Posted by Speaking Just for Me on January 28, 2005 at 19:35:08 (PST):
In Reply to: Re: School board posted by The Unknown on January 28, 2005 at 07:42:56 (PST):
: : : : : I have lived in this school district for a number of years and really not much seems to change. I glanced at the new asd-news site, they seem to want you to know whose site it is but don't directly identify themselves and they are definitely against, Jim Solak, Barry Crytzer, and Family Life. And some of their arguments have merit. But it seems to me that is all that ever gets done in this area, arguing and back stabbing. We have West Shamokin, Lenape,and West Hills as new or fairly new buildings . One group wants consolidation, another smaller class size, it seems no one really takes into account what the students may want; how many graduating classes have come and gone while the boards argue on with what ever they are pushing.The newest schools, the best equipment doesn't guarantee anymore success for your child than what they have now, either way it depends on the induvidual- what they want and what they will do to get it.Mommy and Daddy can give them a new SUV, and call the teachers to move that B up to an A but after they get into college or some higher learning institution, Mommy and Daddy lose their influence. Mom and Dad should learn what real love is not how much they can give Johnny and Jaine because that is what they will need to survive in the world today not material love.
: : : : Okay, you are one of those people who think a little money will accomplish everything. You must feel disgusted with your pathetic, loser life to think this thought enough to type words. It's not money that gets you anywhere in life. Yeah, it helps but it doesn't accomplish everything or even something. Hard work, goals, and making yourself be something is what it is about weather you come from Armstrong School District or Fox Chapel. Think before you speak.
: : : : Why is it Smeltzer wants to save Elderton when it is going to cost about 40 million to even remodel the building ? The 40 million is going to be more cosmetic than structural and in another 10 to 15 years, you're going to end up spending additional monies to maintain the building and the staff. If you cut out some of the extra buildings, extra staff now then you would see your taxes being lowered within 5 to 10 years. At the rate this school district is going with the current situation with buildings, staff, and the like then you're going to see over 35% increase in your taxes within the next 10 years if not more.
: : : Furthermore, this is why some of the school board wants to build new buildings, to cut staff, etc. Yes, taxes increase now but in the future you save money. The bottom line is by spending now, you save in the long run. Can't you get your head out of your ass long enough to see this truth?????????
: : : If not, you don't understand enough about construction or taxes or business or politics to grasp even a single bit of wisdom to carry on this debate...........
: :
: : It sounds like you are the one who has NO idea or clue about planning, business, and especially taxes.
: : You are talking about cutting staff as a means to save money, blah..blah..blah. this is beginning to sound very familiar.
: : Your outlook and beliefs are flawed, while your futuristic predictions are faulty at best.
: : There is more to the story than, "Okay, let's build brand new schools, and then we cut staff and we save money." If this subject was only so simple.
: : You are not accounting for the increase of transportation, if you decide to build this utopian campus. Where do those costs come in?
: : Just because you decide to consolidate, it does not mean that you are necessarily going to be able to cut a bunch of teaching jobs. Your classes will be bigger, and may force you to keep the same amount of teachers you have now.
: : So, where are these big savings?
: : Pay attention, those who read this board. the selling of the snake oil is being placed on the market shelves with the posts you have seen above. They will try to act like they know what they are talking about, and even think that they know what they are talking about, while it is nothing more than a hidden agenda to be reckless with your tax dollars. If you have never been to a school board meeting, this is the same rhetoric they use in that forum.
: : These are some dangerous people in charge of the district's money. If they have a surplus, they spend it.
: : And for all that baloney about spending now to secure for the future??? Huh?? What model can you use to compare this plan?
: : It sounds like these people want to short-change our youth of today. We do have kids who work hard in and out of the classroom. And guess what? They have succeeded at IUP, Clarion, Penn St., Pitt, Carnegie-Mellon, and Notre Dame.
: : A simple question, "Do you really think building new and fancy schools is going to make kids study more?" Or, do you think the kids who are not succeeding may be affected by other things such as parents who do not take time out to spend time with their kids and their studies? New schools with all the bells and whistles and astronomical costs are not going to do anything for a kid whose parents don't give a damn. This is more of reflection of the society we live in, AND that is where we should spending more money....on KIDS not new schools.
: : Quit scaring the public and show your true agenda.
: : You may have shouted other people down on other sites, but you have some intelligent people on this board who can see straight through all your B.S.
: I may have shouted other people down on other sites you state. What the hell? Why is it that you would wish to jump to the thought of who I am? I am not a part of the school board or the school district. I do have a child in one of the schools. My belief is that in reality you're only seeing a half painted picture. If you think about the terms staff for a moment, it does not mean just teachers. There are janitors, maintance, cafeteria workers, etc. also. By cutting out these older buildings, you remove the need for those staff altogether for one. This would mean I am right by being able to reduce staff. Transportation costs in the reality is simple to figure out. You're still going to pay an outside source to bus Elderton to Elderton or Ford City to Ford City just as you would if you were to bus Elderton to West Shamokin or Kittanning and just as you would if you were to bus Ford City to Kittanning. These are examples, they are not to reflect thoughts upon closing Ford City or Elderton. The transportation cost would be about the same. What can this school district gain by having buildings that are in dire need of repairs that are going to cost the taxpayers as much to repair as it would to build a new school? Isn't it going to be more cost effective to build new whereas in 10 years, you're not faced with more repairs on an already decaying building? Where does this not make sense? Here's something to chew on for awhile. You go and buy a home built in 1944 for 20,000 dollars. Your repairs, up keep, and total cost are going to be as much as the home's value if not more. This would apply to buildings such as Elderton in logic sense. However, you spend 150,000 dollars on a new home. Your repairs, up keep, and total cost are going to be lower. In the long run, you save money. How can you not do such simple math???????
Simple math lacking logic would be what you are using.
Transportation costs being about the same? Bigger area to cover + more students = more $$$$. You still have not named me a model that has been successful with an area as big as the ASD.
I can give you an example right from this area. Despite all the bickering over Kittanning and Ford City back in the early 90's consolidation, the true facts that are in black and white is that transportation costs soared. You can get that information by stopping in at the ASD office. I do not have to debate you on that topic.
As for new buildings versus old buildings, I would make a wager that the building built decades ago are more structurally sound than West Shamokin and Lenape Elementary. I remember when Lenape Elementary was the "elementary school of all elementary schools." The roof needed repaired every 6 months. They had electrical outages on a frequent basis. The elementary school that I went to was decades older and did not experience any of those problems.
Any building is going to need repaired, let's get that straight. If the correct renovations are completed, maybe the people of Pittsburgh should think about taking the wrecking ball to the Cathedral of Learning, since it was built in the 1920's. If you take care of your buildings, then you will have quality learning centers for children. Or, are you more worried about sports and TV channels over academics??
It is not out of reality for your example of $150,000 building to run into excessive expenses within a short period of time. You can look around this area and see that. Shoddy materials, bad labor, incompetent engineers, etc. could all cause more expenses.
Hey, I am no anti-consolidationist, because everybody knows the attendance area is shrinking in some areas, but this current board is hell-bent on this massive restructuring of all the buildings and pumping money into a few small areas. The cronies that they have hired have even disagreed with them, correct? Or, is that some type of fabrication, also?
This current board is working on their own agenda with no recognition of the people paying the taxes. Maybe with a few new faces, and a few new ideas, I would be more receptive, but this board is not worthy of the public trust at all. It does not matter what attendance area you are from, because the pot that they are spending contains the entire district's tax money.
I will still state that your idea of banking the future on the new schools bringing in new jobs is unproven and very, very risky.