Suppose I built a house and lived in it for 50 years. At the end of that time, the house is falling apart. The roof is about to fall in, the plaster is cracking, there’s lots of water damage, and it’s in jeopardy of being condemned by the city. What would you think of me as a homeowner? Well, it would be clear that I had done very little maintenance, if any. That’s a given. You’d then probably speculate as to why I didn’t — am I poor? indifferent? irresponsible?
Yet, no one ever asks these questions when school districts do the same thing. When District 150 wants to borrow money to build a new school to replace Harrison, or when they want to close Irving school, the reason we’re given is the deplorable shape those buildings are in. Now Dee Mack is getting in on the action:
The Deer Creek-Mackinaw school district is asking voters to approve a referendum on the Nov. 7 ballot for a $5.4 million project that includes renovation of the 92-year-old high school building in Mackinaw. […]
[Superintendent Steve] Yarnall said the need for the referendum has been generated by several factors, including the age and code violations of the building, increased maintenance and energy costs, lack of current technology and student growth. […]
He added that the building has water damage and was not built to support technology nor does it meet the accessibility standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
I realize there are other factors at play here, but I’d like to focus on the maintenance issue here. Other news reports have school officials quoted saying the roof is about to fall in and that they’re in danger of the state board of education declaring the facility unfit for students.
So, the question that pops to my mind, but is never asked by the media, is, “why?” How did the school building sink to this deplorable state? Who’s responsible for deferring the maintenance so much that the roof is about to fall in? What policies and procedures are being put in place to ensure that the next building they get doesn’t get run down, too?
Not to be cynical, but do they defer maintenance on purpose in order to make the need for a tax increase to build a new school more urgent in the minds of taxpayers? Because, ultimately, that’s how this referendum will be framed: do the taxpayers care enough about the children of their community to get them out of that dump of a school they’re in now. Yet, the question should be, why has the school board allowed their property to get so run down that it’s endangering their students? Someone should be held accountable for that.
It’s easy to explain C.J.. Few in America question such developments because we have become accustomed to disposable buildings. Through sprawl and feeble building standards America has become accustomed to homes and buildings that are not expected to last more than 30 years on average. Buildings are built to minimize maintenance, not so much through durable materials but rather, designed to last just long enough until you can get a new building. It is no wonder that people have applied the same mindset to structures that were not built under such a premise.
The notion that someone might live in a house for 50 years and that the house would be in tip top shape is no longer an expectation that most folks share in practice. Indeed builders are counting on that house being delapidated sooner rather than later.
I have to disagree with you both. I can’t say for sure what Dee-Mack’s situation is – but as with so many school districts around the country, it boils down to money. Pure and simple, money.
Most school administrators I know would rather spend what few dollars they have on stuff for students, books, supplies, activities, etc – than frequent maintenance bills, which can be costly. Not that they don’t care about the building, not that they ignore leaks and broken windows. The necessary stuff gets done.
But just like you and I are advised to get an oil change every 3000 miles, put a new roof on the house every 10 years, replace the air conditioning filter every month – if we are strapped for cash, we push things as far as we can without damaging our car, house, central air system.
And after years of education getting the short end of the stick from just about everyone (why do you think I have to do one fundraiser/sales thingie after another for my kindergardener?) it’s enterely likely that they’ve patched and cobbled and jerry rigged their way through to avoid tens of thousands in bills so that the kids they teach could have books and pencils. OR a school band. Or a basketball team.
I work at a local institution of higher education that has a building or two in pretty damn sad shape, because the students always took higher priority (making sure they had good teachers and such) than the structure they taught in.
Now I’m not arguing for bad buildings – an excellent learning environment is heavily dependent upon the quality of the facility – no doubt. But when you have a very limited amount of money, something has to get prioritized. Making this decision isn’t easy, so don’t be so quick to blame people who are doing one of the most thankless jobs in the country.
CG,
My best analogy for how people increasingly treat buildings is like how they treat their cars. A car can last forever and look beautiful forever as well. Do people maintain their cars to realize that? No. Sure they change the oil now and then. But a multitude of little things build up over time, until the owner decides it is not worth ‘fixing’. The thing is, the owner long before that day, decided things were not worth fixing. It began with the first dent. They did not get it banged out or replace the panel. It is too expensive, right? People do the minimum to keep their cars going. They increasingly apply the same logic to buildings. Sure they might renovate a room here n there but that is like changing the upholstery in your car so you can get a couple more years out of it. The renovation also tends to be the minimum of efforts.
I am not faulting Dee Mack or individuals in District 150 per se. The mindset is prevailent throughout our society. The old car that is Harrison school, should it be restored or should we buy a new ‘cheap’ model, that will need replaced in fewer years? What about that old model T called Glen Oak? Junk it or restore it? How did all that rust get there in the first place? Why did no one sand it out before today? Why? Because no one today, expects that car to last. They expect to buy a new one.
CG — It’s a lot cheaper to maintain a building year after year than to build a new $15-20 million building every generation. When you defer maintenance on your house (let’s say it’s worth $150,000) by letting the roof go a couple more years or not changing your A/C filter, what do you do when those problems start mounting up? Do you get a loan from the bank for $250,000 to bulldoze your house and build a new one and try to convince yourself that it’s cheaper than just repairing it?
I’m with Mahkno on this one. It’s a “disposable building” mindset. No one even questions it in our society today.
governments (and sometimes other entities) want new buildings, so they let the old buildings fall into disrepair, and then ask for new taxes to build new buildings. You see that again and again. Remember the Peoria Police needed a new station? Couldn’t possibly use that old building. Of course, another City department was able to rehab it and use it. Looks very nice now, doesn’t it? Add one more building to the list of taxpayer supported structures.
Mind you, I’m glad they didn’t tear the old building down, but they let it fall into disrepair because they wanted a new building. D-M could rehab the old school building, and have a much nicer building than the new building will be, but they want a new one.
CJ, you nailed it. The mindset in America is to let big buildings go, so that new ones can be built. That’s where the money is. But, when you’re dealing with the public money, as with a school building, the mindset should be the exact opposite. There is no excuse for letting a roof go to the point that it leaks. Routine maintenance, year in and year out, even in Illinois, would have avoided that problem.
CJ: I agree with the ‘Planned obselescence’ theory and I recall someone telling me or reading that the IL code regarding school buildings has incorporated that theory into law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
Now there are so many other questions raised by your observations.
************************************
Since there are different funds for different purposes — what is the amount in the building acquisition fund, the building maintenance fund, …. is the maintenance fund not being fully funded?, funded at what level?
….. Does the school board decide at what the fund level should be for each fund?
Is there a state mandate about what the maintenance fund level should be?
Can the funds be transferred from one fund to another? Do you have to repay these funds? What if the transferring fund is not repaid? What would happen if funds are transferred to the wrong fund? What if D150 purchases properties/items with the wrong funds? What if D150 purchases something prior to the fund transfer being approved?
I think (this would need to be thoroughly researched) that when the PBC builds a school building, because D150 leases it, the PBC actually pays the maintenance on that particular school over the lease period. IF that is true, then it would seem that D150 has some ‘extra’ funds not being used for the usual maintenance during the leasing period that would be then be allocated to the book fund, the salary fund — you get the picture…..
then when D150 takes title to the school — what funds are then re-allocated from the book (whatever) fund to be used for the building maintenance fund?
Any answers to these questions?
The Peoria Park District is guilty of the same thing, they are always trying to fund a shiny new project while other facilities fall apart. The ability to allow a building to become run-down and then point at the condition of same and cry that a new one is needed is a concept that I cannot quite get my head wrapped around. You built it you maintained it and you failed, now you want my money to do it all over again? Like a little kid that leaves his bike out in the weather to rust and then wants a new one to replace the neglected one, what would you as a parent tell him? We need to treat the PPD and District 150 the same way. When they prove that they can take care of what they have then maybe we will discuss allowing them to get something new. If they claim that they did not have the money/resources to keep up with the needed repairs and maintanance then when a new project is proposed we need to ask them where they think they will find the massive funds needed over the next 50 years to make sure that they do not fail again.