[Vision2020] if it keeps on rainin', the levy's gonna break

[Dan Carscallen]

So, Donovan (and others) harangues against a new high school because the
old one can be renovated to accommodate the student population.  Maybe
the building can, but the area around it does not have the room to
accommodate the vehicles used by every other student and all the staff.
Okay, so you'll say "everyone should ride the bus".  Hogwash.  Remember
when you got your drivers license?  What was the first thing you wanted
to do was DRIVE, everywhere!  And so do these kids now.  Not only that,
there is no place for activities related to P.E. class.  Okay, so they
get bussed out to Mountain View park, but that cuts out the time for the
teachers to actually teach, let alone do whatever activity is scheduled.
Now people question the value of Physical Education.  Okay, let's just
get rid of it and raise a bunch of slugs who we won't have to support
later on in life because none of them will live past 50 due to their
sedentary lifestyle that began when they were in high school.  That am
reel smart!

According to the plan, the current high school will not be "thrown
away".  It will be used as an interim location for elementary students
during the renovations to West Park and Russell, and then be the new
location for the alternative school. Not only that, I guess plans are in
the works for Latah County to move some offices into the 1991 annex.
Sounds like a win-win to me.

Now others would complain that the new high school would promote sprawl.
Maybe, maybe not.  Others will bemoan the loss of beautiful farmland.
Still others will complain of the large parking lot that will probably
be included in the new construction.  Personally, while I'm not sure I'm
in favor of *this* particular plan, I am in favor of having a high
school with plenty of parking located around it, and having all the
playfields and facilities RIGHT THERE.  To do this, you need to start
with room, and most all new high school construction starts with 40
acres to accommodate this.  As the illustrious Mr. Eisenstein said
before, this probably isn't the most productive piece of farm ground,
and the mere fact that it is located within the city's area of impact
makes it a pain in the butt to farm.  Granted, farming next to a high
school may not be that much fun either, but most farming activities
would occur when school is out.  And if it promotes "sprawl" in the form
of housing in that area, those people should be well aware that farming
activity is taking place there before they got there.  So, to put it
bluntly to those who would complain about farming activity when they
build right next to a field, quityerbitchin'

I'm still not sure of my position in this levy (I am leaning in the
"for" direction . . . slightly -- not that it's anyone's business), but
I do believe a new high school is needed.

I agree to a certain extent with Phil Roderick that we *are* overtaxed
to a certain extent.  I also believe that a lot of it comes from the
anti-development crowd being against some big employers, thereby causing
them to locate elsewhere (SEL, anyone?).  I hope Mrs. Richardson-Crouch
has a little more success in attracting some more employers to increase
the tax base.  With the layoffs, we can't count on the U of I as an
employer forever, and we for dang sure can't count on them for taxes.  I
also hope "Team Huskey/Lund" will look at more than just Christ Church
for getting stuff that belongs on the tax rolls back into the pool.

Sorry for the manifesto, hope it makes sense.

Dc