where they go to school or even hoime school, because the point is to get people to move and stay there. Now that is a program that works. Typical MC, doing things half way. Look at our splash pad, that was great idea that was ruined by politicians, Valpo has a free one and it is awesome. Oh well, more riverbout money we will not have when we need it, keep blowing the money without getting the results.

I guess another reason for people within the School district but outside of the City limits to look for another school district.

What taxpayer wants to see their money going to out of towners? I am not even sure what you are proposing is legal. They would quite literally be subsidizing places like Long Beach.

I am not saying that at all. The vision of the people of Michigan City should be for people to want to live here. If you offered a scholarship as Hammond does to ALL residents that have kids going off to college, so the residents stay in Michigan City, then it is a win-win. Once the scholarship is discriminatory based on where your kids go to school or if they are home schooled, now your vision is not achieved because it appears that you do not support your City. I am advocating that people that pay property taxes (either directly or through renting) within the city should get the scholarship for their children that go to college. This will keep the parents in the city to stay in the city and possible the children to return as well. This discriminatory policy will just breed resentment and people will leave and the vision will not be achieved. Politicians again not using common sense and just trying to achieve their own small minded agendas.

You did say that when you were talking about all of the surrounding towns not being eligible. People of Trail Creek, Long Beach, etc aren't residents of Michigan City proper. That means if they were in the program, City funds would be going to people OUTSIDE of Michigan City. I don't believe that would even be legal.

I will try to be clearer. I am proposing:

1) If a student attends MCHS and therefore they either pay MCHS to be able to attend if they live outside of the school zone, or they live in the MCHS school zone and pay the MCHS tax rate then they should be eligible for the scholarship. or
2) The student has primary residence within the Michigan City Corporate limits and they are going to a 4 year state school, they should be eligible for the scholarship (regardless of where or how they received their high school education)

The point of the scholarship is to 1) get people to live and stay in Michigan City and 2) they want to boost enrollment at MCHS.

Why would you limit the scholarship to only MC Corporate limit students of MCHS, unless you don't care if home schooled kids, or voucher kids or private school kids families stay in MC or not? Also, if the MCHS students that live within the MCHS school zone (and get taxed for that) are excluded, what incentive do they have to stay in the area and attend MCHS when they get snubbed by this program?

If the program is exclusive it will fail. I always thought the Democrats tried to be inclusive or at least give the impression of being inclusive, yet this program is only for the the exclusive group of MCHS students that live in MCHS and have attended the MCHS school system for many years. Sounds like a failed program to me. Also, I don't think it will hold up to state law and the taxpayer lawsuits that will occur once it is implemented. The program is excluding a large portion of the taxpayers, yet making them pay for something they do not get to participate. It smells very rotten to me.

From what I have read, Michigan City would not be the first to pay scholarships to only public school kids.

I also don't think it would be legal to send funds outside of the City limits. I don't think I have seen a single program that would fund non-residents.

I agree, the out of corporate limits might be a stretch, but the two Indiana Scholarship programs tied to City funds are Whiting and Hammond and both are open to "owner-occupied" homeowners with a current Homestead credit in the house they reside in and they are both open to ALL student of the cities, even if the student attends an out of city school. The whole point of these programs is to increase the tax base and get families to stay in the City, The amount of scholarship received depends on how long the family has lived in the City. Now that sounds like a fair program to the people that are footing the bill. I am not sure that Michigan City politicians can be so fair.

New Buffalo's program is 100% dependent on being a resident AND attending their public schools. Theirs actually requires residency by 5th grade, which is way stiffer than ours. The Kalamazoo promise is the same waqy.

New Buffalo and Kalamazoo are covered by Michigan State law. I am sure if Hammond could have found a way to discriminate the program to only include Hammond High School students they would have done it. Because this is public money I don;t think non-MCHS students can be excluded. Oh well, it is like everything else in MC, it will take a class action lawsuit once the program is implemented and the full $2.5 million will go to the lawyers and the winners of the suit. I hope they had some top notch City attorneys look at this or else we will be back in court getting sued. for discrimination. If this was a private scholarship, then they could exclude people for whatever reason, but this being public tax money, there will be a suit. Guaranteed.

What legal basis are you using to call this illegal? Is there a state law I am not aware of? Even the Hammond program excludes homeschooled kids, which would be "discrimination" under the definition you are using here. Realistically any program will exclude some groups of students.

You need to re-read the Hammond School program. They do NOT discriminate against home-schooled kids. There is a special exception application for them. They can't discriminate against them. When the taxpayers that are paying into the program have kids that can benefit from a taxpayer funded program, you can't exclude them. Yes, those with children have a choice for them to attend MCHS, BUT if we choose not to attend the MCHS for whatever reason, we are not allowed to NOT pay the portion of taxes that goes towards this program, right? I do not know the statute that will be used for the lawsuits, but if the City actually did their research and talked to the Hammond City officials, I bet they would tell MC which ones are gray enough that caused them to INCLUDE everyone. In Hammond, even families that own homes in Hammond that send there kids to Chicago schools are eligible. Now that is INCLUSIVE. Michigan City politicians are just going to divide the City even more and more people will leave because of this discriminatory program (why stay?). They say they are afraid of running out of money; they will do that in the first year after the first class action lawsuit.

You keep repeating yourself, but what law is this actually based on is really important here. What law do we have in Indiana, that doesn't apply in Michigan which makes this program illegal only here? I literally have no idea what you are basing this legal opinion on. There are a myriad of other requirements for this program, which limits the number of people who can participate. Why is it only the one for which schools you attended that is discriminatory, while something that limits something like GPA or community service hours not discriminatory, as it has the same effect of making sure that not all kids can get this scholarship? What is the difference between that requirement and any of the others?

And judging by the fact that Michigan City did consult with Hammond on this program, along with many of the other municipalities who have instituted similar programs, my guess is that all of your underlying assumptions here are 100% wrong. Now I guess that doesn't stop private school families and people taking their kids out of Michigan City from suing to look for their handout too, but that is the time we live in. It is sad everyone is looking for reasons to sue.

I think I mentioned this before, but this is also not a Michigan City taxpayer funded program. This is a Blue Chip tax funded program. The hope is to build an endowment around this program with donations going forward. So no, you won't be paying the taxes towards this program if you go else where. You also already would not be paying a large portion of funding to MCHS by not sending your kids there anyway.

I mean, in effect people who are sending their kids out of City for schooling are already "leaving" by sending their tax dollars and kids out of town anyway. What is the downside there? They are already costing us local jobs. People who don't live in City have already left anyway.

At the end of the day the goal is to try to give people a reason to actually live in the City of Michigan City and to attend the MCAS. If people already don't do that, they aren't actually losing out on anything they didn't have before. It isn't like people are going to see a monetary hurt by this policy. This would be a bonus. It would be an incentive to attract people to this City. It is like TIF money to attract jobs to City, just it is finally something for residents. If you don't want to meet the requirements, you don't get it, just like any other incentive program. They don't give TIF money to all businesses that move here, under the definition you are trying to justify, that would be legal grounds for discrimination, yet I have never seen anyone sued for it.

I am not a lawyer, but the link to this article addresses the discriminatory requirement of how long one has attended the MCHS system or lived in an area...www.law.uh.edu/ihelg/monograph/08-01.pdf. This program will not give all people the reason to live in MC unless you have also decided to attend MCHS, which enrollment in the school system has been declining for years due to many other issues. People who move here do not have to pay extra to attend MCHS because they have not lived in the MC corporate limits for a prescribed amount of time, they don't, because the Supreme Court said that violated the State to State commerce laws, but now this program will limit someone that might have just arrived from somewhere else. That has already been upheld in court to be wrong, so there is a possible suit. I agree with your rhetorical questions, it is discriminatory to not include apartment dwellers and also kids that do not get good grades or kids that attend school other than MCHS, all of it is discriminatory and if this was a PRIVATE finding source, it would be allowed all day long, but Blue Chip Tax funded program is a HUGE stretch to call a private source of funding. That money was supposed to go to capital improvements in the City and thus offset tax dollars. If we don't need the Blue Chip Tax dollars why not give it to all tax payers as a dividend for living in the City? Again, the politicians are not smart enough to see the lawsuits coming, they never had been. Shoot, our mayor sued the Sanitary District because he did not understand how to report problems to his supervisor and he won! Exactly what parents will be doing next year after this program is implemented. It is a no brainer discrimination suit for unfairly disbursing tax dollars. Again, I don't know what law will be used, but I am sure the lawyers will figure that one out. BTW, TIFS do not discriminate against anyone that wants to start a business in a particular section of town. Anyone can do it, they do not apply to only graduates of MCHS. TIFS are economic development, as is the Promise program, so why discriminate in one program and not the other? Also, I do pay for the kids to go to MCHS, it is part of my property tax payment, why would you say I don't pay for MCHS if I don't send my kids there? They don't give me a tax credit if my kids go to private school (they should).

So why haven't Kalamazoo, Hammond, and New Buffalo been sued out of existence yet? All of those programs include at least one element of what things that you are saying Michigan City would be discriminating with.

Also with the voucher system and the indiana school funding formula, schools do miss out on funds when a student attends another school. In fact, it would be just as easy to argue that by funding private school kids, we are violating the separation of church and state.

Hammond only discriminates against apartment dwellers, otherwise they are fairly inclusive, and New Buffalo and Kalamazoo are funded by private donors and a fund set up by Four Winds Indian Tribe AND there was a special Michigan Law enacted that allowed this program.

We will see, the way the MC program is set up with public dollars, and the vast discrimination that is included, it will probably be a long legal expense for the City. Now, if the council members and special committee actually did their homework and learned that a private fund should/could be set up to avoid legal exposure, they might be able to use the discriminatory rules they want to use, but they don't typically do thorough research.

It seems like a slam dunk for the ACLU to win with damages. We will see. Please don't ask me again what specific law is being broken, they usually make them up as they need to.

The law you quoted is a federal law. No state law can supersede a federal law. If what you are saying is actually true, then those programs are illegal as well. The more I read this stuff, it sounds like someone is upset they aren't getting a handout.

Thats funny. No, I don't need a handout. I just wish they would stop wasting our tax dollars by putting them into these programs that discriminate against people that pay the taxes. If they are so determined to get people to move to Michigan City, why don't they lower the tax rates. If we are going to waste tax dollars, this program is not too bad if it was fair, but politicians only want to be fair when it helps their personal causes. It does not matter what you and I say, they will do what they want anyway.

Nothing you said here is actually reality.

This program isn't "discriminatory". Claiming it a lot doesn't actually make it true. You can't even say what law is actually being violated, mostly because it isn't happening.

Michigan City has some of the lowest tax rates around, and some of the lowest property values around. Taxes are ridiculously low here.

Scholarship programs aren't a "waste of money". They are an asset to help kids start an adult life debt free, which is a big advantage. If education is a "personal cause" well then sign me up.

You keep saying "discriminate." You have the option of meeting the qualification. Race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or religion cannot prevent you from owning property in Michigan City and attending the public schools and becoming eligible for the scholarship. If you choose not to, that's your decision. We've been funneling tax dollars into private education for the past several years. Is that a 'waste' too?

Federal Case law is being violated for people that move into the area and are treated like second class citizens because they have not lived in MC and attended MC schools for a certain number of years. The Supreme Court has already ruled that newcomers to a local are allowed to get full benefits offered with public funds. I don't know why the other programs have not had suits brought against them for this? Did you read the article I posted earlier? It describes all of that.

Taxes are low because we have the casino boat. Once you shift the boat money to this program, taxes will need to go up to pay for the things that are not getting paid for with the boat money now.

There are much better ways to make this program work and to keep taxes low. First, the Mayor and council members need to decide what their vision is for this program...is it to get more taxpayers into Michigan City and increase home values or is it to fill MCHS schools with MC citizens? Hammond has the vision to get more taxpayers into Hammond and to keep them in Hammond.

I like the monkey face. No, the things you mentioned don't prevent one from home ownership in MC, but poverty does. Not everyone can get a loan to buy a house nor take care of a house. I thought we figured that out in 2008. Many people do not "choose" to live in apartment, but they do what they have to do. They are discriminating against 1) the poor, 2) the newly arrived citizens and 3) people that choose not to accept the public school offering for whatever reason.

I did not saying funneling tax money into private education was a waste. I said this program, if implemented unfairly, is a waste because it will cause more people to leave then it will to stay in MC. It defeats the purpose of what I think the vision of the originators is.

The best way to dole out the education tax dollars would be to give every kid a certain amount of money every year for education and let the schools compete for that kid and those dollars. Now that would be free enterprise and you would see some excellent schools trying to attract the tax money.

Again, if federal law is being violated, how are other programs around the United States doing exactly this, and have been doing it for a number of years? Why is Kalamazoo still doing this exactly the same way? Because you posted a legal opinion given by a college professor, and not a courts opinion. That isn't the same thing, hopefully you understand the difference.

Looking back at Hammonds program, they also use many of the same standards, which are what is being discussed in that paper from 2008 you posted:

-lower percentages of scholarship money for those who haven't lived in the district as long
-homeowners only eligible.

The goal here is completely obvious, and I outlined it earlier. I think the goal of these repeatedly misleading posts is also clear, as I mentioned earlier.

Full disclosure: 2 kids in MCAS, went to catholic school, 2 degrees post secondary, homeowner and another property, work in private business in LP county.

A few points:

1. The reputation of the school system in MC is completely misunderstood especially by those who have no kids in the system. MCAS is solid - this is from a consumer who knows all about the laws here in Indiana (and the options they provide). Basically, administrators decided that those children who want to learn will be taught in accelerated fashion, or parents who choose a "track" for their kids, may do so. As a result, we have a very solid foundation of learning for children who want to learn and it supports responsible parents who want a good education for their children. That is a growing percentage of the student population. The rest are given the basics, given some options and get passed along as the system provides. G&T programs now start in 3rd grade! An 8th grader can have 3 HS courses completed before entering MCHS. MCHS grads can have 9 units done before post secondary education. News flash: this I not available in most Indiana or Illinois districts! People who continue to believe and espouse the notion that MCAS is a failed or failing institution are just plain wrong.

2. You could refer to my posts about Indiana's Choice program if you like, but the battle between church and state has been fought and lost by the ACLU and is not likely to be tried again. That ship sailed. Your tax dollars will contribute something like $40 million this year and likely more in coming years to this program - which was billed as a tax savings program. BTW, that was a republican program - fiscal conservatives - sure. Keep hating and labeling those Democrats - but don't evaluate the other side.

3. The splash park is fine - my kids love it and continue to enjoy it. It is clean, usually running pretty good, and there is usually someone around in a golf cart keeping an eye on things. It's paid for.

4. Now - to the Promise program. It was said that officials from the council and the admin contacted several programs about all the issues - true. Here is a response to the detractors:

1. inside city corp - it's all about the property values, which will rise when demand for units rise and assessments rise meaning tax revenues rise. The folks in outlying areas do not pay the same rates (yes, rates) then those inside the city limits (have you ever compared them - you would be amazed at what shoreland, LB, springfield and other areas pay), have lower assessments (again baffling) and therefore pay less in property taxes, even though for the most part, they get everything a city dweller gets except maybe water. So the benefit goes to the payer - seems good to me.

2. Not going to MCHS and other MCAS requirements. There is already a program for these folks called Indiana Choice, which thanks to the deeply controlled republican Indiana government, you can apply for even if you make $100k year - no assets tests, don't even ever have to have been a part of MCAS or other public program, simply sigh up. We are trying to boost MCHS enrollment - why should we help the other side? This has been an issue before with charter schools and won. If you do no want to be a part of the public system , Indiana supports you. if you want to be a part of the public school system, MC supports you.

3. Renters. The thinking is that most of these folks will have other avenues of support to tap, which is true. I have pointed out the demographics of the city, using state data, which proves that most renters are probably at or under 2x the poverty rate, which pretty much qualifies children for all types of money (scholarships, grants from places like Unity Foundation, et al.). If it is a single parent situation, double it - not to mention all the other stuff like medical, book cost assistance, transport reimbursement and a variety of other helping dollars.

The Boyd Redevelopment Fund is a special pot of money with some very special conditions, but the most special is the "future benefit" clause. What could be more beneficial to your City then the support of middle income people coming back to create a strong City for their future and ours (as retirees) as home owners, job creators, professionals and educators (Republican, Democrat or Independent like me). And great graduates of our fine post secondary institutions (like PNW).

To label someone with a political tag does a gross disservice to us as voters as if republican and democrat are monolithic. Almost 80% of us define ourselves as open to suggestion at the polls, and judging from the way Indiana has voted over the last 2 decades, that sure is true. Stop using those terms as pejoratives. The moderator should know better (as in "moderation").

Finally, and seems to be a point of the discussion, not many challenges to the laws concerning Promise have been brought and none have been won. The precedent was set in 2013 in the decision about Choice - basically- the state can't tell you where to send your kids to school - so guess what - state money goes to state participants and if that money is generated in a municipality - the benefit goes to the homeowner. I highly doubt it will be challenged. You Dem haters rejoiced at the 2013 decision - now you pay for it (no complaints) and now you want to twist it back. The courts are seeing through this and are not likely to push it back without a major re-evaluation of Choice.

For those of you who would like to have a say, here is Richard Murphy's letter to attend the meetings:

Dear MCAS, MCEDC, MCNEAT, Michigan City Chamber of Commerce, and other Champions for Michigan City:

First reading of the Michigan City Scholarship Program took place at Tuesday’s Council Meeting.

The ordinance was referred to committee and the next meeting is the Council Finance Committee meeting on Tuesday, July 12th at 5:00 pm at City Hall.

Second reading is scheduled to be at the July 19 Council meeting at 6:30 pm at City Hall.

Third reading and the City Council VOTE on the ordinance is scheduled to be at the Aug 2 City Council meeting at 6:30 pm at City Hall.

We need your support at the rest of these meetings and all the way to the vote.

Please show up at these meetings, write letters of support, and speak in favor of this transformative opportunity for Michigan City!

Thank you,

Rich Murphy

The vote was 9-0 last night. The audience applauded. Attendance was very good. Speakers (including our moderator, I believe) presented their cases - overwhelming for the proposal (though by reading today's ND, you wouldn't think that - eeeesh!). The best part was the support by Mayor Tom McDermott of Hammond, who spoke kindly about MC and his own program. He has been mayor for 13 years - 10 of them with Promise. It costs them $3 million a year. Population is steady to growing, property values are up and the business community loves it (evident from some matching dollars they contribute).

If you do the math on the coming group, MC will need about $850,000 in the first year and the budget is set for $2.5 million. Mayor Meer did reach out to the townships to get LP county involved for them. Horizon Bank is on board with money for low income folks who want home ownership (Fifth third is said to be coming in). It was stated by Mayor McDermott that some of the house purchases are directly related to the Promise Scholarships because the return is there (do the math - it works here, too!).

If ever there was a time when MCAS/MCHS and our City turned a corner , this is it. You can...Be Proud!

Yes I did speak last night, and was very happy to see the unanimous vote. This is going to be a great asset for City.

Was there ever any clarification on which Indiana Colleges and Universities this scholarship will be good for? Any Indiana University or only state schools? I never did see or hear that? Is it good for IU Northwest but not Bloomington? Good for Purdue Calumet and Ivy Tech however not good for Notre Dame or Wabash?

I know it was outlined, but I do not have the information in front of me.