Private Property Puchase

MASTER PLAN:

Neil Barille and Acclaro: The building project is not intended to expand capacity.  The point is to replace old, outdated buildings with modern facilities adequate to teaching the 21st Century skills that students need to compete in today's global economy.  The state facilities commission will only match costs based on the space needed for their projected student enrollment, going out 10 years.  The state projects that Middletown's enrollment will be basically flat over that 10 year period.  In fact, last year's Kindergarden class was the biggest in a long time.

processor, I disagree with every point you made.

REBUTTAL:

1) It is natural in any city there is a correlation between the city's actions, or lack of, and the school system. How do you square the city's Master Goal Plan of having a city of nearly 25,000 (a 50% reduction in population), with a school district's goal to build and add students? They are diametrically opposite. If the city has high taxes and property values that are high, with a Master Plan objective of reduction, in turn, these goals again, are in opposition.  Moreover, the city and school Board have openly acknowledged their symbiotic relationship with one another many times, whih obviously is the basis for the school leadership moving into city hall. That is axiomtaic, and is a non rebuttable position.

2) Poor Location of Vail Middle School? And that is supposed to keep students from attending school, nd parents moving in? Perhaps you should phone Larry Mulligan and Dr. Owens at Cincinnati State, and explain that logic. Isn't it downtown, where Vail is located, which is in rebirth, a renaissance? Rather contradiction is it not processor, that it is a fiem area, very desirable to those attending college, but a poor, blighted area, for those aged 13-16 years old. Illogical argument.

3) Cost/ Benefit Analysis- So 250 year old schools have been retrofitted? And the cost benefit analysis was such, it was cheaper to destroy in a declining school population (someone made a trend observation in a matter of years, perhaps 8, the middle schools and high school could be merged based upon student decline). It appears logical with student decline, consolidation of existing schools is practical. Additionally, there was no plausible or remotely accurate evaluation it was more economically feasible to build, to start again, than do modifications to the school....NONE. As for colleges and universities, many buildings have radiator heat, open windows, and even fireplaces (The Lawn at UVa has fireplaces in each room- the kids survive).

4) You presented to facts to substantiate it is more economic to build than maintain existing assets.

Consolidation into existing assets in a tonw of declining population is highly logical, not expansion awaiting what may come. It won't. Finally, to your point that new schools lead to better scores and performance, to my knowledge there are all new elementary schools. That surely did not raise performance against measures nor increased population. But in your analysis, it must because of that old building downtown where Cincinnati State is supposed to strive, named Vail.

Using your analogy, the city should keep the golf course and airport for a few more years, and rebuild them, as ambiguous costs of ownership including maintenance, are going to be higher than replacement. I bet you lease a new car annually as well.
        

chmoore1 wrote: Vet: no discussion necessary---I was just using my July "6 indicators" phrase to get it out of the way.  Now we have to wait til August to bring it up again....chmoore

Yep, and the subject of indicators will be consistently brought up until school supporter people like you stop the lip service and start changing the numbers in a positive direction by actually addressing the problems. You support 'em. You help 'em solve their dilemma. Some of us are tired of the same old crap for over two decades now and wasting money paying for a white elephant of a school system.

chmoore1 wrote: Acclaro: rationally explain what your plan is for the old middle school, which is 90 years old this year---in ten more years it will be---surprise!---100 years old, since you won't let us build a new one.  RATIONALLY, please, without going off on a tangent about all the other ills in our town and society.    chmoore    Vet: I forgot to mention that "purchase" has an "R" in it.

Thank you for the correction Moore. Unlike you, I may make a mistake now and then. Most people do. Also, unlike you, I don't buy the crap the school people are shoveling. Never have. You connected with the school in some way bud? Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

Vet: no discussion necessary---I was just using my July "6 indicators" phrase to get it out of the way.  Now we have to wait til August to bring it up again....chmoore

come on acclaro--plenty of rational thinkers around here

chmoore1 wrote: I just want to know what we're going to do about the 6-out-of-26 indicators that I've heard so much about...chmoore

Darn good question Moore. Want to start the discussion since you brought it up?

“Although we’re not sure how the exact use of it will be … the key is it gives us more flexibility as we design the new middle school and high school,” Long said. “We can’t control when properties maybe come on the market so we made a move to secure this property because we feel it will be in the best long-term advantage of the district.”

Acclaro....I don't know what paving streets has to do with building a new middle school and re-habbing the high school.  City government and the school system are two different entities and can not combine money.  I also don't know how comparing property taxes in a different state to Middletown yields any insight into how high, or low Middletown's taxes are.  Also I think you're off a bit on the numbers.  I know that a house appraised for $155,000 in Middletown yields $3,000/yr in property taxes.  I also know that a house appraised for $700,000 in the Lakota School district pays over $12,500 per year.  We can all move to Mississippi and pay $800 per year on a $200,000 house but also then pay to have your kids educated in private school.

With the declining enrollment If the district would just wait another 5-7 years the high school could fit 7th through 12th in one building.

I find it outrageous, indeed unconscionable, for the school district to give consideration for building the school buildings now. Middletown is a wasteland. most streets have not been paved in greater than 22-25 years, and yet....here again, the school district builds. Enrollment is down. When this happens, the market in Middletown just gets worse. What an unfair scenario to the homeowner, who cannot sell property, and now faces the higher taxes. All that will remain in Middletown will be the public employees that support one another; school district employees supporting higher taxes; city employees supporting higher building schools. A land of public sector, nothing else. Tax payers will be fools to pass this. But, that's why the school district moved in the city building; avoid "sunshine" and plot for taxes.In Scottsdale, Az a $650,000 home yields 1800 annual taxes. In Middletown, a 140,000 home yields about 3700. in taxes. You are killing the city. Taxes never work, and brick and mortal doesn't bring kids in.