Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, March 30, 2013

Letter: Well-defined plan

March 30, 2013

Advertisement

To the editor:

In its editorial of Sunday, March 24, “Bond reservations,” the Journal-World takes the position that the arguments in favor of the school bond are not “overwhelmingly persuasive.” The editors use misleading phrases. They claim that the bond issue “seems to be throwing money at a variety of undefined problems.” They wonder if there’s a better way “than simply to pour money into aging facilities.”

Did any of the authors of this editorial attend any of the 15 informational sessions held at schools throughout the city? Did any of the authors read “A Community Plan,” the 14-page document sent to Lawrence households and available on the district website? Did any read the 14-page “Lawrence Public School News Letter” of March 2013, which was distributed as an insert in their own newspaper? It’s difficult to believe that they did. Had they, they might have realized that the district and the school board have worked tirelessly to leave as little as possible undefined. The plan details current and projected enrollment, technological needs and classroom space, right down to architectural renderings and specific budgets by school. Undefined?

This plan is absolutely comprehensive. Look at it. The Lawrence Chamber of Commerce has, and they’ve endorsed it.

Comments

Bigdog66046 1 year ago

Also i think it is funny that they asked for the MAXIMUM they could. Not what was needed! But they want the very most they could get. That tells me not enough planing has been done!

2

GMom05 1 year ago

I for one, never said repairs weren't necessary. I am also in favor of improved security, technology, and the Vo-Tech building. What I am NOT in favor of is the other $40 Million they are going to spend on enlarging the 6 core schools when we have 3 elementary buildings that are not being used for their intended purpose all because they are "not in the right place." Talk about vague. If the bond was for everything but increased capacity in the central core you'd cut it down to $52.5 M and then I'd vote for it. I suggest they try again in 60 days. In the meantime I'll be voting NOOOOOOOOO.

2

Mike Myers 1 year ago

So spending time to educate voters is bad how? Isn't that the districts obligation? I have yet to meet one educator who isn't completely behind this bond. Lastly, the word I used was ignorant. There is a difference you know. I'm ignorant about many things but I'm not ignorant about this bond. It's good for kids, good for adult learning, good for neighborhoods, good for business, good for property values. It is supported by both sides of the political isle. If you would take some time to study it and talk to real teachers, the chamber of commerce, businesses leaders, your neighborhood leaders, district officials, and BOE members you would be behind it and vote YES as I will do. The time is right, the buildings need renovations, the portables need to go away.

0

ReadingSports 1 year ago

Ignorance, so you're calling me stupid then? Troll-ron. This is state of debate in the United States, if I don't agree with you then I must be stupid.

What a joke! It's a school bond issue. Get real. And as for the rest of your stupidity. If the bond issue passes students will succeed, students will fail. If the bond issue fails students will succeed and students will fail.

And the bond issue won't affect student performance at all. If you think it will then... You are mistaken and misled.

And thank your for your thoughtful, reasoned, and respectful response to my post.

Attitudes like yours are why I'm voting NO. Thanks for the motivation.

0

Mike Myers 1 year ago

Yes, I don't see why we need to spend money on education or school buildings. We need to send a strong message to the children that they aren't worth our time or money. We should really stick it to the administration too. It will be so awesome to have a whole bunch of dumb kids failing in crumbling, leaky, outdated buildings. That will really show the rest of the state what Lawrence is all about. Vote NO to further the cause of ignorance in Lawrence!

1

ReadingSports 1 year ago

I've posted in other topics about this issue. But I feel strongly that the district wastes money. Please see some of my other postings.

I was initially for this bond issue, but seeing how much time the school has spent on information sessions, and talking with some teachers, I will vote against this bond issue, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

VOTE NO!!!

2

none2 1 year ago

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Have Lawrence voters ever turned down the opportunity to spend more money? Lawrence voters are like people with a credit card spending addiction, so I am sure this too will pass.

0

jafs 1 year ago

And yet there's overly broad language - "necessary and related expenses" in the bond issue.

If it's as specific as claimed, there's no need for that language, and it shouldn't be in there.

5

grimpeur 1 year ago

Chamber endorsement? snicker

I do not think this means what you think it means.

1

Richard Heckler 1 year ago

When economic times get rough people seek to better themselves with additional education. Making available the most productive environment is a smart choice.

We know economic times can get rough so why not prepare our children for these times by teaching them to think by providing the most productive environment.

It's a known given that new industry examines local educational opportunities so let's NOT allow USD 497 to slip down toward Brownback levels.

Breaking ground that will allow our young students to learn at their own paces is a long over due concept. Bring it on!

This argument about killing educational opportunities will reduce our taxes is at best questionable. Lawrence can not indulge in another 10-15 years of negligence regarding USD 497 taxpayer owned properties...... this would reckless beyond belief.

Should the bond fail the rehab must move forward at a slower pace and maybe a property tax increase that would be short term however getting the same objectives completed. This might be a plan B scenario that would be wise NOT to encounter.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.