The Observation Deck

It appears that Lakewood may be putting a bond issue on the November ballot if we get the go ahead from the state to complete the construction projects.

I am wondering if the homeowners in Lakewood will be able to afford both. If they had to choose which do you think the average voter would pick?

Ryan Salo wrote:It appears that Lakewood may be putting a bond issue on the November ballot if we get the go ahead from the state to complete the construction projects.

I am wondering if the homeowners in Lakewood will be able to afford both. If they had to choose which do you think the average voter would pick?

Ryan

Let's see if this point is even moot first.

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would:
1) Not want to finance education?
2) Not want to finish a ten year project?

If you do not like how the schools spend money, that is a Board Election not a Levy.

If you do not like how the programs rolled out, , that is a Board Election not a Bond.

Generally speaking, I want the kids in my neighborhood as smart as possible.
I want the buildings finished, to keep up my property values.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:If you do not like how the schools spend money, that is a Board Election not a Levy.

Jim,

Let's say you had a purchasing agent for one of your companies that was spending your money inappropriately. You spoke with them and realized that they just don't understand how you want your business money spent. Would you continue to give them more money to spend while you were interviewing potential replacements?

Ryan Salo wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:If you do not like how the schools spend money, that is a Board Election not a Levy.

Jim,

Let's say you had a purchasing agent for one of your companies that was spending your money inappropriately. You spoke with them and realized that they just don't understand how you want your business money spent. Would you continue to give them more money to spend while you were interviewing potential replacements?

Ryan

Let's get closer to the actual problem.

You make widgets, little things that wobble. And you make some of the best widgets around.
Now these widgets are filled with all sorts of things, and tested. Do you scrimp on the
manufacturing end? Do you scrimp on the machinery building end? Not pay heat? Buy
cheaper ingredients? Perhaps tell your customers this is just a temporary we are going
cheap until we can fix the real problem that only some of us believe it is?

What you are suggesting is that Lakewood, a great city dedicated to education of kids, and
everyone as proven with our financial commitments over the past two decades, walk away?

We say no to this levy, the next one is more it has to be. Skip the bond issue and what is
gained? A later payoff from the state? Unusable buildings?

What do we gain except a couple sheckles in our pockets.

Naw, I take smarter or as smart kids.

.

Ryan Salo wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:If you do not like how the schools spend money, that is a Board Election not a Levy.

Jim,

Let's say you had a purchasing agent for one of your companies that was spending your money inappropriately. You spoke with them and realized that they just don't understand how you want your business money spent. Would you continue to give them more money to spend while you were interviewing potential replacements?

Hey Ryan, I like how this question separates things out.

I would continue to give the purchasing agent money to keep the organization going-- operation costs-- until better people were in place and completely familiar with the job.

I would not give those same agents money for a Bond if I felt that what they were asking for was at least 16 million dollars more than it needed to be, and it put buildings in places that would further disenfranchise Lakewood residents and families more than they already have been by the City allowing drugstores, fast food restaurants and bike nights into their front and backyards.

Even if "Finishing the High School!" was being held hostage, as it is.

Leaving the high school half done-- a way to guarantee that it would be held hostage to whatever choices our purchasing agents wanted to make -- was a very bad decision, made intentionally, and not made by the voters. It was engineered for this "hostage" situation. Because what's going on at the high school is silly and bad doesn't justify more bad decisions.

I also hate the idea of demolishing Lincoln Elementary school, (now that my daughter goes there, and I've had a chance to become more familiar with it) which is the current plan. The building is gorgeous, if kind of crazy--(check out the chimneys!) The memories people have are of that building-- if there was going to be a different Board Administration building-- this would be the place for it. I'm not sure that Lakewoodites understand that the building, with all its character, will be gone and replaced with something that looks like a social security office, with three (or more!) floors.

And that houses will have to be torn down on both sides of it. And that this monstrosity will cost millions more than a choice that serves the purpose better in every way that the community asked for. (The plan is not to renovate but to "rebuild"--build a new Lincoln. It costs way too much to renovate).

There would be more than one way to skin this cat if the purchasing agents wanted to look at it. Fortunately they work for us and if we don't give them the money for the bond, then they can't make these bad decisions.

So I say YES on the Levy. And, "Let's see the plan" on the Bond. And I'm not saying that our purchasing agents need to be/or ever will be replaced. Which means we might need better ways to communicate with them than by replacing them.

What about all the things they get right? Most of us are pretty happy with most of the schools. Our Board members-- some of them-- have been there for more than 20 years! They have to be doing a lot right. Right?

Yes on the Levy.

Betsy Voinovich

Jim,

Lets fine tune your story. I make widgets and they are great, everyone likes them and I have been making them for years but the cost of labor has been increasing more than inflation so I cannot keep raising the cost of the product to keep up. If the cost to make the widgets is going to go up substantially due to me providing the Cadillac version of health care and pension, and my competitors who do not offer those benefits are able to make a similar or better widget what are my options? If I keep the high end benefits I will have to either let people go and try to squeeze more work out of less workers or I raise to cost to the point where sales drop and I go under. The most obvious option is to keep all of my employees, keep the price of the widget where it is able to keep selling and everyone takes a small cut in their benefits rather than losing their job. At some point we are going to run out of money, what happens then?

The only issue with schools is that it is not the free market and we have unions negotiating against the tax payers. The product is the students, if we are producing a good product now on x amount of money than do we really need to spend y to get the same results? More money does not equal better results, it has been proven time and time again. It is my understanding that the majority of the levy money is going to pay raises and benefits, costs that are rising due to labor agreements.

I agree that the bond issue is a no-brainer, the board was very smart by holding all of us hostage by only half completing the high school. They knew no one in their right mind would leave it like that. I am not saying I will vote against the Levy, I am just wondering out loud if our staff really needs more personal income to achieve the same results. There is a big difference between not giving a system more money and walking away. The cuts have already been made and the results are still great.

Would you pay your widget company manager more of a salary if the cost of living wasn't rising and the quality of the product he was making was staying the same?

Betsy Voinovich wrote: And I'm not saying that our purchasing agents need to be/or ever will be replaced.

Based on how many terms some of them have been there it sure seems likely they will die in office, even after they do they will still get re-elected...

Ryan

The problem is, the only excuse for not underwriting a levy is if the school is doing such a
great job they do not need it.

I can come up with no part of any equation you just mentioned where not voting for the
levy even addresses the problem, without seriously damaging the product and the brand.

For $100 - $300 a year, depending on your house, educate the kids.

.

Jim,

Please correct me if I'm wrong here. I am under the impression that the district lost 6 million and they have already cut 8 million. What have the students lost that they will get back if it passes? What will the students lose if it fails? Is this levy really for the students or is it for the teachers? I am not saying it is bad if it is for the teachers buts let's at least call it as it is.

Ryan Salo wrote:Jim,

Please correct me if I'm wrong here. I am under the impression that the district lost 6 million and they have already cut 8 million. What have the students lost that they will get back if it passes? What will the students lose if it fails? Is this levy really for the students or is it for the teachers? I am not saying it is bad if it is for the teachers buts let's at least call it as it is.

Ryan

This is an operating levy it is for operations. For the students, for the teachers, for operations.

There is no cutting one out without the other, none. You hurt one you hurt the other. You cut
one you have cut the other. But your grievance is not with wither one of these two groups.
Getting back at them does not cure anything, or accelerates the the cutting of teachers,
programs and learning possibilities of the students.

That is how it is. You do not even have complaints with the teachers I bet. You have kids
in the school system and your father was a teacher in the system. He did not negotiate
his contract, nor retirement plan with health care. The union did, and I am not sure you
can fault the union, as their job is to get the best deal they can for their members. You
are upset right or wrong with the people that negotiated the contract for the system. So
why strike out on innocent parties to get even? That is right up there with National Lampon's
infamous cover "Buy this magazine or we will shoot this dog."


This discussion reminds me of Bill Call hating the Clinic because they took a multimillion
dollar piece of property that Lakewood gave them. I will never understand how the clinic
is painted as anything but smart in that deal. The city however were the fools not the clinic.

We have lost $6 million from the state, I cannot attest for "cuts made" so lets work with
that. Do we let another $2 million drift away or do we try to shire up and maintain what
we currently have?

When a boat is springing leaks and you have a chance to patch a couple holes it is a hell of
a time to talk about firing the captain(s). It would seem apply the plugs, steady the boat,
then look long and hard at who, if anyone, is a better captain.

FWIW

,

Jim O'Bryan wrote:When a boat is springing leaks and you have a chance to patch a couple holes it is a hell of a time to talk about firing the captain(s). It would seem apply the plugs, steady the boat, then look long and hard at who, if anyone, is a better captain

Again I will ask, what are the holes? Is the ship not steady right now?

Maybe I am missing something but to me it looks like the 8 million in cuts have gone almost unnoticed. What are the students specifically gaining by this passing? The only information I have been able to find is that we need the majority of the money to go towards salary and benefits.

I will remind folks that we have almost 25% of the people in Lakewood below the poverty income line, the free lunch program is huge right now. Just because those that turn out to vote can afford the slight increase should we force those that cannot to pay more? Especially if it is primarily to go towards pay/benefits??

In regards to teachers, I do not have any issues with any teachers in Lakewood, my dad was a teacher for years as well. My main question for the teachers is this, is this the right time to go to the public for a raise?

I am undecided right now, on what I am personally going to do, I just like to ask questions that rile people up.

Back to the original question:

Which is more important, Levy or Bond?

Perhaps the answer is "both." Why does one have to be "more important" than the other.

Shouldn't they work in tandem?

Peter,

I agree with you that in a perfect system they are equally important but in this economy some voters may have to choose. Both is an easy answer but their are pros and cons to both. My question is, if they had to choose which do you feel is slightly more important?

Peter Grossetti wrote:Back to the original question:

Which is more important, Levy or Bond?

Perhaps the answer is "both." Why does one have to be "more important" than the other.

Shouldn't they work in tandem?

Not necessarily. The levy will pay for future raises and future increases in the cost of benefits. The bond issue will pay for new buildings.

The five year forecast projects that spending on pay and benefits will be $6.5 million greater in 2017 than in 2013. Part of the increase is driven by increasing salaries and part is driven by increases in the cost of health insurance.

This levy is just a small down payment.

I thought the $6 million in pension bonus payments was supposed to DECREASE future salary totals?

Cities like Stockton California are cutting police and fire protection, eliminating city services, defaulting on bond payments which feeds the collapse of home prices but:

They are set to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to pay people to sit at home.


http://www.pionline.com/article/2013042 ... tcy-court#

Lakewood spends about $12,000 per pupil and gets good results. Cleveland Heights spends about $20,000 per pupil and gets terrible results. There is simply no relationship between the amount spent on education and the quality of education.

If Lakewood spends $12,000 per pupil that's nearly $250,000 to maintain a classroom. Why isn't that enough?

Here is a challenge for 5 Lakewood teachers:

Start your own school
The district pays all the rent
you get 100 students
you get $1,250,000 per year

How would you spend the money?

Ryan Salo wrote:Please correct me if I'm wrong here. I am under the impression that the district lost 6 million and they have already cut 8 million. What have the students lost that they will get back if it passes? What will the students lose if it fails? Is this levy really for the students or is it for the teachers? I am not saying it is bad if it is for the teachers buts let's at least call it as it is.

Do a little research on Ohio House Bill 920.

Without additional revenue, the system fails, and everyone loses.

Vote FOR Lakewood school levies.


.