[Vision2020] school facilities discussion

Tue Mar 28 21:57:52 PST 2006

Keely

Hmm, I am fairly 'liberal' (but hate to be pinholed) and I may or may not
favor tying the alternative high school to a bond with the 2
elementary
schools.

I do think it would be valuable to know if voters WOULD support
any of the elementary school options by a 2/3 majority IF the alternative
high school had been left off of one or more of the options.

As Jack Porter just posted, I don't think it's doing any child a service
to continually put forth bonds that do not have the support of the
majority. If the majority do not want to fund the alternative high school,
that is a truth that will be valuable to know. Once you know that, THEN
you can
go about trying to change their minds and/or provide an option they will
support.

The alternative high school is confusing to many, not supported by some,
some have no opinion, etc. It is also serving a fairly small population at
this time, perhaps limited by their facilities, perhaps not. However, 2
elementary schools with multiple sections of K-6 continue to operate in
outdated and overcrowded facilities. I would support an alternative high
school and want it to have a fully funded and great facility IN A PERFECT
WORLD WITH BOUNTIFUL FUNDING. I would NOT support trying to continue to
pass a bond IF the question of the alternative high school IS the deciding
factor for many people to vote NO. Is the alternative high school the
deciding factor for people? Who knows? From the survey and options
presented, there is no way to determine that. That's what I want to know
and I think it is a valid question (or so it seemed when I went to the
survey presentation at West Park).

How does calling for more information about voters response to the
alternative high school lead you to the conclusion that people (those
curious about what voters think of the elementary school
issue standing alone without being linked to the alternative school) don't
care for the 'underdog, the poor, the disenfranchised, etc'? And that it
is an 'illiberal and viciously pragmatic approach not befitting a
community like ours?"  Whereas continually presenting a variety of bonds
that don't have a good
chance of passing is productive and acceptable?

i thought the whole point of the survey was to find out what kind of a
bond configuration would be most likely to be passed by a 2/3 majority. To
me, it seems that at least one option should have just addressed the
elementary school remodel/build new. Then we would know more about what
voters want to support and what they aren't willing to support (or the
revelation that they need more information).

Debbie

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, keely emerinemix wrote:

> 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
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>

Debbie

%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%
  Debbie Gray      dgray at uidaho.edu
  We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned,
  so as to have the life that is waiting for us." --Joseph Campbell
%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%