Advertisement

GMom05

Follow

Comment history

Letter: Misleading claim

I believe of the 8000 people that voted yes, (12.2% of the voting population) some percentage of them knew nothing about what they were getting into, but they saw it was for the public schools so, it must be good, right? People frequently go to the polls without being educated about every issue and they still vote on it. Sometimes for very frivolous reasons. That doesn't make the issue right or justified. This whole project will takes YEARS to complete. (Never mind my grandkids could be paying on this bond) We'll be long onto another school board before construction is over with, so we'll just see how it all plays out. Wouldn't it be funny if the expected increase in the west came and they decided to build another school out west? Maybe so, the bond verbiage was left wide open...

April 5, 2013 at 8:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

School bond issue sails to passage

Ya think?!?!

April 4, 2013 at 7:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

School bond issue sails to passage

No one said anything about the bond being a part of operating costs. What skags is saying is, as funding disappears at the state level we won't have enough money to pay all our teachers. So the BOE will be forced to raise class sizes and let teachers go. Then we'll be stuck paying on newly built classrooms we can't even afford to occupy. Just felt the need to explain.

April 3, 2013 at 8:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

School bond issue sails to passage

This is absolutely true. It came up at one of the district informational meetings. As enrollment increases on the west side, those on the west side will see boundary changes and will start to be moved further east toward the center of town (the 6 core schools, which are 'in the right place.') There will be kids moving to Sunset Hills and Quail Run just as skags says. Don't get too comfortable at QR and LH, why else do you think they added 9 additional classrooms (above portable replacement) to Sunset Hill? To make room for you! We warned you to be careful what you wished for.

April 3, 2013 at 7:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

School district's mailing about bond issue raises eyebrows

I agree that it makes sense to do this work while rates are low. What I disagree with is the extent of the bond. 92.5 million is a huge chunk. There should not be any new construction in order to increase capacity. Do the deferred maintenance, replace the portables, but do NOT add more classrooms and increase capacity when we already own three elementary schools that are not being used for their intended purpose. I have kids too, but I'll be voting NO. My message to the board is go back to the drawing board, rewrite a responsible bond and put it to a vote in another 60 days. Interest rates aren't going to change that much in 2 months. #Vote NO

April 2, 2013 at 8:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

School district's mailing about bond issue raises eyebrows

The whole town hall meeting was a joke anyway. Look at who was invited and who wasn't. Waste of time.

April 2, 2013 at 8:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Well-defined plan

Then why is so much going to the 6 schools in the middle of town? It doesn't take that many millions to handle deferred maintenance, replace a roof, put in an elevator, or even build a kitchen or three. The money aside, there is no reason to build to increase capacity in central/east schools when we already own three elementary schools, that by someone's standards aren't apparently in the "right place." What part of town is the least 'right,' I wonder? So much for valuing facilities in all parts of town. This bond clearly mainly values the central and east parts.

April 1, 2013 at 10:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Debt load

Good point. There are opportunities to vote. But I think not everyone is educated fully before doing so. They get carried off by those with the ability send out bulk mail, have the biggest signs, call you at home, and send information swaying you to their side in your child's backpack. Many people just do what they are told. I mean really, you can't vote against the school bond, IT's for the CHildren! It comes down to who yells the loudest and apparently those that feel we are spending too much money and are spending what we have wastefully, are being drowned out. It doesn't make the one's yelling the loudest right. Personally, I think the runaway spending needs to stop. I'll be voting NO to the school bond tomorrow and voting for people that will be more fiscally responsible. I would encourage everyone to listen carefully to both sides before deciding. Remember a NO vote on the school bond doesn't condemn your school or your child. It just sends the board a message that we want them to think it through and rewrite the bond. We can vote on it again in 60 days. This will not be the end of the world folks.

April 1, 2013 at 5 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Well-defined plan

Yes, well-defined does not a good plan make. It can still be a well-defined bad plan.

April 1, 2013 at 4:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Well-defined plan

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.

April 1, 2013 at 3:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )