It's a huge problem here: the hottest areas of Chicagoland have the best schools, in large part because property tax levies fund the schools, which sets up a vicious cycle: voters will approve arbitrary levy increases for the schools because they assume (justifiably) that they're getting the money back in house values. Their kids graduate, they don't care about the schools anymore, so they sell their (appreciated) house and move to a bigger house or a loft or whatever. But at some point --- we crossed this point 20 years ago --- the schools spend more on your kids than you will pay in property taxes in the window of time your kids are in schools. I'll have to live in Oak Park for at least 12 more years to pay D97 and D200 back, and my kids are both in their 20s. Meanwhile, property taxes are being driven up so much that the only rational buyer for a house is a family planning to put kids through our schools, because all the lots are SFZ freestanding houses, and the property taxes are so high.
At least it sounds like you're funding good schools in Chicago.
California has a bizarre problem where the most expensive areas to live cannot fund their schools. Cupertino, the city of Apple's HQ, median home selling price over 2 million dollars - relies on state funds to pay for its public school district, since local property taxes aren't enough:
Chicago has one of the worst pension problems in the country largely on the back of public employee pension underfunding, including the teachers union.
