[Vision2020] Ten Simple Questions on the Bond

[Donovan Arnold]

It just might be me. But I cannot find a logical clear answer to these 
questions. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.


1)	How come it only costs $400,000 to make the High School safe for 
alternative high school students but would cost more than $20,000,000 to 
make it safe for the regular high school students?

2)	If the school district is so strapped for cash that it needs money 
through a new levy where is it going to get the money to operate and 
maintain two high schools? Why did the school district not know the 
operation costs for the new and old high school at their presentation on 
Saturday?

3)	There are only about 55 students at the current alternative high school. 
Using the old school for just 55 students seems like an extraordinary waste 
of space. It would seem prudent and less costly to keep the current location 
for the alternative high school and rent out the old high school.

4)	The school district says it will rent out the 1991 annex to the County 
government to save money on the operation of the old high school. Where do 
they think the County government is getting their money from? How is this 
saving the taxpayer money?

5)	Why are we building a new High School and renovating Russell and West 
Park Elementary schools when it is Moscow High School that needs renovating 
and West Park and Russell that need the replacing according to the Matrix 
Report?

6)	 This bond has almost $30 million and not one dime for Lena Whitmore, the 
Junior High, and McDonald. If the bond is for 20 years, what are we going to 
do to repair these schools because they will not last until 2026 without 
expensive renovations or repairs? Are they going to hit us for another $30 
million for a new Junior High and renovations to McDonald and Lean Whitmore 
next year? We cannot ignore the needs of these schools for twenty years.

7)	Why does the school district saying that Moscow High School is 
overcrowded? It has less students then it has had in the past and without 
the addition of the 1961 and 1991 annexes. Many try to argue that the 
addition of mandatory state programs to the high school adds need for space. 
I can certainly understand how mandated programs require more money and 
time. However, a student will never take up more then one chair, desk and 
computer no matter how many programs you give them.

8)	Why does the school only outlay costs to taxpayers living in a home with 
$100,000-200,000 in value with a 50% tax exemption? Why not break down the 
costs for an apartment dweller? Or a renter of a home? The majority of 
people having to pay housing are not in homes worth $100,000-$150,000. Tax 
increases affect the poor more then they affect the middle class with 50% 
tax exemptions and the wealthy.

9)	Why is the bussing for the athletics considered more of a negative then 
the positive ability to walk downtown? I think the fact that teachers can 
take their students downtown to a wide variety of businesses and government 
entities is an extreme advantage to students. Downtown has something to 
offer every subject: history, government, math, economics, science, you name 
it and it can be found downtown. I find that far more beneficial to students 
then being able to chase a ball around some wet farm land.

10)	The school district says that the school is inadequate for education and 
we need a new high school. How can this be? The University of Idaho is rated 
as the most wired university in the west and the most technologically 
advanced school in the northwest. The University of Idaho’s oldest buildings 
are running some of the most advanced technology in the northwest. If an 
older building then Moscow High School can run graduate level programs and 
sophisticated technology then Moscow High School should be able to teach at 
a high school level in a building only build in 1939.

Thanks,

Donovan J Arnold