[Vision2020] School Levy (Vote No)

Sat Apr 2 12:34:10 PST 2005

Goodness, Donovan, I don't know where to begin:

I appreciate your concerns, and I'll try to address them, although it might 
be better if you contact me off list and we can go over them together.  In 
short, though, the high school is not educationally suitable, much less 
physically suitable, for a 21st-century high school and, as you know, only 
can accommodate grades 10, 11 and 12.  Remodeling the high school on its 
current site would cost more than constructing a new one and would involve 
using portable buildings for three to four years, and very likely involve 
razing two blocks next to the school.  I couldn't in good conscience 
recommend that, nor can I throw my support to a less-than-four-year high 
school, which is what the new one would be.   The current building would 
remain district-owned, would house the district's alternative high school, 
and could be used for expanded adult programs as well as voc-tech offerings 
for district students.  The county has also indicated its interest in 
renting the '91 annex.  The building will continued to be used, and will 
continue to be a good neighbor to downtown businesses and residents.

The cost of the bond would come to about the cost of two large pizzas a 
month for my household, given our taxed assessed value minus deduction; I'm 
estimating conservatively, guessing at the TAV on my house since I haven't 
committed my tax bill to memory.  But the district and the FPC have released 
information that anyone can access to see what the bond amount's impact on 
their taxes would be, and I think most people would be surprised at how 
inexpensive their monthly share would be.

I appreciate and share your concern for  the homeless, Donovan, and I wish 
that every social need could be adequately funded.  But school funding is 
what school districts administer and school patrons approve, and while new 
school buildings don't provide housing for the poor, they do an awful lot to 
remedy and insure against the conditions that bring about poverty.  I'm 
proud to support public schools and this bond in particular, and I'd invite 
you to talk further with me if you'd like.

Thanks, Donovan.

keely emerine mix

From: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanarnold at hotmail.com>
To: auntiestablishment at hotmail.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] School Levy (Vote No)
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 10:09:17 -0800

Do we need a new High School?

Why? There was nothing wrong with it when I attended it just 13 years ago.

Is it because we have a huge influx of new high school students? Is it 
because we think the old HS cannot be renovated?

Are we going to abandon the old HS, or are we suppose to have two High 
Schools?

How can we afford two high schools when we cannot afford even one?

How much more in property taxes are we going to pay to maintain and staff 
the new one?

Why not just fix the old one if it is breaking down?

Will the new school include bunk beds because many of their parents may be 
homeless with the continued outrageous property taxes being placed on 
people? Rents and housing prices are high enough. I am all for supporting 
education, but this idea makes no sense at all. So I will not support it 
unless they have strong reasons to raise the rent on everyone again and they 
answer my questions.

Further, there are other issues that are more important than this that 
should warrant a bond levy of $29 million. How about $29 million for a low 
income housing and homeless center instead? Better pay for new teachers? A 
few crosswalk bridges across 3rd street? How about drinkable water? All of 
these issues effect everyone and need to be addressed before we start 
spending money we do not have on brand new schools.

Take Care,

Donovan J Arnold

>From: "Joan Opyr" <auntiestablishment at hotmail.com>
>To: "Vision2020 Moscow" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] School Levy (was Adolescent Humor)
>Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 01:01:17 -0800
>
>I wrote that on this Sunday's show "Brother Carl and I will be addressing 
>Dale's nonsense regarding the upcoming school levy "
>
>And Dan asks:
>
>What part is nonsensical?  The disclosure of the full amount (with interest 
>paid)?  You get the same thing when you buy a house or finance a car.
>
>What a surprise: bond payments include both principal and interest.  Who 
>knew?  Thank heavens for Dale Courtney!  It would seem that those worms at 
>"The Money Tree" have lied to us again.
>
>Listen, Dale is just being inflammatory.  When you search through the 
>"Parade of Homes" and read that a house on Mabelle is going for $182,000, 
>is that the figure you present to the bank or do you amortize over 30 years 
>to make the price look unreasonable, hoping that the bank will take one 
>look and refuse to lend you the money?  This, I'm afraid, is Dale's trick  
>And it's a clever trick, isn't it?  $45 million sounds awful; it sounds too 
>painfully high.  All that for two renovations and one new high school?  
>Good grief.  But the facilities bond is, as claimed, a $29 million dollar 
>bond.  The voters haven't been deceived; they haven't been lied to.  $29 
>million is the amount that will be spent on school construction and 
>renovation; that's what we'll spend on bricks and sticks.  The rest will be 
>paid in interest on the debt.  Now, is anyone out there stunned by this 
>information?  Is anyone experiencing shock and awe?  Dale's "real cost" 
>analysis should be news to no one -- no one who has ever borrowed money at 
>interest.  Despite the Bible's prohibitions against usury, I'm afraid it's 
>done nothing but flourish.
>
>Dale's $45 million figure is neither the beginning nor the end of his 
>disingenuous, anti-public education hooey.  Dale's vast and drafty 
>assortment of charts and graphs (not to mention his manufactured concern 
>about the University of Idaho lay-offs) are a very thin mask for the fact 
>that members of the Wilson-Jones church oppose ALL funding for public 
>education.  It wouldn't matter what the Moscow School Board asked for -- 
>$29 million for a new high school and two substantial renovations or 29 
>cents for mud and toothpicks --  Doug/Dale would oppose the levy.  I think 
>we can dispose of their arguments (such as they are) fairly quickly and 
>move on to more genuine concerns.
>
>The most important, I think, is the "urban sprawl" argument.  I like and 
>respect Bill London, but I strongly disagree with him on this issue.  I 
>don't see building a new high school on the Trail property as in any way 
>contributing to and/or creating urban sprawl.  Moscow has been growing to 
>the North and East for some time now, and it is a simple matter of 
>economics that in order to prosper, we must continue to grow.  Even with a 
>new school on the edge of town, it will still be possible to park onself in 
>the middle of Moscow, drive in any direction for five minutes, and wind up 
>smack dab in a wheatfield.  The Palouse is not the Treasure Valley, and it 
>never will be.  Our location is just too damned inconvenient.  It seems to 
>me that a greater danger to our town is that we will become simply a 
>bedroom community for WSU.  If the state legislature continues to dismantle 
>the U of I, what will replace the college as Moscow's primary engine of 
>growth?  What will attract new businesses to Moscow?  What would make us an 
>appealing location for, say, a firm like Schweitzer?
>
>Oh dear.  Best put the cork back in the bottle for now.  It's late; I'm 
>freshly back from lovely Missoula (a college town from whom Moscow could 
>learn a lesson or two); and I ought to be saving my school levy rants for 
>Sunday's show.  I need to catch up on my Mortal Kombat/Beauty Sleep so I'll 
>feel fresh and invigorated when I open up this week's can of whoop ass
>
>Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
>www.auntie-establishment.com
>
>PS: Janice, I realize that your home borders the Trail property, and I 
>understand why you wouldn't want to live next door to a big high school.  
>Neither would I.  I like living out in the middle of nowhere, and I like my 
>privacy.  This is an argument I think you could fruitfully expand upon and 
>one that would appeal to many on this list.  When I say that Carl and I 
>will be hanging up on anti-levy callers, I certainly don't mean to dismiss 
>people like you whose property/homes will be directly affected.  I mean to 
>dismiss Doug and Dale who, once again, are the Friday farts at a Saturday 
>market.    Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : 
>http://explorer.msn.com
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities 
of the Palouse since 1994.                 http://www.fsr.net                
                 mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/