[Vision2020] school facilities discussion

Tue Mar 28 13:38:06 PST 2006

Keely,
Although I am no longer in the area I am so glad to hear that there are
options still on the table.  My wife and I concluded a few years back that
the ultimate solution to MSD's building problem(s) would lie somewhere in
the middle.  
Russell is a great school building that is in need of upgrades such as an
elevator, new wiring, repairs and the like but all in all the school is
fine.  What hurt Russell was the idiotic splitting of the grades schools
into the K-3 West Park and 4-6 Russell alignment that pissed just about
every parent off.  Heck, for the sake of students and families restore
Russell back to K-6. Sure the student teacher ratios won't be perfect but
the nightmare of bus transfers and the painful one kid at one school the
other at the other when they should be in the same school routine would come
to a bitter end.  Use the M and O budget to buy new text books, one of the
more fascinating examples of MSD's cheapness occurred when my son was given
the same history text book that his aunt and his mother used when they were
in 6th grade at Russell.  The book was so old the Vietnam War had yet to
draw to a close and Watergate was a mere footnote at the end.

Back to buildings...from the flood in the 90's it was made apparent that
West Park had to go and since it really was not a "community school" anyway
replacing that structure elsewhere would make the best sense.  The
playground can be expanded to the footprint of the building and everyone
would benefit.

The high school is a great building; reality is its drawbacks are limited to
the lack of proximity to the athletic fields, poor parking availability, and
space to expand.  The curse of the 90's, a need to wire classrooms to the
internet has drawn to a close with wireless technology.

MSD's solution for school facilities lies within the middle of the tear'em
down crowd and the preserve at all costs crowd; Keely, your task is to
educate the voters of that fact.

Chris Storhok     

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of keely emerinemix
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:57 AM
To: areaman at moscow.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] school facilities discussion

Gee . . . I haven't given this much thought . . .

Ha, ha.  In truth, I've been living and breathing this stuff for the last 
three years, two on the committee and one off, and I can tell what I bet 
most of you already know:  the vocal, survey-answering demographic of Moscow

is polarized.  There are those who ONLY want to remodel/renovate current 
schools and there are others who don't want to put another dime into 
Russell, West Park, and the High School (the HS not being a significantpoint

of discussion in this recent go-around, which saddens me).  There's lots of 
room in the middle -- a middle ground, good-for-the-community move that was 
well represented by last year's bond attempt -- but there seems to be little

interest in moving there.   Contact the district office if you want a copy 
of the just-completed survey.

Two things in particular bother me.  One is that this seems to be perceived 
as a fascinating matter of public policy and civic involvement, and not 
something that directly affects children.  Real children, whether at our 
Title 1 (higher percentage of free-and-reduced lunch applications) schools, 
our alternative high school, or anywhere else.  (A note on the alt school:  
I think it is a sad commentary on our community that some of its more 
"liberal" voices have advocated for the stripping away of the relocation of 
the alt school from any of the three bond proposals the committee has 
discussed.  Used to be that liberals cared for the underdog, the poor, the 
disenfranchised and the marginalized, and if we give up on the needs of our 
alternative school students in favor of simply funding "neighborhood 
schools," then let's at least recognize that that's a most illiberal and 
viciously pragmatic approach not befitting a community like ours).  I love 
historical buildings, architecture, walkable neighborhoods and "green" 
planning, but I will always place the needs of real children before 
buildings, affluent neighborhoods, or anything else.  And I think we can do 
a good job of honoring our children and our taxpayers with well-designed 
playfields, trails, schools, creative and mixed-use zoning, green spaces and

other enhancements.  We can't, however, pretend that the tangible needs of 
education and the needs of schoolchildren have somehow not changed over the 
decades and should thus be subsumed to the subjective, intangible interests 
of "neighborhoods."

Two, there's an enormous need for the district to educate people on a few 
simple facts that some blogmeisters would rather they not know.  For 
example, we run a tight ship budgetwise, but no amount of cuts from our 
maintenance and operations budget will allow us to contribute from that 
budget toward significant remodeling and new construction.  The State has 
allowed for new construction and remodeling to be funded only from bonds -- 
like it or not, there simply is no legal way to use M and O monies to 
remodel or construct, and the December 2005 State Supreme Court decision 
calling for a move away from bond monies to fund construction won't change 
that.  It will allow for other methods of funding large-scale remodels or 
new construction, but there is no decision that the legislature can come up 
with that allows us now to "tighten" an already conservative budget and use 
the "excess" to build or remodel.  Plant facilities levies can be used for 
some large-scale improvements, but significant remodeling and construction 
are fundable only by bonds.  Both of those, however, are voter-approved 
levies.  No matter what any  of our anti-public schools neighbors tell you, 
there isn't a district anywhere that is able to use regular operations money

to fund new construction, and their vitriol toward public schools can't hide

that fact, only muddy the waters.  But if people don't know that, and no one

mounts a large-scale effort to tell them, then the discussion is framed by 
those who are counting on the general populace to not know much about school

funding.  MSD has taken a lot of hits and not responded at times; I have 
taken a lot of hits and have tried only to respond when facts are in 
dispute.  But if a large segment of the voters think we're reckless in our 
budgeting and could just as well suck it in and build from the dollars 
saved, our efforts will be fruitless.

I remain astonished that there are those in our community who fail to see a 
civic-value difference in the building of a new high school on the edge of 
town and the building of a Wal Mart Supercenter on the edge of town.  All 
growth is not sprawl, and all growth is not the same.  God help us if we 
can't differentiate between the community-strengthening value of a school 
and the community-killing spectre of a Super Wal Mart, but I wonder if 
that's where we've ended up.  If so, be assured that my work will continue, 
and always with the belief that what a community's willingness to provide 
the best for its schoolchildren is a far more accurate indicator of its 
worth and strength than even the most beautiful and walkable tree-lined 
streets bordering run-down, inefficient, and inadequate school buildings.

And now, fully aware that I've probably offended people all over the 
spectrum, it's time to open my pesto-cranberry tortollini from the Co-Op and

rue the fact that the MSD board meets tonight at the same time as the NSA 
CUP hearing.  Sigh.

Contentiously, but kindly,

keely

From: "Area Man" <areaman at moscow.com>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject: [Vision2020] school facilities discussion
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 11:50:05 -0800

Maybe I've missed it in all the posts about elections and super
wal-marts and various other topics, but I haven't seen much discussion
on the Vizzz regarding school facilities (this time around).

I'll get the ball rolling (love it or hate it) --

Sell off West Park and Russell, build a new elementary school at the
Joseph Street property, send those kids there.

Some things that *might* happen in this process:
- the U of I purchases the West Park property
- *someone* buys the Russell property and builds the high-rise condos
that some citizens told the New Cities people we wanted, maybe even
using the old school for part of that.
- that makes some money for the SD to build the new school with (not all
of it, of course).

Issues?
- Kids that walk to Russell will have to hoof it to McDonald or Lena, or
take a bus (not really a problem with West Park, since I think most all
the kids ride buses there already).
- all the schools even farther over on the east side of Moscow.  It
would be nice to have one at each corner of town, but I don't see that
happening.

This still doesn't fix the problems with the High School, but that's for
another time.  Baby steps . . .

As Tom Hansen would say, "Thoughts?"

DC

_____________________________________________________
  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/

_____________________________________________________
 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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯