A bunch of thoughts, after reading the proposal cover to cover and hearing a bunch of arguments from people who haven't:
So, the no voters
put their signs up and got a couple of comments and editorials in the papers. I probably shouldn't start here, but I
was absolutely appalled to see an editorial from John Conely online. He’s a
school board member. He should be drummed off the board for using his position
to advocate against the bond. Why on earth should he be allowed to publish widely an
opinion piece promoting a position he couldn’t convince half-a-dozen fellow
board members was the best course of action?
Second, if you’re
going to vote no, why don’t you skip the election and put your house on the
market? If you won’t pass this bond, that’s probably a better use of your time,
since you don’t want to wait to sell until your property value erodes further!
Third, if you’re
going to call this a sneaky election, you should do it while acknowledging that
the school board superintendent has gone out and done everything in his power
and within election law to make sure you’re aware there’s an election and to
offer you a chance to ask your questions. There are also a gazillion signs up
for both sides all over town. What about this is sneaky?
If you’re using
“sneaky” as your argument, you should have called the superintendent or one of
the board members and discussed with them why they wanted the election now. It
isn’t, of course, because they thought they could pass the bond if they held
the election in a low turnout moment. It’s because they can borrow the most for
the least cost right now. Trailing averages and existing debt levy will mean higher borrowing costs
in the fall, especially if property values fall further.
If the amount and
duration of the bond is your issue, I understand completely. I agree that we’re
encumbering ourselves for a while for a lot of money, though it won’t actually
be much at a time. Restructuring old debt (a part of what the new bond does),
means your increase is capped at the equivalent of about $150 per $100,000. That’s why
they’ve used that number. If the bond doesn’t pass and your home values
continue to fall, the current bonds will cost more than that within two years. Please
folks, have a look at the math. It’s complicated, but really beneficial. (See here for a pretty simple, cogent explanation: http://bit.ly/JYoS14)
Next. If it’s just
that you don’t want to pay more taxes, please just go home and put your house
on the market, because your self-interest is really going to get in the way of
your self-interest here. If you don’t pass this bond you may save yourself $150
next year. But you’ll continue to lose property value, the district will
continue to lose students, the board and superintendent will not be able to
balance the budget as they’ve done this year, the buildings will deteriorate
further, the kids and teachers will still have to use 1997 technology in an age
where learning with technology is advancing to rapidly, etc. etc. So that $150
you’ll save yourself will probably cost you half again the value of your home
in the long run. How can you be so selfish and short sighted? How can you be so
short sighted that you can’t see how this bond benefits you while it’s
benefitting our kids and community?
I agree that there
is some merit to the “frivolity” argument. There are $16 million in athletic
facility upgrades in the bond. That’s pretty substantial, and, in my opinion, maybe more than is necessary. However, as we all know, athletics brings the
community together and attracts families and students. We’ve all admired
someone else’s facilities. Here’s our chance to catch up.
As for keeping up
once we’ve caught up? The more important part of the frivolity argument, if
you’ve read the bond, is that it’s structured to set aside some maintenance reserves going forward. There’s actually thought and foresight here.
I have a lot of
confidence in our current superintendent. The guy has done what so many boards
and superintendents before him didn’t: he balanced the budget. We all
understand what effort that took. We have teachers who are working just because
they love our kids and not because they’re getting decent remuneration for what
they’re doing. We have buildings that, while they may not be falling down,
they’re not in good shape because we’ve penny pinched on maintenance. And, most
importantly, we have technology in the district that is pretty much an
embarrassment, albeit cobbled together as best as possible with available
resources by some very dedicated people.
Folks, please,
recognize that our frustration with the short sighted prior management of our
schools has brought us here, and that this is the best way out at the moment. A
better way isn’t going to suddenly present itself.
And realize just how fabulously our students have done to date with current facilities and funding and technology. Think about the amazing success of these students and teachers. Then remind yourself that, AFTER we pass the bond, we'll still have the lowest tax and debt rates of any district in the county.
The sinking fund
and private bonds that Mr. Conely suggests would be a lovely idea if there were
a current market and investors who would back us; unfortunately, our existing
credit history as a district would probably make private bonds far more
expensive than the current bond proposal, wouldn’t guarantee the availability
of funds, and would ultimately place the same or greater encumbrances on the district’s
taxpayers, probably greater because of the positive environment that we now have for borrowing more dollars at a lower cost and taking care of more of our
issues at once.
Please vote yes
tomorrow, if not for our kids, for our property values. But really for our kids, and the kids who aren't even in the system yet.
