[Vision2020] School Levy (Vote No)
keely emerinemix
kjajmix1 at msn.com
Sat Apr 2 14:40:07 PST 2005
Hi, Phil --
I wish the problems at the HS were only faulty science labs, but either way,
the district doesn't own the 1912. Rent for the space would have to come
from our M & O budget, not from a levy or bond, and it still wouldn't give
us the space, expansion, facilities and functionality we need. It just
wouldn't work, not as a stand-alone HS or as an "annex" of the current one.
The landlocked nature of the current site is a large part of the problem; a
site up to 40 acres -- and yes, I prefer the Trail site -- allows for future
expansion plus the addition of a stadium, track, auditorium, etc., at a
later date, just as the current HS site allows the alternative HS, which
serves students from throughout Latah County, to have a permanent,
district-owned home for the first time in its history. The current MHS
building is valuable and needs to be reused, and it will be -- but it's not
suitable for a full, four-year high school for Moscow's students and frankly
hasn't been for a long time. Putting off a solution hasn't worked, and
that's why it's time to do this now.
Thanks for your comments, Phil, and please know that I appreciate your
interest regardless of whether or not we agree or disagree on this one!
keely
From: "Shelly" <CJs at Turbonet.com>
To: <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] School Levy (Vote No)
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 12:47:14 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
Keely - what is wrong with moving back into the 1912 building? I understand
the only thing missing from the current high school is a good science lab?
Most of the citizens of Moscow would be happy to give the 1912 building back
to the high school. Wouldn't it be cheaper to upgrade the 1912 building than
build a new one?
Phil
-------Original Message-------
From: keely emerinemix
Date: 04/02/05 12:35:26
To: donovanarnold at hotmail.com; auntiestablishment at hotmail.com;
vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] School Levy (Vote No)
Goodness, Donovan, I don't know where to begin:
I appreciate your concerns, and I'll try to address them, although it might
be better if you contact me off list and we can go over them together. In
short, though, the high school is not educationally suitable, much less
physically suitable, for a 21st-century high school and, as you know, only
can accommodate grades 10, 11 and 12. Remodeling the high school on its
current site would cost more than constructing a new one and would involve
using portable buildings for three to four years, and very likely involve
razing two blocks next to the school. I couldn't in good conscience
recommend that, nor can I throw my support to a less-than-four-year high
school, which is what the new one would be. The current building would
remain district-owned, would house the district's alternative high school,
and could be used for expanded adult programs as well as voc-tech offerings
for district students. The county has also indicated its interest in
renting the '91 annex. The building will continued to be used, and will
continue to be a good neighbor to downtown businesses and residents.
The cost of the bond would come to about the cost of two large pizzas a
month for my household, given our taxed assessed value minus deduction; I'm
estimating conservatively, guessing at the TAV on my house since I haven't
committed my tax bill to memory. But the district and the FPC have released
information that anyone can access to see what the bond amount's impact on
their taxes would be, and I think most people would be surprised at how
inexpensive their monthly share would be.
I appreciate and share your concern for the homeless, Donovan, and I wish
that every social need could be adequately funded. But school funding is
what school districts administer and school patrons approve, and while new
school buildings don't provide housing for the poor, they do an awful lot to
remedy and insure against the conditions that bring about poverty. I'm
proud to support public schools and this bond in particular, and I'd invite
you to talk further with me if you'd like.
Thanks, Donovan.
keely emerine mix
From: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanarnold at hotmail.com>
To: auntiestablishment at hotmail.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] School Levy (Vote No)
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 10:09:17 -0800
Do we need a new High School?
Why? There was nothing wrong with it when I attended it just 13 years ago.
Is it because we have a huge influx of new high school students? Is it
because we think the old HS cannot be renovated?
Are we going to abandon the old HS, or are we suppose to have two High
Schools?
How can we afford two high schools when we cannot afford even one?
How much more in property taxes are we going to pay to maintain and staff
the new one?
Why not just fix the old one if it is breaking down?
Will the new school include bunk beds because many of their parents may be
homeless with the continued outrageous property taxes being placed on
people? Rents and housing prices are high enough. I am all for supporting
education, but this idea makes no sense at all. So I will not support it
unless they have strong reasons to raise the rent on everyone again and they
answer my questions.
Further, there are other issues that are more important than this that
should warrant a bond levy of $29 million. How about $29 million for a low
income housing and homeless center instead? Better pay for new teachers? A
few crosswalk bridges across 3rd street? How about drinkable water? All of
these issues effect everyone and need to be addressed before we start
spending money we do not have on brand new schools.
Take Care,
Donovan J Arnold
>From: "Joan Opyr" <auntiestablishment at hotmail.com>
>To: "Vision2020 Moscow" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] School Levy (was Adolescent Humor)
>Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 01:01:17 -0800
>
>I wrote that on this Sunday's show "Brother Carl and I will be addressing
>Dale's nonsense regarding the upcoming school levy "
>
>And Dan asks:
>
>What part is nonsensical? The disclosure of the full amount (with
interest
>paid)? You get the same thing when you buy a house or finance a car.
>
>What a surprise: bond payments include both principal and interest. Who
>knew? Thank heavens for Dale Courtney! It would seem that those worms at
>"The Money Tree" have lied to us again.
>
>Listen, Dale is just being inflammatory. When you search through the
>"Parade of Homes" and read that a house on Mabelle is going for $182,000,
>is that the figure you present to the bank or do you amortize over 30
years
>to make the price look unreasonable, hoping that the bank will take one
>look and refuse to lend you the money? This, I'm afraid, is Dale's trick
>And it's a clever trick, isn't it? $45 million sounds awful; it sounds
too
>painfully high. All that for two renovations and one new high school?
>Good grief. But the facilities bond is, as claimed, a $29 million dollar
>bond. The voters haven't been deceived; they haven't been lied to. $29
>million is the amount that will be spent on school construction and
>renovation; that's what we'll spend on bricks and sticks. The rest will
be
>paid in interest on the debt. Now, is anyone out there stunned by this
>information? Is anyone experiencing shock and awe? Dale's "real cost"
>analysis should be news to no one -- no one who has ever borrowed money at
>interest. Despite the Bible's prohibitions against usury, I'm afraid it's
>done nothing but flourish.
>
>Dale's $45 million figure is neither the beginning nor the end of his
>disingenuous, anti-public education hooey. Dale's vast and drafty
>assortment of charts and graphs (not to mention his manufactured concern
>about the University of Idaho lay-offs) are a very thin mask for the fact
>that members of the Wilson-Jones church oppose ALL funding for public
>education. It wouldn't matter what the Moscow School Board asked for --
>$29 million for a new high school and two substantial renovations or 29
>cents for mud and toothpicks -- Doug/Dale would oppose the levy. I think
>we can dispose of their arguments (such as they are) fairly quickly and
>move on to more genuine concerns.
>
>The most important, I think, is the "urban sprawl" argument. I like and
>respect Bill London, but I strongly disagree with him on this issue. I
>don't see building a new high school on the Trail property as in any way
>contributing to and/or creating urban sprawl. Moscow has been growing to
>the North and East for some time now, and it is a simple matter of
>economics that in order to prosper, we must continue to grow. Even with a
>new school on the edge of town, it will still be possible to park onself
in
>the middle of Moscow, drive in any direction for five minutes, and wind up
>smack dab in a wheatfield. The Palouse is not the Treasure Valley, and it
>never will be. Our location is just too damned inconvenient. It seems to
>me that a greater danger to our town is that we will become simply a
>bedroom community for WSU. If the state legislature continues to
dismantle
>the U of I, what will replace the college as Moscow's primary engine of
>growth? What will attract new businesses to Moscow? What would make us
an
>appealing location for, say, a firm like Schweitzer?
>
>Oh dear. Best put the cork back in the bottle for now. It's late; I'm
>freshly back from lovely Missoula (a college town from whom Moscow could
>learn a lesson or two); and I ought to be saving my school levy rants for
>Sunday's show. I need to catch up on my Mortal Kombat/Beauty Sleep so
I'll
>feel fresh and invigorated when I open up this week's can of whoop ass
>
>Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
>www.auntie-establishment.com
>
>PS: Janice, I realize that your home borders the Trail property, and I
>understand why you wouldn't want to live next door to a big high school.
>Neither would I. I like living out in the middle of nowhere, and I like
my
>privacy. This is an argument I think you could fruitfully expand upon and
>one that would appeal to many on this list. When I say that Carl and I
>will be hanging up on anti-levy callers, I certainly don't mean to dismiss
>people like you whose property/homes will be directly affected. I mean to
>dismiss Doug and Dale who, once again, are the Friday farts at a Saturday
>market. Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
>http://explorer.msn.com
>_____________________________________________________
> 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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_____________________________________________________
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 3/30/2005
.
_____________________________________________________
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list