It would be unconscionable to raise property taxes this year and a lot of elected officials probably feel the same way. Are there other choices? Since growth and the costs of growth are the root causes of a tax increase, that's the place to look.

First, the Adequate Public Schools Facility Ordinance, adopted by school boards and public officials, was "to pace development with adequate school space." It's not working, and it's not working because failure was written into it.

If there's space available anywhere in the district, a development gets a building permit. It doesn't matter what the enrollment is in the particular school where the new kids would go. So, in effect, the ordinance does nothing more than OK overcrowding.

That's good for education? In some of the best schools in the state?

For this "planned error," the projected cost for new schools over the next 10 years is $300 million, taxpayers' money. This ordinance blatantly favors developers over educational quality or citizens' concerns. But delete one little word -- "district" -- and substitute "appropriate school" and the ordinance works the way people thought it would. Are our officials willing to change it?

Second, the land-transfer tax would likely pass if the buyer paid the tax rather than the seller and earn $1.3 million for the county each year. For the one-home seller, that's very important.

Third, the local school and government bureaucracies expanded to handle the population increase and are almost out-of-control. It is very likely that many of the managers, department heads and top assistants now have higher incomes and benefits than most of the elected officials or the median income of the county, which is a little more than $72,000. With so many citizens hurting for reasons beyond their control, this is where economizing could occur.

Though the drought of last year appears to be over, the current trend shows it will get progressively worse with each recurrence. Which brings up growth again.

A thoughtful Chapel Hill Herald editorial printed last fall suggested that it may be time to ask basic questions about growth. These questions are even more important now: "How big can we grow?" the editorial asked. "Should we grow? Can we afford it? What are our limits? Is water conservation only a Band-Aid and tapping into Jordan Lake a short-term fix? What is the 'carrying capacity' for not just water but for traffic, energy, schools, quality of life.

"And is the assumption that high-density, multi-use development is the right strategy the way we should grow?

"Maybe those beliefs are just wrong. Should we really have more people in a small area? Maybe the assumption we need to grow is no longer supportable."

An article in the March 3 Daily Tar Heel dealt with a study asking a similar question: "Should UNC-CH admit 1,000's more students?" Preliminary results showed that "the more students admitted, the lower their overall standards." Steve Farmer, director of undergraduate admissions, said, "If the quality of the (UNC-CH) experience starts to decline, we reach a spiral where we can't attract the top kids." He also said, "If we grow, we're not going to get smaller after we get bigger. We're setting the course of the future of the university."

Many agree that benefits can't come at the expense of the "Carolina Experience." It's a big school already, but it still has the feel of collegiality -- you're not just part of a big crowd."

The questions remains, How large should that crowd be?

The Chapel Hill Herald admits there may not be clear-cut answers to the questions yet, but "we had better at least start asking them, start questioning our assumptions, because time appears to be growing short."

I hope time has run out on the rampant growth that is overwhelming Orange County's balance, and that elected officials will act quickly to set limits that prevent it from recurring in the future.

For now, do not add to citizens' financial struggles by increasing taxes this year.