[Vision2020] Posted for Keely Mix

[DonaldH675 at aol.com]

The following email was forwarded to me by Keely Mix.  She is having  some 
computer issues this morning, and asked that I forward this to Vision 2020  for 
her.  I appreciate the opportunity to facilitate her request.   Rose Huskey
 
 
Good morning, Visionaries,

It's Election Day and I'm sure many of  you have already voted.  If you 
haven't, though, here are some things  to consider:

1.  The current high school, built in 1938, was  approved by voters during 
the Depression.  They knew it would be a  sacrifice, but they did it because 
the need was great and the time was  right.  Surely we can do no less.

2.  There is no Plan B.   Over the course of two years, innumerable meetings 
(every one of them  public), from 39 different scenarios to eight plans to 
three tracks to one  bond issue, this is the plan that makes sense.  There 
isn't a default  position, not because we on the FPC are stubborn, but 
because the  interdependence of each project requires that they be taken as a 
 
whole.  This is that whole; it can't be chopped up.

3.   Some might have you believe that we can go back and re-run this in the 
fall  with improvements only to WP and Russell and new science labs for the  
current HS. Don't buy it.  The remodel plans are for K-5, not the K-6  that 
we have to continue without a four-year high school.  K-6  throughout the 
elementary schools does nothing to reduce the overcrowding at  Lena and 
McDonald, and the price for adding a whole other grade level to WP  and 
Russell will inflate beyond the $4.6 and $4 million estimates,  respectively.

4.  Wouldn't it be great if we could solve the HS  problem by just spiffing 
up the science labs in the current building?   Except that that doesn't solve 
parking, inadequate core spaces, outdated  classrooms, lack of expansion 
possibilities, athletic and PE facilities,  voc-tech space, etc., nor does it 
incorporate our ninth-graders into the  high school.  They'll continue to be 
sorta-high schoolers with the  academic expectations of a four-year 
transcript.

5.  The idea  that MSD could use the 1912 Building for science instruction is 
not feasible  -- we don't own it, and our rent, plus improvements to the 
space if we were  tasked with funding them, would come out of the operating 
budget.   Remember, you can't "bond" that sort of thing, and I would be 
hard-pressed  to argue with a straight face that that's the best way to spend 
taxpayer  money, even if it were a good idea in other respects.  It  isn't.

6.  Despite reassurance from the architect, site engineers  and city that a 
school built on the Trail property won't flood, opponents  continue to 
suggest otherwise.  I'm not sure what a degree in  veterinary medicine 
consists of, but I prefer to get my floodplain  information from those whose 
professional degrees require intensive training  in site development.

7.  The new high school would be a facility  appropriate to the 21-st century 
world of education.  It can't be a  "cram-'em-in-like-sardines" cubbyhole, a 
sprawling megaplex, a prison  complex, or a Wal-Mart-like, California-style 
high school all at the same  time, can it?  Reasonable people can disagree 
with the plan, but  reasonable people don't just hurl invective in the hope 
that something  sticks.

8.  The $29 million plan had significant trimming before it  was presented.  
The architects are reducing their fees, the number of  parking spaces has 
been cut down, the athletic facilities and auditoriums  that many would 
expect in a new HS have been postponed, the HVAC and  engineering systems 
have been estimated based on solid, reliable, but not  extravagant equipment, 
and the site can be purchased at a buy-10-get-40  price -- that's 10 acres AT 
MARKET VALUE with the cost rebated back to the  district for the necessary 
fencing.  By any measure, this is a lean,  efficient bond, a bargain that 
scores of districts throughout the state wish  they had the opportunity to 
consider.

9.  PCRHS, the alternative  high school, needs and deserves a permanent, 
district-owned home.  It  would have one in the current HS building already 
in the district's  inventory.  Would anyone seriously prefer that MSD buy or 
rent a  facility indefinitely for a vital part of our educational 
programming?   Don't these kids deserve the permanency of facility that other 
students  get?

10.  Finally, the manner in which the opposition has argued has  been, for 
the most part, despicable.  I need not elaborate further, and  I defy anyone 
to suggest that the moral high ground in this debate has been  claimed by the 
anti-bond forces.  Good people can disagree on this --  I've been clear on 
that -- but character is revealed by how they do  so.  I'm proud of my 
involvement in this forum, this campaign, this  process, and this debate.  If 
an argument is articulated PRIMARILY  through name-calling, invective, lies, 
hysteria, disinformation, willful  ignorance and Hitlerian comparisons and 
accusations of anti-religious  bigotry, then perhaps there is a paucity of 
legitimate argument to be  had.  To those of you voting against the bond and 
doing so respectfully  and in an informed manner, publicly or privately, you 
have my sincere  respect, and I'm sorry you've been co-opted by those less 
able to behave in  a civically responsible manner.

With thanks, determination, and hope for  our community,

keely emerine mix



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050426/913f170b/attachment-0001.htm