Letter: Well-defined plan

They aren't asking for the maximum. The bond issue could be more. They are asking for as much as they can without changing the mil levy. They have pared back from all of the various needs and public comment to the maximum without a tax increase. This is fairly prudent. I would still vote yes if there was a modest mil increase. The needs are extensive. I want to belong to a community that values education enough to provide great facilities for all parts of town, all kids.

April 1, 2013 at 9:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: Well-defined plan

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.

March 30, 2013 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: Well-defined plan

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 It will be so awesome to have a whole bunch of dumb kids failing in crumbling, leaky, outdated buildings.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!

March 30, 2013 at 1:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Public airs questions over $92.5 million school bond issue

The forum was very good and informational. For the most part, with two exceptions...the Americans for "Prosperity" guy didn't know what the heck he was talking about. His ideas were not well founded and not based on any research or homework on his part. He brought some "data" that was intended to show our schools are "failing" and our kids can't read. His data actually showed that well over half of our kids can read and comprehend at the exemplary level. When confronted with real data all he could say was "well you're wrong".

Typical of the AFP (Koch Brothers) group, they try to twist real numbers with words in a way to befuddle and confound in order to promote their agenda which is generally regressive taxing or pushing the majority of the tax burden on the middle class and poor. He came off as a real nice grandfatherly guy who loves schools and loves teachers, he just doesn't want to pay for them.

The only two things he said that I agreed with are:

1. He said that teachers aren't paid enough! Well said! Perhaps he can lobby the governor to meet his oblications for school funding so we can give the teachers raises and hire some specialists! Go Jim!
2. He said that the proposed technical education center to be funded by the bond was a "great idea" . Well said Jim!

I'm voting for this bond for strong schools, smart kids, strong neighborhoods, jobs, and property values.

March 27, 2013 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Editorial: Bond reservations

Have you heard of the term demographic shift? Check the data.

March 25, 2013 at 2:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Editorial: Bond reservations

I should have used the term demographic shift rather than growth. The issue is about increased enrollement in these schools. There is data, check the USD website.

March 25, 2013 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Editorial: Bond reservations

It isn't an issue of expansion as much an issue of building real classrooms instead of using trailers for several of the schools. And there is actually growth in the core area and more projected growth to come. There has been demographic research done on this by a paid consultant.

March 25, 2013 at 11:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

City agrees to provide $12,500 in funding for study of retiree attraction project

This will be a study done by insiders telling the powers that be exactly what they want to hear. In fact, it will be more about site planning than a true study to determine feasibility and location. All of the usual suspects and large land holders will be instrumental in the process. It will be a giant economic boon to the city but it will still require a 19 million dollar tax abatement to be feasible. Never will any real thought to long term economic sustainabily or sprawl be considered. Infill and integration won't be considered seriously because there won't be enough new houses to build on virgin land and no philanthropic developer would come forward to bless us with the gift of ground.

February 13, 2013 at 6:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Lawrence couple build an eco-friendly, round home

Perhaps you need to do some reading about passive solar. It is really simple and only requires some thermal mass, a window and a well planned window overhang. Simple and effective. The overhang blocks the sun in the summer and allows it in the winter. With a well insulated house you can really save on heating bills without adversely affecting cooling bills.

February 10, 2013 at 4:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Lawrence couple build an eco-friendly, round home

I wish this couple the best of luck with their new home but calling it eco-freindly is nothing but greenwashing. There are sooooo many things about the project that aren't eco-freindly. The shape of the home is structurally and physically wasteful. You only have to look at the picture of the radial floor joist layout to realize that the floor joists become so close together at the center bearing point that it is almost solid wood!

Eco-freindly in this day and age has to mean anti-sprawl, rehab, brownfield development, infill etc... Building a new home in the woods on the edge of town is strike one since you are taking ground that was previously woods, habitat or agricultural land, all very precious.

Buying the home and having it trucked in from the east cost is very wasteful and fails to utilize local materials and labor.

The only two things that could be considered eco-freindly about this home is that it was manufactured in a controlled environment and that they have insulated it very well.

A bank of north facing windows? really? What about passive solar?

I don't begrudge these nice folks building their dream but calling this eco-freindly is really a travesty of journalism. Perhaps the writer could do some research into what really makes something eco-freindly. There are loads and loads of good information sources out there if one looks.

February 9, 2013 at 1:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )