[Vision2020] School Facilities (was Daily News article)

[Bruce and Jean Livingston]

I commend Barrett for astutely pointing this out.  It is a very interesting 
document.  I think that it offers some real hope that we will be able to 
pass a bond directed to the schools most in need and retain the neighborhood 
schools that are a big part of what makes our neighborhoods so strong in 
this town.

Brcu Livingston

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Barrett Schroeder" <Barrett at hideandfur.com>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 5:58 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] School Facilities (was Daily News article)


> For those that haven't seen it, the results of an exit
> poll from the April 2005 Bond Levy Election is posted
> on the Moscow School District Facilities Planning
> Committee's web site:
>
> http://www.sd281.k12.id.us/facilities/faccommittee.htm
>
> Or this direct link, which should be all on one line to work
> (it is a 26 page PDF file, but only 55K):
>
> http://www.sd281.k12.id.us/facilities/Results%20of%20An%20Exit%20Poll.pdf
>
> I don't know the people who did the exit poll, but my
> understanding is they were volunteers and not associated
> with any "side" in the election. It includes a very thorough
> analysis, and the numbers seem at least reasonable to me.
>
>>From that raw data, the number one reason for "Against"
> votes was "I want the high school downtown/Keep HS
> students in-town" (37.4%, page 14). Other major reasons for
> "Against" votes were "Cost is too high/Excessive cost"
> and "No more taxes/taxes too high now" (page 15) and
> "Not efficient use of $$/Enrollment not increasing/No need/
> Waste of $$" (page 16).
>
> The closest response to Doug's quote below was
> "Against MSD administration - concerns with uses
> of current resources" (page 17) and was low on the
> list, with only 4.3% of the "Against" voters.
>
> None of the respones directly referenced salaries, but
> "Invest in teachers/programs, not buildings" (13.0%, page 16)
> suggests that some of the "Against" voters might be in favor
> of higher salaries instead of newer buildings.
>
> "Will encourage sprawl/need Smart Growth" (page 14) was
> also featured in a lot of advertising, but was only cited as a
> reason by 10.5% of "Against" voters.
>
> There is a lot of information in that report, so a lot of
> comparisons are possible.  It's a good insight into
> "what people are thinking" and certainly worth a read
> for anyone interested in these issues.
>
> Barrett Schroeder
>
>
>> ----------
>> From: heirdoug at netscape.net[SMTP:heirdoug at netscape.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 5:01 PM
>>
>> Maybe the School Board needs to listen to the voting community when they
>> soundly turned down the last bond issue: "Cut back on the expenditures of
>> the blotted salaries and administration and live with in your means and
>> then maybe we will chip in for repairs and faculties."
>>
>>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> 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
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯