Jump to content
And for those that think the city should provide affordable housing then at what cost per what sized unit? If city wants to provide affordable housing then put it out to bid and let private developers provide it at a lower cost.
City could say they are willing to pay $300 a month for 10 years for a new 1 bedroom rented at 80% (or whatever) of average monthly income and probably see a bunch of developers that that deal that costs the city a fraction per unit of what Iron Horse has cost.
More misleading information.
Colorado districts can and have routinely turned down out of district students if the school are crowded.
"Unreasonable burden" means the school district just needs a good reason to want to avoid that burden. That the school is already over rated capacity is a very good reason. We have had parents say that there are lines to the bathroom, short lunch periods and any number of other burdens due to overcrowding.
SSSD accepts kids because they want the money and they think the overcrowding issues are acceptable.
I truly wish the city council had publicly reached some consensus on what they consider important in potential offers to buy the building.
Do they want it to remain existing housing that is enforced with deed restrictions?
Do they want to sell it for the highest price and view it not their concern on what the new owner does with the property?
Having undefined criteria and considering bids in secret is the perfect formula for someone to cleverly buy it at a bargain price by making promises they don't need to keep. Anyone else remember Ed Trousil receiving money for trails, but having a loophole of not having to allow public access?
After listening to someone talk about STEM/maker, it seems completely contrary to that program to move from a downtown location with an adjacent creek, two nearby creeks, a nearby river, and a wide variety of downtown businesses.
If the high school was currently located on a hay field 3 miles west of downtown then we would be reading about all of the reasons that being a modern school with STEM/maker requires moving the high school to downtown.
It is not surprising that out of district students want to go to school in SB. What is extremely surprising is that SB school district continues to allow out of district students into overcrowded schools.
There is a reason that Cherry Creek school district is not educating every kid in the Denver area and that Aspen school district is not educating every kid in the Roaring Fork Valley. The reason is that they do not accept out of district students into overcrowded schools.
The state law on out of district students is a yet another phony issue being claimed by the school district. SSSD claims they must accept out of district students into classes with room in overcrowded schools, but other Colorado districts have operated for years with legal advice that says overcrowded schools do not need to accept additional students. SSSD's own statements on crowded lunches, etc proves the other district's legal advice that space in a classroom does not mean there is space in the school. And they have not lost in court that I can find.
Yes, he works for both because Soroco is too small to afford their own full time finance staff and many other services.
Pretty devastating for parents in both districts that SB is accepting students from Soroco district as out of districts students and adding to SB's overcrowding issues, AND Soroco is losing students that they need to make their budget.
So they accept students from out of district into overcrowded schools with the EXPECTATION OF ADDITIONAL STUDENTS ARRIVING!!!
Why, bother. Just give them a blank check and let them escalate property taxes as much as they want.
Aspen school district avoided having to build new schools when faced with overcrowding by stopping to allow out of district students and search for students not truly living within district boundary.
SS school district upon having crowded schools lets in a bunch of out of districts students into crowded schools. School district is intentionally making the overcrowding problem that they want $92M in new buildings to correct.
So the funny thing about the enrollment numbers is that they are 1.5% increase from in district students, not 2% as predicted as the trend. If the school district was not so generous at accepting out of district students then we would already not be seeing their growth.
It is absolutely normal for rising housing prices to reduce number of school aged kids because younger families with kids have harder time competing for housing. It is not that all young families get wiped out in, but that 5% or 10% fewer are able to move in so that enrollment shrinks by 1% or 2%.
As for STEM/makerspace, if we need new schools to make that work then we will soon enough need to remodel those schools for whatever is the next educational fad. We cannot "optimize" schools for the latest educational fad and expect that to be a long term solution as if there will not be future educational fads.
I don't object to STEM/makerspace, but to claim that we are optimizing classrooms for it is also an explicit admission that soon enough we will be asked to remodel schools for the next educational fad.
It is deceptive to set a false standard of undefined "neighborhoods" to say that a whistler elementary school doesn't have enough potential students.
It is clear that there are enough kids of student age for which a whistler elementary school is closer than Strawberry Park.
Scott B's descriptions of problems with a Whistler appear to have serious factual errors.
Census data says that if a Whistler elementary school started at Anglers Dr (fair midpoint) and was south and east (which makes that the closer school) then there are at least 500 students. That is fairly close to what is a third of the elementary students.
It so deceptive to say it "would require about 2/3 of the students to come from outside those "neighborhoods.". Okay, "neighborhood" can be defined to be a small area so that only a third of the students are in that "neighborhood". But a split at Anglers and saying those east and south which are closer to Whistler than Soda Creek or Strawberry Park means that about 500 kids are in that area..
Kids in Tree Haus, Dakota Ridge, Catamount Lake, etc don't live in neighborhoods with enough population to have a neighborhood school. But a Whistler elementary would be CLOSER!!!
And saying that an expensive bridge over wetlands would be required shows, yet again, how they let a false issue eliminate an option. A bridge over a small creek hardly seems to be that expensive. Maybe they need to spend a little for wetlands mitigation. Or if it is actually expensive then just as previous school district acquired a neighboring residential property to allow Soda Creek elementary to have a drop off area, they could buy an adjacent house for about $400,000 to give a second access at Whistler. Hardly a show stopper.
And who cares if some people might object to the school district building a school in their neighborhood on a parcel long owned by the school district that has always been projected to be a school when needed?
The more the supporters try to justify this then the more they reveal how they early on fell in love with the new high school idea and made sure that was the only viable option.
I have never heard or seen any other school district decide against a neighborhood school which has the needed population closest to it, but instead go to a central two elementary school campus. And that is supposed to be the long term solution? Madness.
Last login: Sunday, August 16, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.