Are millage and bonding votes an opportunity for greater citizen involvement?

I know that one of the issues with voter-approved tax increases and votes is the belief, often justified, that people won't vote in favor of additional taxes. This is an especial problem with school funding, since nationally, fewer than 20% of households have children, and especially as communities age, there is resistance to funding schools.

(For example, if you live in an incorporated town or city in nearby Prince George's County, you pay an additional property tax for the city/town, above the County Tax, plus waste haulage fees, etc. In DC, you don't pay extra for garbage pickup, and typically, the property taxes on a house in the city are cheaper than if you live in a similarly assessed house in Mount Rainier or Hyattsville.)

DC doesn't have voter-approved bonding and "millages." In fact, the DC "Home Rule" Charter forbids referenda that would require the City Council to do specific actions involving city finances. Seems like an anti-citizen provision, if you ask me.

It's easy for people with special access to the political system to get votes and monies for their projects, but a lot of the time, it appears that the basics fall by the wayside.

If say the parks or school systems in the city had to regularly go before voters for funding, would the quality of services have been allowed to decline so precipitously over the 30 years of Home Rule? Would agencies have to be responsive in more direct and specific ways than under the current system?

See "Let's take a vote on a new parks levy," from the Seattle Times.