|
Post by steckdad on Sept 11, 2008 19:52:50 GMT -5
What needs expounding? That someone with an income of 400k may have a different world view than someone making 40k? All you have to look at is the debate over fiscal "responsibility." Some people didn't view the extra cost of BB as a huge issue, some did. I don't understand. Different view of the world, yes. Different view of the importance of education? You should get to know the people you speak of before you make assumptions based on income. I have to stick up for asmo on this one gator mom.....part of embracing diversity is not being afraid to talk about our differences as well as similarities. He posted what he posted, I did not read any thing else into it. are there folks that think education is important on the south side of chicago? yes. Are there people in kennelworth that undervalue the importance of an education? of course. There are differences in social and economical groups when it comes to education. there is plenty of info out there to support that. outside of that, I cannot stick up for asmo on any other point he made on this thread
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 11, 2008 20:46:59 GMT -5
Dr. Who I struggle with how the cost of building the high school becomes a day to day operational issue. It would appear the board has made a choice to pay extra to get the building available for the 2009 year. Am I missing something other than the idea that I am way off topic regarding this thread?
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Sept 11, 2008 21:08:37 GMT -5
I understand your characterizing that the candidate platform of "no changes" was voted in. I agree with you. But one huge element of "no changes" was to build a complete school with the already-voted-on referendum money. Circumstance from the jury trial caused change, one way or another. Either site (and or course boundaries) changed OR the scope of the school bldg (stadium/auditorium etc. ) and need for a future ref to complete changed. The SB used their judgement for which change was best for the entire district. I know, a lot of people are hyper-focused on boundaries. But there are plenty who understandibly focused on tax dollars spent. For fiscal responsibility, the SB did not want to force that form of change onto the district. Where I have an issue with not voting on is the way the money is being spent ( as well as total Money spent) is going to change also. Spending $10M ( maybe more) for expedite charges was not in the original plan - and the final cost of this school may very well be much more than the $124M and a 'little bump' that was sold. We get no commodity back for that $10M plus - not land , not extra bulding, just sooner delivery. Long term that doesn't add up on a balance sheet. And while we will eventually deliver a complete school- we are not doing so upon delievery even with the expedite charges - this was unacceptable at BB ( and many commented loudly on being at the school with construction regardless of where it was) and is unacceptable here IMHO. Sorry, I'm a stickler for details. The cost comparison sheet for the MV locations that were considered in January showed a $4.6M difference in the costs of opening in 2009 vs. 2010. I don't consider this an insignificant difference from $10M, so I'm calling it out.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 11, 2008 21:44:04 GMT -5
Where I have an issue with not voting on is the way the money is being spent ( as well as total Money spent) is going to change also. Spending $10M ( maybe more) for expedite charges was not in the original plan - and the final cost of this school may very well be much more than the $124M and a 'little bump' that was sold. We get no commodity back for that $10M plus - not land , not extra bulding, just sooner delivery. Long term that doesn't add up on a balance sheet. And while we will eventually deliver a complete school- we are not doing so upon delievery even with the expedite charges - this was unacceptable at BB ( and many commented loudly on being at the school with construction regardless of where it was) and is unacceptable here IMHO. Sorry, I'm a stickler for details. The cost comparison sheet for the MV locations that were considered in January showed a $4.6M difference in the costs of opening in 2009 vs. 2010. I don't consider this an insignificant difference from $10M, so I'm calling it out. I like details too as a former auditor --talk to me when the school is actually done and if they actually release what they spent. Time is running by and there are not a flood of bidders on some items. Did that sheet show what additional time might mean in terms of getting more competitve bidsif the contractors did not have the sword of damocles deadline hanging over their head- which even the SB admits has hindered the volume of bids - no. How much will be OK to approve if they start to run behind ?
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 11, 2008 21:46:00 GMT -5
Dr. Who I struggle with how the cost of building the high school becomes a day to day operational issue. It would appear the board has made a choice to pay extra to get the building available for the 2009 year. Am I missing something other than the idea that I am way off topic regarding this thread? see full answer to WP-just how much is OK ? $5M $10M anything ? That's tax money spent that has zero taxpayer residual value
|
|
|
Post by JWH on Sept 12, 2008 7:32:49 GMT -5
Dr. Who I struggle with how the cost of building the high school becomes a day to day operational issue. It would appear the board has made a choice to pay extra to get the building available for the 2009 year. Am I missing something other than the idea that I am way off topic regarding this thread? see full answer to WP-just how much is OK ? $5M $10M anything ? That's tax money spent that has zero taxpayer residual value Just like paying >$600K per acre for BB. But moot point, the first wall is up at Metea!
|
|
|
Post by gman413 on Sept 12, 2008 15:21:46 GMT -5
Since that (above) is the point, it doesn't matter what corner of the district they come from... So should we do away with the way the 2-senators-per-state rule and just elect the best 100 regardless of where they come from? Or how about this. Why not abolish all local school districts, have one state district, and have a SB elected at large without any restrictions on how many come from certain regions? Would you be happy with that? This might be a valid comparison if the district was divided into geographic regions - like congressional districts
|
|