School Board Pitches Taxpayer Funded Lakewood Community Fitness Facility

[james fitzgibbons]

I would like to say more but it would get me in trouble!

[Richard Baker]

It is obvious that the present school board with the lavish building sprees has forgotten the Lakewood School's mission is to educated children so they can compete and become successful in a very competitive world. It is not to build new schools because they look good stealth reason of a consolidation program that removes neighborhood schools and requires school children to walk or commute greater distances. It most certainly does not include providing fitness facilities to anyone other than the STUDENTS. Lakewood has one of the highest tax levies in Northern Ohio, with the School Board and Superintendents mediocrity performance with state rating of 354 out of 704, K-12. The scholastic results do not reflect the taxpayer’s investment in a system that appears to be managed by the inept and inert. The school boards continual request for funding and it’s for "student’s education" is a ruse that needs to end. Interested members of the public with a desired to focus on the sole mission of educating the students need to run for the school board. A total housecleaning of the board is need including replacing a superintendent with a grade card of 50 or a F. There are no excuses, the successful school districts don’t make excuses, they simply perform.

The City of Lakewood Council and the School Board have commonality, they are both more interested in form over function and this is the reason both reward meritocratic performance.

[Richard Baker]

It is obvious that the present school board with the lavish building sprees has forgotten the Lakewood School's mission is to educated children so they can compete and become successful in a very competitive world. It is not to build new schools because they look good stealth reason of a consolidation program that removes neighborhood schools and requires school children to walk or commute greater distances. It most certainly does not include providing fitness facilities to anyone other than the STUDENTS. Lakewood has one of the highest tax levies in Northern Ohio, with the School Board and Superintendents mediocrity performance with state rating of 354 out of 704, K-12. The scholastic results do not reflect the taxpayer’s investment in a system that appears to be managed by the inept and inert. The school boards continual request for funding and it’s for "student’s education" is a ruse that needs to end. Interested members of the public with a desired to focus on the sole mission of educating the students need to run for the school board. A total housecleaning of the board is need including replacing a superintendent with a grade card of 50 or a F. There are no excuses, the successful school districts don’t make excuses, they simply perform.

The City of Lakewood Council and the School Board have commonality, they are both more interested in form over function and this is the reason both reward meritocratic performance.

[Stan Austin]

Richard-- without getting into the particulars, just about everything about your post is wrong. Starting with the basic premise, the original school buildings were almost 90 years old. An analysis of cost per day of upkeep and maintenance indicated that that was equal to a new building expenditure. So, on a purely rational cost benefit analysis the physical infrastructure had to be replaced. That along with changing demographics and new academic expectations drove the new buildings.
I really like the new schools (I use this word instead of buildings). If I could do it over again, I'd love to do it in these new facilities. Stan Austin

[Richard Baker]

[quote="Stan Austin"]Richard-- without getting into the particulars, just about everything about your post is wrong. Starting with the basic premise, the original school buildings were almost 90 years old. An analysis of cost per day of upkeep and maintenance indicated that that was equal to a new building expenditure. So, on a purely rational cost benefit analysis the physical infrastructure had to be replaced. That along with changing demographics and new academic expectations drove the new buildings.
I really like the new schools (I use this word instead of buildings). If I could do it over again, I'd love to do it in these new facilities. Stan Austin[/quote]

So, everything in my post is wrong and you have the audacity to avoid the particulars [facts]. I was in one of the 90-year-old school buildings that they tore down, structurally it was sound and could have be renovated. Are you suggesting the same number of school buildings are still being used, “Changing demographics" in a built-out city and new "academic expectations”? In spite of the fact the classes are smaller, the total number of students has dropped, [those that want their child to have an education and can afford it they send them to parochial schools] these new building will improve the district's scholastic rating. I think not and you can go to the Ohio Department of Education and verify district's rating. More focus on reading, writing and arithmetic rather than the pleasant surroundings tends to educate students. Which bring me up to the question, are you defending the district get into the health fitness industry? My final question is, do you work for the school district and live in Lakewood?

[Richard Baker]

[quote="Stan Austin"]Richard-- without getting into the particulars, just about everything about your post is wrong. Starting with the basic premise, the original school buildings were almost 90 years old. An analysis of cost per day of upkeep and maintenance indicated that that was equal to a new building expenditure. So, on a purely rational cost benefit analysis the physical infrastructure had to be replaced. That along with changing demographics and new academic expectations drove the new buildings.
I really like the new schools (I use this word instead of buildings). If I could do it over again, I'd love to do it in these new facilities. Stan Austin[/quote]

So, everything in my post is wrong and you have the audacity to avoid the particulars [facts]. I was in one of the 90-year-old school buildings that they tore down, structurally it was sound and could have be renovated. Are you suggesting the same number of school buildings are still being used, “Changing demographics" in a built-out city and new "academic expectations”? In spite of the fact the classes are smaller, the total number of students has dropped, [those that want their child to have an education and can afford it they send them to parochial schools] these new building will improve the district's scholastic rating. I think not and you can go to the Ohio Department of Education and verify district's rating. More focus on reading, writing and arithmetic rather than the pleasant surroundings tends to educate students. Which bring me up to the question, are you defending the district get into the health fitness industry? My final question is, do you work for the school district and live in Lakewood?

[Bridget Conant]

I’m happy the schools were updated for the students. I certainly don’t mind paying for that.

I do, however, mind paying for a subsidized gym facility for the public, to the exclusion of the students. I don’t recall that being part of what we were paying for and had I known that I may well have voted differently.

The schools are in the business of educating students, not running a fitness business at taxpayer expense.

[Mark Kindt]

The schools are in the business of educating students, not running a fitness business at taxpayer expense.

Hear! Hear!

[Gary Rice]

There is absolutely nothing nefarious going on here.

I do not mind stepping in once again to remind everyone that Lakewood's public schools have, for many years now, been very proactive in their support of continuing education for the WHOLE community. These buildings and facilities are for ALL of us.

Supporting that purpose, therefore, the term "students" logically includes... ALL of us.

That's why the Lakewood Community Recreation and Education Department puts out that glossy invitation to ALL of us to return to school and get more education, whatever our age, young or old.

Whether that might be physical education in new our new fitness facility, or other activities ranging from learning the harmonica and belly dancing, (hopefully not at the same time!) to plumbing and electrical education, to home buying seminars, to just about anything. In fact, if you have a new idea or a course that you might like to teach, give them a call.

The concept of public schools being for EVERYONE through life-long learning is a long-time Lakewood tradition, and one that ALL of us can be very proud of.

Back to the classroom.

[cameron karslake]

To me, if taxpayers paid for something they should be able to use it.

Using our tax dollars to build a exercise facility and then charging us hundreds of $ more to use what we just paid for is just wrong! We pay every year for the upkeep of the schools, that money can be used for upkeep of the exercise facility as well. Why charge above and beyond that? (Unless, enough is never enough. Which seems to be the mindset of the current school board.)

Reminds me of our wonderful bus lane on Clifton that the RTA just had to have. Our taxes paid for it but don't you dare use it! Fact is, drivers can never use the land because after the bus lane time-frame is over, it becomes a parking lane...not very convenient for drivers, doh! Clifton used to move so well, when it was 3 lanes, and cars shared the curb lane with buses. Now the road is backed up almost the whole way through Lakewood every morning, with all the cars jammed into the two "available" lanes, and no buses in sight. This kind of thing has way more influence on people moving and staying here than whether the high school has an exercise facility or not.

Another example of fleecing the public.

(Sorry for the thread drift...)

[Gary Rice]

Whether taxpayers should pay (and how much they should pay) to use a public facility is a legitimate question.

With schools however, the fact remains that there is the reality of additional expense for facilities usage in the evening, after the normal school day, including lights, heating, wear and tear, and of course, greater maintenance and custodial issues.

So really, some might feel this to be a double-edged discussion. The "kids only in our schools" crowd will argue one side of this, and the "lifelong learning" crowd will have their point of view too. Stepping away from that discussion for a moment, the fact of the matter is that our school taxes are indeed intended to fund school activities and facilities for children, while night school and recreational events do need to raise extra funding, in order to support those activities with sustainability.

Every community having rec center facilities that I know of has residential and non-residential fees for the use of those facilities, even when they are stand-alone, and not attached to their schools. I have always found Lakewood Recreation and Education fees to be very reasonable for the many outstanding extracurricular services that are available to the community.