|
|
Good to Save Money
I recall reading that by linking the elementary and middle schools that are to be built on the same site, and having the two schools share some of their common facilities, the PLSD could save us taxpayers as much as $1 million.
Central Dad, what is wrong with that? I want our school board to look constantly for ways to cut building costs and other expenses, so long as they can do so without compromising the quality of our kids' education. I also am impressed that our school board has finally found an architectural firm that has an eye out for potential economies, and not for ways to increase the cost of a project.
By Yosemite Pam
|
|
|
|
|
|
C'mon Doc
Smoke and mirrors, Doc. Remember the outspoken person from the last construction project who hammered on finding so much money left over after all was said and done? Are we really going to save money or are the board members simply creating a smoke screen to hide behind while they design another North complex?
If saving money and consolidating resources, like fire protection, HVAC, food services and the like were what they were looking for, why was the option to add on to existing sites never given more than a cursory glance?
Opportunities await each and every day to people who want to get the biggest bang for their buck, especially when it is the taxpayer?’s buck. That is what labels this board the same as past boards - the trees and the forest.
By the way, you need to get caught up. The actual savings figure is nebulous and is like trying to get Lew Stemen to give you accurate enrollment projections. You say a million, the board says a half million and now the architect is saying somewhere in the neighborhood of $400K. By the time the Fix-like sales pitch is over, who knows if there will be any actual savings?
And Doc, don?’t ignore the possibility that the district taxpayers will have to now absorb the cost of infrastructure improvements that the Eastern Lakes or whatever developer was being forced to pay but now has put his project on hold to avoid. The we get to look at the shell game of perceived cost savings on the construction of the buildings but a much higher cost on the site improvements.
And Doc, why is no one talking about what is going on at the Sycamore Creek site? You know ?– putting a flat building on a sloped site? Oh, that?’s right, that is just the city school. Oh well, whatever, just put something up down there?…?… Leave room for the trailers.
Also, while I can?’t get him (or her, wink, wink) to admit they are Central Dad, I do often talk to a person whom I hold in the highest regard who, based on their opinions and statements, might be Central Dad. What I can tell you for a fact, if my suspicions are true, is that this person would never run for the board nor would they be accepted if they got shanghaied on it. You see, unless you aren?’t reading between the lines, our board could never tolerate such a linear and logical thinker who recognizes the public trust put in them and be responsible for it. Nor could this person ever tolerate sitting in a seat populated by the likes of reprehensible egoists like Reade, Sanders and Oakes. No, if I am right, the only words you?’ll hear from this person will be the more infrequent postings to this site when issues reach a boiling point like they are now. And that is better for us all, and I am being selfish, because if what another poster put up that once you take the exalted seat and get privy to all the information that they have that makes them into more enlightened beings than ourselves, I dread losing the friendship because of what CD could become.
|
|
|
''Trust Us''
Pam,
On what basis is the $1 million savings based? Are there cost documents the taxpayers can view, or is it all a wink and a handshake?
When did the board first start looking at a combined elementary and middle school? Was it before the election? Or was it spontaneously presented to the board on November 20?
What about public trust? Does that matter at all?
If the bond issue campaign committee would have presented a combined elementary and middle school to the public, would it have passed? Or would the public have smelled another North in the making?
There are lots of questions here, Pam. The board has had over a month now to make the reasons for the decision clear to the public, but it hasn't.
The motto seems to be ''Trust Us''.
|
|
|
The Snider-Thornton Annexation
I gather, from reading the recent Ohio Supreme Court decision on this matter, that five years ago the Fairfield County Board of Commissioners approved the annexation by the Village of Canal Winchester of several hundred acres of land in Violet Township, in or near the commercially valuable US 33 corridor.
Both landowners had agreed to this annexation, but one had second thoughts about it, and attempted to challenge it. However, the challenge became wrapped up in a controversy over the effective date of amendments to Ohio's annexation law, which changed the procedures for mounting such challenges.
Petitions seeking to subject these amendments to a referendum had been submitted on the 90th day after the law's passage, just hours before the law otherwise would have taken effect. The petitions were later determined to lack sufficient signatures.
The question before the Ohio Supreme Court was, did the amendments take effect at midnight on the 90th day after the law's passage, or on the date some months later when the Ohio Secretary of State finally announced the petition's insufficiency? That was the only game in town, as far as the Snider-Thornton annexation was concerned.
The Supreme Court, in its recent decision, opted for the latter view, and remanded the case to our Fairfield County court for final determination. Since, however, the effect of the Supreme Court's decision apparently is to render the annexation challenge invalid, there does not now seem much doubt about the outcome of this matter. Its too late to mount a new challenge.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this does not seem to be a happy result for our community. Hundreds of acres suitable for commercial development stand to be lost to this community's taxpayers. I would be very interested in knowing how much land along the US 33 corridor Violet Township now has left. I also would be interested in knowing why our Township Board of Trustees apparently did not themselves challenge this annexation.
But I think our primary focus should be on what might have been done to keep this sort of thing from happening, and on what we can do to keep it from happening again.
Again, correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe anything like this could have happened if, before these annexation proceedings began, Violet Township and the City of Pickerington had merged to form a single city.
It also seems to me that our best hope for commercial development that will benefit this community's taxpayers now lies to the southeast of Violet Township along US 33, and to the northeast of Violet Township along Interstate 70. Violet Township, lacking annexation powers, can do nothing about this.
If the township merged with the city, we might be able to annex such land. Absent such a merger, however, neighboring municipalities may continue to gobble up what remains of Violet Township.
Please give this some thought.
By Yosemite Pam
|
