Jump to content
I bet you enjoyed writing that report, Julian!
I have to admit, the All Blacks were deserved winners, but the Wallabies didn't disgrace themselves.
If it wasn't already blatantly obvious that the $92M plan was half-baked, and the process unnecessarily rushed, this is compelling proof. How many other glaring holes will we find when we dig a bit deeper? Time to step back, take a deep breath, engage properly with the community through a process that feels more like a shared journey than a forced march, and come back with a more realistic and less grandiose plan that the community can support.
We can't adopt a less ambitious and expensive plan that addresses the immediate capacity needs because, shock, horror, we might have to go back to the voters in five or ten years time? Really? Why would that be a problem, unless the proponents are afraid the projected enrollment growth won't come to pass, and realize we never really needed everything in the $92M plan...
To risk being stuck with having spent tens of millions of extra dollars on school infrastructure we don't need (and be saddled with the ongoing maintenance costs as well) is breathtakingly reckless.
I'm a registered libertarian and generally not a fan of governments getting involved in goods and services that can be provided in a competitive marketplace by the private sector. But in the case of internet services, there's a decided lack of proper competition, especially in the backhaul services. As Jon says, the big telcos have had a decade to get their acts together. I will therefore be voting YES.
Laura, the confidence with which you say "another short-term solution ... will be outgrown before it’s even completed" is breathtaking given how much uncertainty there is around the demographic forecasts. It's equally if not more likely that we'll find ourselves with far more school infrastructure than we actually need.
Those pushing this for this bond issue have become a parody of "something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done."
It's almost as if the budget doesn't matter when spending other people's money...
" I am a concerned citizen who wants the best programs and sports facilities for my children."
And don't worry about the cost.
From the outside it looks like selecting the most expensive, grandest plan possible was the intention all along. Rigged might be too strong a word, but if you don't see that a process that decides on a $90 million dollar plus plan in a few short months is defective, you aren't trying hard enough to put yourself in the shoes of the average citizen, rather than those who live and breathe this stuff.
Railroaded is how I and many others feel.
Ken, I suggest before you start throwing around terms like "self-centrered" and "self-serving" you ask yourself how you and all the others who have latched on to the most expensive option possible so their kids can have the best of everything look to those of us who have no kids but will help pay the bill...
I can accept that I have a civic duty to ensure every kid, even though I have none of my own, learns the basic skills they need to be a productive member of society. But much of what Paula describes goes way beyond that.
I suppose I have a different perspective having grown up in Australia where the schools are much less grand and most extra-curricular activities are funded by parents, not taxpayers. Yet Aussies seems to be doing quite well in the world.
Fifty years of being told that if we just throw more money at public schools seems to have produced no improvement in education outcomes. But this time it will be different!
An unnecessarily grand plan which could just as easily be proven foolhardy by changing demographics as the District's last grand plan. I will be voting against it.
Seriously, an entire article about a poster, that doesn't include a pic of the said image?
Last login: Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |