Bond proponents have argued that even though the plan may be flawed, it’s important to approve it anyway because otherwise important projects will be delayed. It’s important to remember, though, that the district could easily have chosen to go to the voters last year, or even earlier, for approval of a bond. (I suggested it!) Then if it had failed, there would have been time to develop a better proposal without interrupting the timeline.
Instead, the board majority waited until the latest possible opportunity to put the question on the ballot—and now they’re using this self-created urgency to pressure people into voting Yes. I don’t blame voters if they don’t react well to being manipulated in this way.
6 comments:
Some have argued that it was important to wait until this year to ask for a bond, because the borrowing is timed to kick in as our existing debt expires. But the date of the bond referendum and the date of the issuance of the bonds are two different things. Even if we had asked voters to approve the bond proposal last year, the bonds could still have been issued on the very same schedule currently being proposed, with none of them kicking in until after our current debt had expired.
A legitimate argument against an earlier bond vote would be that it would require basing the plan on one less year of up-to-date information. That’s a hard argument for bond proponents to make, though, given that they’re already advocating for a plan that extends seven years out and is based on enrollment projections that are already obsolete.
Getting back to the old Hoover issue. I see so many pro-bond people basically saying get over old Hoover closing that the decision has already been made to close it and we have other better plans in place with the FMP. Is this true and is there any realistic chance that old Hoover could stay open? I think the Hoover closure is the biggest point of contention for me and the tipping point that tells me to vote NO for the bond. How can we justify closing a centrally located and equipped school and building new capacity for those kids, just doesn't make sense. The way I see it though, keeping Hoover open would throw a huge obstacle into the FMP as it is currently written since many of the projects hinge on each side capacity projects and there are already "extra" capacity built into the East side compared to other areas where capacity will be greatly needed (North Coralville and North Liberty). If the bond vote passes and we get board members that support keeping old Hoover open, how would the FMP be impacted?
Honestly, I would be more for keeping Hoover open and closing Lincoln if we are looking at closing a school. Hoover already has air-conditioning and more capacity than Lincoln. Lincoln's renovations are going to be very expensive to get it up to the other schools standards as we have seen with estimates (for the cost of the upgrades you could almost build a brand new school). I think the Lincoln capacity is currently only like 220 and half of those are from North of the interstate and shouldn't be going to Lincoln anyways if North Liberty and Coralville weren't already so overcrowded (and aren't set to go to Lincoln in the future). Who will fill up all of the Lincoln seats? We should complete the Mann capacity upgrades and move the rest of the 100 Lincoln kids into Mann. Lincoln could still be used for something else? Old Hoover is a great location and there are many kids (all?) in that area that could walk to school. The only problem that I see is now that we have "new" Hoover we will need to come up with a new name for "old" Hoover. I wonder why they chose to new the new school Hoover?
Nothing wrong with having a Herbert Hoover Elementary and a Lou Hoover Elementary.
Ha Ha, or maybe it could be J Edgar Hoover Elementary. Or maybe even more fitting Larry Hoover Elementary named after gang leader and founder of the Gangster Disciples. How about Dr. Stephen Murley Elementary, that has a nice ring to it.
It would need to be Mr Stephen Murley Elementary.
Post a Comment