Should These Excellent Schools be Destroyed?

[On this page, we are putting some of the information and images from our ad to be Published Sunday, Oct. 6, 2002. We have put small images to enable a quick download of the page, but if you click on the image, a larger one will open for you. We hope later to be able to put up a pdf file that shows more .]

Do these schools look like they should be demolished?

We disagree! We think the buildings are fine and that it is the teachers, not buildings, who educate our children.

In 1996, we approved a million dollar technology upgrade to Nordale and Denali schools. The school board wants to demolish these schools AND the technology upgrades that we are still paying on – and will be until 2016!

Computer Lab at
Nordale Elementary School.

Our current mayor and assembly, along with our school board, would have us believe that these two schools are falling apart. Yet just a few years ago, our then borough mayor stated, “Our older schools have a reputation for being the best maintained schools in the state.”

The borough values the above two buildings at $16 million. With the decline in enrollment and state funding, does it make any sense to demolish these structures?

Denali Elementary School's Library,
showing the spacious windows

We all want what is best for our children, but at what cost? It is a wise parent who stops to consider the financial burden that such a debt would place on these youngsters’ futures.

We at ITA are definitely not opposed to good schools. But as always, in looking out for the taxpayers, we feel that people should get the best possible deal for their hard-earned dollars.

Nordale Elementary School's
huge, modern library. The next picture shows the area where the photographer was standing.

With 1566 empty elementary school desks borough-wide, we doubt that this is it!

Although ITA is not suggesting that we close schools, it would, in the long run, make more sense than demolishing two perfectly good schools only to to-re-build them!

Can they guarantee $32?  NO!

They estimate the three bonds would add $32 on a $100,000 house. But the true cost depend on two things:

1.        the interest rate when the bonds are actually sold, and

2.        the amount of the 70% allocation the state actually     funds.
(At least seven times they failed to pay the full amount promised.)

Potentially, the true cost could be over $100, not $32. With the state strapped for cash now, would you bet your tax bill on their full funding?

Proposition 3 asks for $12,046,000 (with interest, $19,223,373) for school maintenance and upgrades. Our question is why? Since 1995, the school district has budgeted $142,800,200 for maintenance and repairs. This does not include the multi-millions that have been spent by the borough or for which we have received state grants. One of the things in the “maintenance” budget is the Lathrop track. We already bonded for this in 1993 – what did they do with the money?

The school district seems to be a bottomless money pit! With every new bond issue there appear items we have previously funded. How can it be that with enrollment going drastically down, the cost of maintenance, refurbishing, and new buildings keeps skyrocketing?

How many times have they asked us to mortgage our homes and our children’s future for projects for which we have already paid?

Please Vote NO to Propositions 1, 2, and 3

Not convinced? Click on Next (below) for more!

[2002 ClipOut][Earlier AD]

Back to Home|Guest Page|Lighten Up|Contact ITA