Savannah-Chatham County School Board votes to opt out of HB 581
The bill, which has been up for debate in multiple nearby counties, allows Georgia public school systems and municipalities to consider a floating homestead exemption for property owners that would have impacts on tax revenue.
The yea votes included school board members Denise Grabowski, Dionne Hoskins-Brown, Cornelia Hall, Paul Smith and Tonia Howard-Hall.
The no votes included Shawn Kachmar, Roger Moss and Stephanie Campbell.
David Bringman was not in attendance for the vote.
The main reason for the school district's decision to opt out of HB 581, as articulated by
School officials say that the 'pros for opting in are not the same in Chatham County as most other counties,' due in large part to the existing Stephens-Day Exemption.
The Chatham County Board of Assessors describes Stephens-Day as 'A homestead exemption that is equal to the difference between the current year fair market value and the adjusted base year value (property's value in the year prior to the homestead application plus any improvements since the year of the application).'
Stephens-Day has been in place for nearly three decades.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Critics say President Trump's push for fairness in college admissions is leaving out legacy preferences
Advertisement 'It's hard to think of a more flagrant way in which the system is rigged than legacy preferences,' Kahlenberg said. 'Rarely is a system of hereditary privilege so openly practiced without any sense of shame.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up In recent weeks, Trump has taken several actions to scrub any vestiges of race from admissions decisions, suggesting that some schools are ignoring a 2023 Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action. His administration negotiated settlements with Brown and Columbia universities that included provisions to share admissions data. Last week, Trump issued a call for colleges nationwide to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions. Trump has taken several actions to scrub any vestiges of race from admissions decisions, suggesting that some schools are ignoring a 2023 Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action. Alex Brandon/Associated Press Some are urging Trump to go further. Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., applauded the settlement with Brown requiring the university to turn a blind eye toward race — even in application essays. But 'restoring meritocracy warrants more,' said Young, who cosponsored legislation in 2023 aiming to end legacy admissions. Advertisement 'Federally accredited institutions should eliminate ALL preferences grounded in arbitrary circumstances of ancestry that students have no control over, such as legacy status,' Young said on social media. Many selective colleges consider family ties Sometimes called 'affirmative action for the rich,' the practice of legacy admissions remains widespread among elite colleges even as it faces mounting bipartisan opposition. Virginia's Republican governor signed a bill last year barring legacy admissions at public institutions, following similar measures in Colorado, California and elsewhere. Some Republicans in Congress have worked with Democrats on proposals to end it nationwide. Roughly 500 universities consider legacy status when evaluating applicants, including more than half of the nation's 100 most selective U.S. schools, according to 2023 disclosures to the federal government. A few have abandoned the policy, but it remains in place at all eight Ivy League schools. Stanford University said in July it will continue considering legacy status, even after a California law barred it at institutions that receive state financial aid. Stanford opted to withdraw from the state's student financial aid program rather than end the practice. The university said it will replace the funding with internal money — even as it begins layoffs to close a $140 million budget deficit. Stanford officials declined to comment. Last year, as part of a state transparency law, the school reported that about 14% of its new students were relatives of alumni or donors. A push for merit, but no mention of legacy admissions The executive action signed by Trump last week requires universities to turn over more information about students who apply to and are accepted to their campuses. Taxpayers 'deserve confidence in the fairness and integrity' of decisions, his memorandum said, adding that more information is needed to ensure colleges are heeding the Supreme Court's decision. Advertisement A week earlier, the Justice Department issued a memo clarifying what it considers illegal discrimination in admissions. It takes issue not only with overt racial considerations but also 'proxies' for race, including 'geographic targeting' or personal essays asking about obstacles applicants have overcome. Similar language requiring 'merit-based' admissions policies was included in the government's resolutions with Brown and Columbia universities. None of the actions made any mention of legacy admissions. Trump's silence caught the attention of the nonprofit Lawyers for Civil Rights, which has an open complaint with the Education Department alleging that Harvard University's use of donor and alumni preferences amounts to illegal racial discrimination. The group's 2023 complaint says the practice overwhelmingly benefits white students. If the Trump administration wants to make admissions a meritocracy, it should start by ending legacy preferences, said Oren Sellstrom, litigation director for the group. 'These deeply unmeritocratic preferences simply reward students based on who their parents are. It's hard to imagine anything more unfair or contrary to basic merit principles,' he said. Few Americans support legacy or donor preferences Colleges defend the practice by saying it builds community and encourages families to become donors. Some backers say it increasingly helps nonwhite students as campuses become more diverse. Then-President Joe Biden, a Democrat, urged colleges to rethink legacy preferences in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, saying it expanded 'privilege instead of opportunity.' Some feared it would drive up white enrollment as affirmative action ended. Georgetown University reviewed the policy but kept it in place this year after concluding the pool of legacy applicants had a similar makeup to the wider admissions pool. Advertisement An AP-NORC poll in 2023 found that most Americans have a dim view of legacy and donor preferences, with few saying either should play a strong role in decisions. Universities are required to tell the federal government whether they consider legacy status, but they don't have to divulge how far it tips the scale or how many legacy students they admit. Among the 20 most selective universities that say they employ the practice, none would tell The Associated Press what percentage of their incoming class has a family connection to alumni or donors. Trump's blitz to root out racial preferences has hinged on the argument that it undermines merit. New scrutiny is needed to ensure colleges are following the Supreme Court's order and 'recruiting and training capable future doctors, engineers, scientists' and other workers, he said in his executive action. That argument sends the message that minority students are 'intellectually suspect until proven otherwise,' said Justin Driver, a Yale law professor with a forthcoming book on affirmative action. He worries Trump's latest actions will intimidate colleges into limiting minority enrollment to avoid raising the suspicion of the government. 'I believe that the United States confronts a lot of problems today,' Driver said. 'Too many Black students on first-rate college campuses is not among them.'
San Francisco Chronicle
6 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
In his push for fairness in college admissions, Trump has been silent on legacy preferences
WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Donald Trump attempts to reshape college admissions, he's promising a new era of fairness, with an emphasis on merit and test scores and a blind eye toward diversity. Yet the Republican president's critics — and some allies — are questioning his silence on admissions policies that give applicants a boost because of their wealth or family ties. While he has pressed colleges to eliminate any possible consideration of a student's race, he has made no mention of legacy admissions, an edge given to the children of alumni, or similar preferences for the relatives of donors. Trump often rails against systems he describes as 'rigged,' but he has overlooked a glaring instance in higher education, said Richard Kahlenberg, a researcher at the Progressive Policy Institute think tank who has written about admissions. 'It's hard to think of a more flagrant way in which the system is rigged than legacy preferences,' Kahlenberg said. 'Rarely is a system of hereditary privilege so openly practiced without any sense of shame.' In recent weeks, Trump has taken several actions to scrub any vestiges of race from admissions decisions, suggesting that some schools are ignoring a 2023 Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action. His administration negotiated settlements with Brown and Columbia universities that included provisions to share admissions data. Last week, Trump issued a call for colleges nationwide to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions. Some are urging Trump to go further. Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., applauded the settlement with Brown requiring the university to turn a blind eye toward race — even in application essays. But 'restoring meritocracy warrants more,' said Young, who cosponsored legislation in 2023 aiming to end legacy admissions. 'Federally accredited institutions should eliminate ALL preferences grounded in arbitrary circumstances of ancestry that students have no control over, such as legacy status,' Young said on social media. Many selective colleges consider family ties Sometimes called 'affirmative action for the rich,' the practice of legacy admissions remains widespread among elite colleges even as it faces mounting bipartisan opposition. Virginia's Republican governor signed a bill last year barring legacy admissions at public institutions, following similar measures in Colorado, California and elsewhere. Some Republicans in Congress have worked with Democrats on proposals to end it nationwide. Roughly 500 universities consider legacy status when evaluating applicants, including more than half of the nation's 100 most selective U.S. schools, according to 2023 disclosures to the federal government. A few have abandoned the policy, but it remains in place at all eight Ivy League schools. Stanford University said in July it will continue considering legacy status, even after a California law barred it at institutions that receive state financial aid. Stanford opted to withdraw from the state's student financial aid program rather than end the practice. The university said it will replace the funding with internal money — even as it begins layoffs to close a $140 million budget deficit. Stanford officials declined to comment. Last year, as part of a state transparency law, the school reported that about 14% of its new students were relatives of alumni or donors. A push for merit, but no mention of legacy admissions The executive action signed by Trump last week requires universities to turn over more information about students who apply to and are accepted to their campuses. Taxpayers 'deserve confidence in the fairness and integrity' of decisions, his memorandum said, adding that more information is needed to ensure colleges are heeding the Supreme Court's decision. A week earlier, the Justice Department issued a memo clarifying what it considers illegal discrimination in admissions. It takes issue not only with overt racial considerations but also 'proxies' for race, including 'geographic targeting' or personal essays asking about obstacles applicants have overcome. Similar language requiring 'merit-based' admissions policies was included in the government's resolutions with Brown and Columbia universities. None of the actions made any mention of legacy admissions. Trump's silence caught the attention of the nonprofit Lawyers for Civil Rights, which has an open complaint with the Education Department alleging that Harvard University's use of donor and alumni preferences amounts to illegal racial discrimination. The group's 2023 complaint says the practice overwhelmingly benefits white students. If the Trump administration wants to make admissions a meritocracy, it should start by ending legacy preferences, said Oren Sellstrom, litigation director for the group. 'These deeply unmeritocratic preferences simply reward students based on who their parents are. It's hard to imagine anything more unfair or contrary to basic merit principles,' he said. Few Americans support legacy or donor preferences Colleges defend the practice by saying it builds community and encourages families to become donors. Some backers say it increasingly helps nonwhite students as campuses become more diverse. Then-President Joe Biden, a Democrat, urged colleges to rethink legacy preferences in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, saying it expanded 'privilege instead of opportunity.' Some feared it would drive up white enrollment as affirmative action ended. Georgetown University reviewed the policy but kept it in place this year after concluding the pool of legacy applicants had a similar makeup to the wider admissions pool. An AP-NORC poll in 2023 found that most Americans have a dim view of legacy and donor preferences, with few saying either should play a strong role in decisions. Universities are required to tell the federal government whether they consider legacy status, but they don't have to divulge how far it tips the scale or how many legacy students they admit. Among the 20 most selective universities that say they employ the practice, none would tell The Associated Press what percentage of their incoming class has a family connection to alumni or donors. Trump's blitz to root out racial preferences has hinged on the argument that it undermines merit. New scrutiny is needed to ensure colleges are following the Supreme Court's order and 'recruiting and training capable future doctors, engineers, scientists' and other workers, he said in his executive action. That argument sends the message that minority students are 'intellectually suspect until proven otherwise,' said Justin Driver, a Yale law professor with a forthcoming book on affirmative action. He worries Trump's latest actions will intimidate colleges into limiting minority enrollment to avoid raising the suspicion of the government. 'I believe that the United States confronts a lot of problems today,' Driver said. 'Too many Black students on first-rate college campuses is not among them.'
Newsweek
9 hours ago
- Newsweek
Texas Is the Front Line in a National Battle for Democracy
In recent days, the eyes of the nation have turned on Texas in alarm as state Republicans, in collaboration with the Trump administration, brazenly attack the voting rights of their own constituents. The target of this unprecedented mid-decade challenge to democracy is clear—Black and Latino voters whose growing numbers threaten to shift political power in a rapidly changing state. Sixty years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, this calculated move by Texas lawmakers reveals that fundamental democratic rights are still under threat. These legislators are hoping to pick their voters, not the other way around. They are shamefully pushing through a gerrymandered congressional map that further dilutes the voice of Black and Brown voters. Their goal is to secure up to five additional GOP congressional seats, even as Black and Latino Texans continue to drive the state's population growth. Texas is a "majority-minority" state with communities of color representing approximately 60 percent of the population. The Black population of Texas is not only the nation's largest but also one of the fastest growing in the metro areas of Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth. Latinos, a bedrock of the Texas community, are the second-fastest growing demographic in the country. Yet, despite both communities making up over half of Texas' population, their political representation remains disproportionately low in many areas. AUSTIN, TEXAS - AUGUST 07: A person views a map during a Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting public testimony hearing on August 07, 2025 in Austin, Texas. AUSTIN, TEXAS - AUGUST 07: A person views a map during a Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting public testimony hearing on August 07, 2025 in Austin, partisan effort serves a single purpose—handing Republicans five more seats in the 2026 midterms—and it's being done at the expense of voters and democracy. Knowing that voters are likely to reject their disastrous policies in 2026, Republicans are resorting to rigging maps in a panic. It's a deliberate suppression of our communities. That's not democratic, and it's not American. It's an effort to roll back the political power that grassroots Black and Brown organizers, volunteers, community-makers, and activists have built up over many years. Texan voters have faced repeated attempts by their representatives to silence their voices, suppress their will, and take away their power. They have been at the forefront of what has become a nationwide epidemic. In 2013, when the Supreme Court struck down the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act, Texas Republicans exploited the decision to implement gerrymandered maps. Within hours of the decision, the state also enacted a strict voter ID law that had previously been ruled illegal by a federal court. Then, in 2021, Texas further restricted the right to vote with SB1, a draconian bill that specifically targeted voting methods disproportionately used by working communities and communities of color. Just four years later, the attacks have returned, this time with a fury the nation has not seen before. What we're witnessing in Texas exemplifies a broader attack on voting rights and our democratic system. This month, the United States Supreme Court opened the door to potentially gutting what little remains of the Voting Rights Act, and throughout 2025 numerous states have proposed and even enacted laws targeting vulnerable communities and threatening voting rights. A cornerstone of American democracy is government, of the people, that works for the people, ensuring all Americans are heard. Texas Republicans are doing the opposite. They are telling Texans that voters don't get to choose their representatives, and that Republicans are "entitled to five more seats," merely because the president says so. Let's be clear: this is not about politics, but power. It's about erasing the voices of people who have driven the state's growth, and who tirelessly serve the Texas community at every level and play a role in making Texas an economic powerhouse. By design, these maps slice through Black and Brown neighborhoods, "cracking" cohesive communities and merging them with distant suburbs. This practice makes it nearly impossible for Black and Latino voters to elect candidates of their choosing. Meanwhile, other districts are "packed" with voters of color, concentrating their influence in a few seats while the rest of the state's districts are drawn to favor whiter, more conservative voters. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. warned that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." What is happening in Texas is just that. When we allow one community to fall by the wayside, trapped by suppressive and destructive laws, we give a green light to others with the same intentions to proceed with efforts of their own. Instead, we must treat this moment as flashing red warning sign, and act diligently to stop it. This is not just a Texas story. It is part of a national strategy to undermine the rising political power of Black and Latino communities. As our nation grows more diverse, so will the efforts to suppress and silence these critical voices. Even before Dr. King told the world about his dream during the March on Washington, he valiantly urged elected leaders to "give us the ballot." He understood then, as we understand now, that an American's vote can bring the country one step closer to being one that works for them. He believed our representatives had a grave duty to promote the voting process, not suppress it. Democracy and voting rights do not erode overnight; they dissipate slowly after repeated attacks that go unanswered. Eventually though, those small steps reach a point of no return. History shows us what happens when people stay silent. Voters and leaders of all backgrounds must unite to reject this dangerous attempt at voter suppression. We must remain committed to the fight and work to build political power for Black and Latino communities beyond 2026. This isn't just about lines on a map. It's about the lives and futures of millions in Texas and nationwide who deserve to have their voices heard and their votes counted. Martin Luther King, III, is a global humanitarian, activist, and the eldest son of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He is Chairman of the Board of the Drum Major Institute, the author of "What is My Legacy?" and co-host of the My Legacy podcast. Arndrea Waters King is a leading civil rights advocate, thought leader, advocate for peace, and the President of the Drum Major Institute (DMI). She is the co-author of "What is My Legacy," and co-host of the My Legacy Podcast. Hector E. Sanchez Barba is the President and CEO of Mi Familia Vota. He is also the Chair Emeritus of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA), a coalition of 46 major Latino organizations advancing civil rights and policy reform. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
