State lawmakers who were responsible for foisting last year's shallow program of school property tax relief on state residents need to pay attention to what is emerging from the individual school systems. If they really do, it's hard to believe they could avoid embarrassment over taxpayers' and school officials' cold response to their protracted efforts - like what occurred at Wednesday evening's public hearing in the South Butler School District regarding the tax-relief program.

Act 72, the new homestead/farmstead tax-reform law, has been evoking varying reactions since its passage, and much of those reactions haven't been in the law's favor.

It was evident virtually from the start that school officials and homeowners were not going to enthusiastically embrace it, first because of the relatively insignificant amount by which property owners' tax bills were likely to be reduced and, second, because of the requirements that would be imposed on school districts that agreed to participate.

On Wednesday, South Butler School Board members weren't reluctant to say which way they were leaning in terms of their district's participation. They said if they had had to make a decision on Wednesday, they would have voted against participation, because the cons attached to the law outweigh the pros.

In one sense, it's puzzling why lawmakers agreed to have their legislative reputations linked to "voluntary tax reform" that is not truly tax reform, but just a tax juggling act. If Act 72 truly merited recognition as "tax reform," it would be mandatory statewide and those to whom it applied would be predominantly optimistic about it and embracing its passage with little or no hesitation.

In another sense, it is not puzzling - the real focus of the exercise was to pave the way for slot machines. The tax-reform aspect of the bring-slots-to-Pennsylvania push was secondary, although many politicians in Harrisburg tried to make it seem otherwise.

School districts are required to decide by May 30 whether to participate. It would be surprising if more than a handful of districts opted in, because of Act 72 provisions requiring districts to increase their earned-income tax and to agree to schedule voter referendums on any proposed tax increases above the rate of inflation.

Act 72 will mean less flexibility for school board members in addressing their district's issues.

The projected dollar benefit for taxpayers and when taxpayers are likely to see any property tax savings are also little cause for celebration.

Many fingers outside the realm of the school districts already are poised to grab a piece of the slots-gambling-profits pie, if and when there is one. Meanwhile, it's hard to get excited in 2005 regarding projected tax savings that might not be realized until late 2007, or possibly as late as 2010.

Property taxes won't be reduced until the state generates more than $1 billion in revenue from the slot machines. How much in actual savings property owners receive won't be known until the state knows how much revenue the gambling is producing and how many property owners are participating.

Jim Jones, South Butler board president, assessed the situation accurately when he said, "We need meaningful tax relief, but I'm not sure this is it."

He added, "Maybe, if enough schools choose to opt out, it will send a message to Harrisburg that we need meaningful tax relief."

That's debatable. The General Assembly should have learned a lesson from an optional tax-reform measure passed several years ago that quickly died. Instead, state legislators produced another version of tax-reform mediocrity that they should have known would not be welcomed with open arms.

Perhaps one reason why lawmakers who voted "yes" to Act 72 aren't attending school board meetings striving vigorously to build support for it is because they fear a negative impact on their image and credibility.

Unfortunately, they should.