Many questions have arisen over the last few months related to the process and outcome which resulted in the current building program endorsed by the Riverdale School Board. We will periodically pose questions here seeking answers that have been otherwise elusive.
What is the potential harm or benefit of holding a clarifying election to be certain voters agree with the proposed building plan?
What is the potential harm or benefit of holding a clarifying election to be certain voters agree with the proposed building plan?
There is no potential harm in a democracy to clarifying what the people want. No one should fear a clarifying vote.
ReplyDeleteThe benefit is huge. A clarifying vote would help remove questions surrounding the validity of the vote on the bond as the bonds go to market. Having a cloud over these bonds will not help sell them at the best price. We must protect the Riverdale taxpayers with a clarifying measure.
There has already been harm done as a result of the delay that this causes. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have already been spent on design and plans have been negotiated for schooling the children during construction. Any delays cost additional money which is already tight. A clarifying vote would put this off for at least a year. There are only 92 residents that have signed the petition to save the building. Assuming that all 92 voted yes and would change their vote to no the bond still would have passed.
ReplyDeleteIf the vote was still to replace, the preservationists would just challange demolition from a different angle. If there is to be a fight then lets get it on and deal with the outcome.
Where were you when you were asked to give your input throughout the process of the last two years? Why did you wait until now, costing the district residents money they should not have to be spending. You had the chance to give feedback from day one. The fact that you waited until the vote was complete to come forward and the resulting mayhem you have caused is shameful. The district did vote, and the resulting vote was to reconstruct the school. To ask for another vote when you had the opportunity to direct this from the beginning is unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteThis group talks a lot about responsible stewardship, but they don't seem to have any problem with wasting taxpayer money. This was not an overnight decision. There have been many opportunities along the way for both individuals and representatives of community groups to provide feedback and input. This is probably one of very few communities where this would occur. The number of families that can afford to live in a neighborhood where the average home price is over $700,000 is very small, and if these people don't have a problem funding this group, maybe they will be willing to pay for all the delay's they are causing if they don't get the outcome they want?
ReplyDeleteThe potential harm is that we'd go through this process for a third time (the election, the school board's genuine re-consideration being the first two). People knew what they were voting for and this is yet another expensive delaying tactic from people who refuse to let the the project continue. I see it coming ... collapse of Riverdale as we know it due to budget constraints & expensive lawsuits ... merging into another school district and the land being sold. The building would be torn down anyway, our kids would be bused to another school out of the neighborhood, and our homes values will almost certainly decrease. A new election would be as irresponsible as the Preserve Riverdale non-profit.
ReplyDeleteThe measure was written in such a way as to mislead the voter into thinking there was a possibility to save the Doyle - this was a lie - contracts had been signed prior to the vote and they were not for a remodel.
ReplyDeleteWhere have we been? We were never invited or asked to contribute our thoughts. The focus groups that were conducted did not include one single homeowner! It was faculty, people out of the district and the architects! I don't believe they pay our taxes. Finally, why is this group coined "the opposition"? I find the reference to a concerned group of taxpayers "the opposition" very arrogant and offensive. The board has not been honest, truthful and is behaving like spoiled brats who want to cover up the fact that maybe they did move to fast and made mistakes. Instead they arrogantly tell us it is all about the kids - listen if I didn't care about my kids I certainly would not waste my time or breath with a board that is unwilling to take the time and have a honest truthful discussion. Also, at the Riverdale anniversary party at Waverly why was the rendering of the Doyle splashed everywhere, including the name tags, when the board new darn well the building was going bye, bye?
Wow! someone is totally misinformed and overly angry. All the citizens of the neighborhood involved in solving the problem about what to do with a failing building, have nothing but interest in the educational product. Where did these conspiracy theories come from? What personal gain could someone derive from putting in tons of hours volunteering to help their community? Of course, their were homeowners at all these meetings -- the whole board consists of homeowners!
ReplyDeleteEvery homeowner, especially neighbors who had kids in school, know that there is a school bulletin that goes out. Every effort has been made to inform the neighborhood through the newsletter about current activities and board decisions at the school. You must read it to stay abreast. In fact, maybe this poster would like to volunteer to be the person who makes sure that the neighbors who never or currently don't have kids in school are informed. Chris Swanson and, more recently, Susan Rech have taken on this job because it became apparent that people don't read their Riverdale news unless they have kids in school. Catered information delivery requires volunteer time.
A 125th anniversay party is in honor of the first 125 years! Of course, you would use the schools current facade to encourage alumni, friends and neighbors to come.
Their is no conspiracy -- or the human condition is just evil. Let's get more positive -- no one is out to get anyone.
And, if the school floats a bond and it passes by a distinctive majority, then challenging that preferred course of action is then considered opposition. It is not meant to be nasty, it is just a fact.
Call a neighbor who you trust who you think might have voted for the new building and have an open and honest discussion. You might be surprised. You don't have to wait for someone to come to you -- reach out.
Let's state the facts: Homeowners/residents were invited to numerous meetings and welcome to give their input early in the design process. I am a homeowner and I was at several of the meetings. The invitation was in writing to the whole community, and sent out via e-mail as well. I did not hear of it by word-of-mouth. At the time, I was amazed how few homeowners cared to take the time to attend these meetings. I watched the Board struggle to incorporate the Doyle into their redesign, but finally realize that both the extra expense of doing so and the extreme limitations on what they could manage with our small site, meant a large sacrifice in terms of serving student needs. There was no "rushing" into decisions, but rather a reasoned process. When s small group belatedly voiced strong objections to taking down the Doyle, the Board reviewed the options once again in light of the current situation and reluctantly came to the same conclusion as before: the needs of today's and tomorrow's students could best be served by a new building. We have a small school site and the board must act to provide a quality education for the students of today and tomorrow. Bleeding the school of resources with litigation/opposition at this time of international economic crisis is unconscionable. Anyone who attended the recent board meeting knows that any delay will cause financial problems and harm our students.
ReplyDeleteIn the letter the folks supporting this re-vote effort just sent out, it made mention of the 'bond use proceeds election' done some years ago relating to the high school. The way it was presented in the letter was (sadly, once again) misleading.
ReplyDeleteThat election resulted from the fact that the original HS bond language specifically used the term for a high school "in" the district - since when the HS bond was voted on the expectation was it would be at the planned site on Terwilliger at the end of Iron Mountain. When that site proved impractical, and it became necessary to site outside the district, some people who did not support the district staying independent (or just didn't want to pay more taxes) started legal action because of that specific language in the bond.
So, that wasn't just a vote a la "let's take the temperature of the neighborhood because we don't like the school board's decision." It was needed for legal clearance to proceed with spending the bond proceeds, based on a change in the circumstances that were unforeseen when the bond language was drafted.
In this case, the option to replace was clearly on the table from the beginning (and for those crying foul, there also apparently will be remodeling and renovating done to the stage in the gym and to the boiler, so that part is also accurate.)
So, in this case, the bond was sold with an accurate and inclusive description of its possible uses. Having done so, the decision to what to do rests with the school board.
The idea that a vote now would not undermine all future school boards' ability to act in their lawful capacity is nonsense. It certainly would. It would be an open invitation to those in the neighborhood who don't get their way to keep revisiting any controversial issue in a variety of ways until they did, or until additional damage was done to the community - much as has been done this time.
Unlike the infamous Olympic basketball game many years ago, where the referees kept awarding a "do-over" to the Russians until they finally scored to beat the USA - this community has to realize that the bond was voted on appropriately, and the board has acted in good faith, whether you agree with their decision or not.
Time to come together folks, rather than trying to continue to pull this community apart.