This is an interesting “Would you rather?” for numerous American communities: would residents rather have higher property taxes or give up control of the local funding for schools and other local services because of lower property taxes?

There is a silver lining, though. The most radical property tax–related proposals are argued for as either general anti-tax measures or as efforts to privatize schooling. Whatever you think of their intended goals, they would also have an unintended effect of ameliorating one of the worst features of the property tax: its localism.

If North Dakota voters had voted for a repeal of the property tax, much of the revenue used to replace it likely would have come from state taxes. (The group formed to oppose it was called “Keep it Local.”) Similarly, if the state government is supporting school choice vouchers with income or sales tax revenue, that means schools as a whole rely less on local property taxes.

Americans like local control, particularly in the suburbs. To give that up to governments elsewhere who may attach particular guidelines to the funding could be seen as a loss.

And there are some people willing to argue they are willing to pay higher property taxes for what they receive. It is less clear how many residents feel this way or that people do not find ways to limit their property taxes.

I am not sure this has to be pitched as an either/or: higher property taxes or lower taxes and give up financial control to other bodies. Here are two other options:

1. Do Americans believe that local services can and should be provided more cheaply? This could be about containing costs of existing services.
2. Another variation for #1 is cutting local services to limit costs.

Both of these options might be unattractive: local services tend to help enhance the status and value of properties and communities. Reducing these or threatening them could be perceived as backfiring and hurting everyone.

The choice might also depend on the local context. Would high housing values in some places lead to residents wanting to do a lot to limit property taxes? Or what if residents felt they could handle funding coming from other places? After all, real estate is local.