[Vision2020] Response to Keely Mix's Message
Donovan Arnold
donovanjarnold2005 at hotmail.com
Tue Apr 26 12:24:18 PDT 2005
"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." --K.
Mix
Once again, this is ill researched information. The High School was mostly
build with a grant from the federal Public Works Administration (PWA).
Further, it was operated and maintained by a new levy tax initiated in 1939
by the Idaho State Legislature dedicated for use only on education. The
High School was built in 1939, added on to in 1968, and again 1991. Millions
of dollars have been invested into the building over the years. The Moscow
School District has stated over and over again that the building is solid,
safe, and very well maintained.
"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." --K. Mix
This plan is only a few months old and came to light only after the Trail
offer. Not having another plan shows the FPC committees unwillingness to
consider other plans and prepare for things when they go wrong or adjust to
new information. The interdependence shows weakness in the plan, not a
strength. We must wait until a high school is built before addressing the
real concerns of the elementary students in buildings that are falling down.
"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."--K. Mix
Dumping $4.6 million instead of just replacing West Park and building a
larger one is an ill conceived plan. You can build a bigger elementary and
take away overcrowding at Lena and McDonald. Also a newer school being built
would save us the cost and time of renovating West Park, then West Park
could be used to house Russell students while Russell is being renovating.
We can start today, instead of in the year 2009 or 2010. It would also save
us the costs of renting parking for West Park, renting space for the
kindergarteners in the UI, and retrofitting the current high school to house
elementary students.
"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."--K. Mix
Would it not just be cheaper to knock down the 1968 Annex which has to go
anyway and build a new three story building with the extension of the
cafeteria, science labs, media library, and new disability resource room?
Do we need a whole new school when we can put in an annex? If we were to
build a new alternative high school with the voc-tech equipment along with a
new elementary that would still be cheaper then the new high school. Also
moving the voc tech out of the building would create more parking and space
inside the current high school. The new school still requires students to be
bussed to MJHS for athletics and to the auditorium because it does not have
one. We can address the issue of the 9th and 6th grader places I think
separately. Nor is this the only plan that can address this issue. I think
the idea that 9th grades are too stupid and immature to figure out their
transcripts count toward high school undermines the argument that they
should be in high school. There are legitimate arguments to put 9th graders
into high school. But these issues need to be discussed separately.
"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."--K. Mix
It isn't? Where is the argument made here. MSD could retro fit the upper
floor of the 1912 building for many uses. You, the taxpayer, spent millions
on the renovation of that building and now it is going to go wasted again.
Not because we cannot afford to use. Not because the city has not offered,
but only because MSD does not want to use any building they do not own. The
money for science instruction will come out of the operation budget if is in
the 1912, yes. However, it will come out of the operation budget too if you
put it in a new high school or on the moon. It has to come out of that
budget. You do own that building. The city owns it and you are the city
government.
"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."--K.
Mix
According to the county maps, you can go look yourself, the site will in
part be put on a 100 year flood plan. Yes it is true that they can build the
school four feet in the air so it does not flood. But to build a school four
feet in the air to make sure it does not flood seems like an unnecessary
expense. The classrooms on the proposed site are right next to the wetlands.
Again, irresponsible, how are you going to add on again with water one side
and the rest of the building on the other. We must also ask what this 40
acre parking lot is going to do to the environment when it rains and snows.
That water is not going to go into the ground like it use to.
"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."--K. Mix
Part of this argument lacks understanding that a building can be large and
crowded at the same time. Ever been to a Wal Mart? It gets big and crowded
does it not? Ever been to a multi-theater center in a big city? Those things
are huge and crowded. This building will be 13% larger and on 40 acres. But
the student population will be 30% or more larger when you add the Freshman
class. When you take all the kids, put them outside of town, and surround
them with a big chain link fence, that is exactly California Style. I have
attended a California high school. And I attended Moscow High School. There
is a world of difference in the sense of community and belonging.
"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."--K. Mix
Here is the problem. In an attempt to cut the price, we are only getting 1/2
a high school. No auditorium, not stadium, no track and field, and who knows
what else is missing. Who is going to pay for all this stuff to be built
later on? No doubt they will have to ask us for a new levy since they cannot
build it without one. Of course other schools would like a whack at a $29
million bond. But most are so broke, like other counties in Idaho, they
cannot even run these big facilities if they did manage to build them. This
building will be build at $148 a sq ft. That is about 30% less then the
average cost of building a High School in the northwest. This is of course
not counting the costs of the roads and other new utilities that are not yet
at this farm land site.
"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?"--K. Mix
Yes, and with another plan, you could build one. It would cheaper too then
operating a high school built for 550 and only housing 55 students.
"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."--K. Mix
I find that both sides had their share of good and bad arguments. But I also
found that it is only mostly people on v2020 that argue meanly. People in
the town have been nice in person on both sides of the issue. I think it
unfortunate that Keely sees herself in a white robe. She was suppose to
represent both sides of the issue fairly and accurately. She has not done
so. It is unfortunate that Ms. Keely has not, in any of her emails or
letters to the editors, mentioned ONE person that was voting NO on this bond
that she could compliment. Surely, she has to know someone. We cannot ALL be
lying name calling, evil monsters, out to destroy the future of children
with facts and disinformation can we?
Take Care Moscow. And remember to vote not on the facts or information about
the real needs of the community, but vote on the color of the signs, your
emotions, and how that guy over there is voting.
Donovan J Arnold
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
With thanks, determination, and hope for our community,
keely emerine mix
>From: DonaldH675 at aol.com
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] Posted for Keely Mix
>Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:38:02 EDT
>
>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
>
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
> 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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list