Jump to content
It is difficult to directly compare the deficit during Bush's 8 years vs Obama's term. Bush started with an economy in okay condition, created major deficits and left with an economic crisis.
Obama started with an economic crisis and two wars. If there wasn't major deficits at the start of his term then the economy could have easily fallen into depression. But current deficit is still too high.
And we can see a big part of the problem right now for Iowa. Candidates are not saying that the ag and ethanol subsidies add to the budget deficit and will be stopped as part of their fiscal plans.
Yeah, it lets middle school students share the same facility as the alternative high school students. Yet another really bad idea that is accepted in order for this plan to proceed.
"Combining Areas 4 and 5 requires the majority of Area 4 (kids up Fish Creek Road) to drive further to Whistler than Strawberry Park, hence why I consider their current solution to be more of a "neighborhood school" for them)."
Holy smokes! You used that data to make that conclusion? You didn't notice the 462 "in county" students or the 70 from Soroco?
If you all had instead used detailed census maps then you would know that in 2010 there were over 400 K-6 students south and east of Anglers Dr which is not making kids up Fish Creek go further to an elementary school. Since that is 2010 data and now 5 years have past then current number is probably about 450 students. Figure about half of the Soroco out of district students and then you have a Whistler school that today would have 485 students. That is certainly a viable neighborhood elementary school with 3 or 4 classes per grade.
The fact that BOE acted upon the extremely limited data and didn't even bother to ask the professional demographer to give student counts for different plausible boundaries for a possible Whistler elementary school demonstrates yet again the bias towards moving the high school out of downtown.
I don't know the future demographics of this town, but unlike supporters of this $92M bond issue and construction plan, I am not willing to declare that SB is exempt from typical demographic trends such as expensive housing reducing the number of school aged kids.
The supporters are the ones that claim to know the demographics long after the predictions of the demographics study in other to say that this is a "long term" solution.
It is the supporters that refuse to consider that the demographics might not be as predicted. They are the ones planning to build a high school three miles west of downtown that is only needed in the future if their projected demographics comes true.
And a two school elementary complex at Strawberry Park instead of neighborhood elementary schools also only makes sense if the supporters' demographic prediction of increasing number of students from existing housing comes true. If growth is elsewhere then neighborhood schools east and later west of downtown would make more sense.
It is the speculation and conjecture of supporters that must be right on for this to be even a successful short term solution.
And the claim that we will pay substantially more if we don't act now because of increasing interest rates is a blatant lie.
Interest rates are currently low because US is still recovering from a Great Recession. There was hope that Federal Reserve might start to "normalize" interest rates off of ZERO to a positive number by a .25% rate hike by now or maybe September. That is seen as being good policy so that big banks will finally again have to pay something to get money from the Fed. But Europe has had Greek crisis, is seeing weak economic growth and has several countries with debt issues. They have been REDUCING interest rates. In just the past couple of weeks, China have devalued their currency and REDUCED their interest rates due to their slowing economy.
Several members of the Federal Reserve have stated that these events will be considered on whether to increase interest rates. The bond market future value pricing expects a .25% rate hike and then nothing more.
It is just another lie to say we have to approve this now or we will pay substantially more for a better thought out plan next year.
And obviously, school crowding is not viewed as a substantial immediate issue by the school district as they accepted a bunch of out of district students into "overcrowded" schools.
I object to spending so much under the false promise that it is a long term plan. Schools need to be remodeled every 10 years or so to be optimized for whatever is the current educational trend.
Even worse, moving the high school out of downtown to a site 3 miles west that adds miles travel distance to the school for at least 85% of students reeks of a shortsighted move. Consolidating elementary schools onto one site instead of having local elementary schools also reeks of a shortsighted move.
Refusing to acknowledge the normal demographics trend that more expensive housing tends to result in fewer school aged kids means that it won't be many years that we probably figure out how to reverse these costly errors and put the high school back in downtown and middle school back at Strawberry Park. Ideas would probably be to convert to a K-6 elementary school, district offices, preK, keep athletic fields and whatever else at Overlook. A K-6 elementary might be built at Whistler So in less than 10 years we will probably be looking at another major bond issue to largely undo the mistakes of this project.
The additional enrollment from within district was only 1.5% until the district pushed it to above 2% by admitting numerous out of district students into the same schools that the district say are overcrowded.
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.
Last login: yesterday
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.