The Observation Deck

I think given the atmosphere and tax wearines, the Board has made a deliberate decision to complete all phases of the construction, which will give us the State portion for the project once phase three is completed and not try to throw everything on the plate at once......although admittedly, there will be more trips to the well coming up.

But, there is also the (futile) hope that just maybe, something about school funding may actually happen in Columbus.

Jeff

As long as we continue to let kids stay at home on purpose because it's attendance week, we'll get a "try again next year" message.

On paper, we're rated EXCELLENT but I chuckle every time I see the big "excellent" painted on the wall by the office.

This is why I channel all my time and energy towards athletics.

Jeff Endress wrote:

I would like to hear how the city intends to protect the investment

IMHO, two separate issues. Whether the schools are new and efficient, or old, and money pits for utlities and upkeep, you are still going to need to "protect the investment".

The existance of a plan to keep any facility graffiti free really has no bearing on the issue of whether an old facility that costs a great deal to maintain, should be replaced by a new facility.

Jeff

Excellent points, Jeff.
I'm off the fence, and I'll be voting NO.

I will be voting YES. It's important that we give our students the best facilities to learn in. Ivor brings up the High School and the shape it is in. Phase II will replace the science and technology labs. In the fall 36% of kids in Lakewood will be in older, outdated buildings and we need the construction to continue. I feel the board has done a great job at creating a construction plan that will benefit ALL children. When its said and done all children in Lakewood will have larger classrooms in state of the art buildings that will foster a better educational environment. I just don't see how we can vote no, especially when we know that good schools build good communities. I am really excited about the new schools. I am excited about the safety features and if you are on the fence I encourage you to go to the open houses that will be held on April 14th and 21st. JMHO.

Danielle,

I'm glad you have several solid reasons to vote yes.

I won't be voting for it, and that's where we differ. but I also don't have kids. I won't be attending LHS next year either. There's something about having classes in shanties and trailors that just baffles me.

*applauds*
you present a strong case!

There's something about having classes in shanties and trailors that just baffles me.

Just to clarify the trailers are certainly not "shanties". For the last two years I have had three of my children being taught in them and they are great. They are good sized, they have good wiring, they have working heat and air, and the students and teachers seem to really like them. My son's cello tutor has voiced skepticism about being in them next year and I have told her not to worry. They are really nice. Just wanted to let Ivor and everyone else know from personal experience. Have a great day, get out and enjoy the beautiful weather.

Ivor Karabatkovic wrote:yes, I know that jeff.

that's why I asked.
is the construction levy more important than the operating levy?
I feel that there should be a operating levy, since teachers get $8.12 checks every year for supplies. Not making that one up either.

6 years is too long, and they're going out on a limb to provide us with education and supplies. The more the school board brags about going 6 years "strong" without having to ask for an operating levy, the more they distance themselves from us (the students) and our teachers.

Maybe we can get Jay to jump in and he has the facts.

It is my understanding that possibly we might not need the operating Levy. with cost savings and schools moving.

The fact is the buildings need to be finished.


.

Ivor Karabatkovic wrote:....I feel that there should be a operating levy, since teachers get $8.12 checks every year for supplies. Not making that one up either.

Money is not the problem.

If you are correct in stating that there are 30 or so students to a class then the district depends about $330,000 a year to maintain that class. Think about it. How would you spend the money? If you had that $330,000 would you have enough money for supplies?

Apparently there is enough money for the district to pay the employee's portion of the pension contribution. $60 million over the next 10 years.

Apparently there is enough money to offer health plans with no meaningful deductible, co-pays or employee contribution. Cost $50 million dollars over the next ten years.

If the Board did not pay the employee pension contribution and had a reasonable health care plan they wouldn't need an operating levy or a bond issue.

Danielle Masters wrote:Just to clarify the trailers are certainly not "shanties".

I don't think they are so bad. Maybe not the prettiest, but not bad. They look like, from the outside anyway, pretty nice classrooms. We walk by the ones at Taft (that's what you're talking about right?) every night walking the dogs.

I'd like to know what happens if it isn't passed.

I'd also like to know what the plan is for properties like Taft is sitting on? Anybody know for sure? Just wondering.

Joe
Kinda on the fence

If I remember correctly from the first bond levy, don't we need to pass this one in order to secure the state funding that is promised?

What are the consequences if this doesn't pass?

Ivor:

Get a grip, dude.

Learning ain’t about the shiny image.

Did you lose your bearings on weekend photo shoot at Crocker Park?

Blinded by the glitz?

A humble manufactured school house will do the job, for dedicated students and teachers, just as the humble wooden school house did the job for others in other times and spaces.

I attended SUNY Buffalo in the early 70s where a legendary trailer complex called Annex B was filled with some of the greatest critics, poets and writers in world. I learned more in that setting than anywhere else. I learned because intentions to learn and teach were joined to high powered creativity and intelligence.

Vote yes; quit the whining.

For the good of the community this issue must pass.

Kenneth Warren

Bryan Schwegler wrote:If I remember correctly from the first bond levy, don't we need to pass this one in order to secure the state funding that is promised?

No. The bond issue doesn't need to pass to get the State funding. The schools need to be built to get State funding. The schools can be built using existing resources.

Kenneth Warren wrote:
Learning ain’t about the shiny image.

A humble manufactured school house will do the job, for dedicated students and teachers, just as the humble wooden school house did the job for others in other times and spaces.

Kenneth Warren

I agree, which is why I'm voting NO.

Bill Call wrote:The schools can be built using existing resources.

Bill, what does that mean?

Thanks.
Joe

Until all three phases are complete they will not get the state money. I say we started this process, it needs to be completed. Our kids deserve good buildings. And this isn't just for the kids, it's for all of us. I hear people (myself included) complain about so many things not being done right in this city, this is being done fairly and fiscally responsibly so I am supporting it. I say VOTE YES ON 4 and I will leave it at that.