So, what do we make of Monday’s school board meeting?
The long and the short of it is that the school board is really not interested in working out a compromise with the city. This moratorium on property acquisition and meetings with Ray LaHood and the city has all been a farce and a waste of everyone’s time. They either want to locate next to an existing park or force the city to create a new park adjacent to an existing school site. Of course, they know very well the city isn’t going to pay over $5 million to give land to the school district even if they had it to spend. So, that means, thanks to their inflexibility on the arbitrary acreage standards, the new school will be built right where they wanted it all along: in Glen Oak Park.
In essense, they want to create a suburban school environment (one-level building in a sea of green space) in the heart of the city. And they believe, without any solid evidence, that this will improve the educational environment and give our children “the best” instead of “good enough.”
As for specific rebuttals to board members’ concerns:
- There was a lot of rhetoric about “denying opportunities” to the children and “compromising educational objectives” if they received any less than 15 acres. However, at the very beginning of the meeting, Alicia Butler announced the times and locations of the next two “planning sessions” (i.e., community forums) that would help “determine the programming and space needs” for the new “birth through eighth” schools that will be built. If the programming and space needs haven’t been determined yet, how do they know they need 15 acres?
- Hinton mentioned he wanted a baseball field and a soccer field… that adds up to about 5 acres. What are the other 10 for?
- Do these children not have access to a park when school is not in session? To hear the school board members talk, you’d think these kids were prisoners in detention camps, never allowed outside except to attend school. Also, how dense do they think the East Bluff is? It’s not like these kids don’t have any yards at all. I lived on the East Bluff for 11 years and, while it is denser than suburbia, there’s a healthy bit of green space there, thank you very much.
- I’ve already dealt extensively with the question of ISBE recommendations in a previous post.
- As for accessibility, did they ever consider putting the children with special needs on the first floor, and the able-bodied children on the upper floor(s)? A sprawling, single-level school will look incongruous in the East Bluff.
- From Gorenz and Allen, I’d like to know when school improvement and community revitalization became mutually exclusive activities. This is a false dichotomy, and further evidence that the school board isn’t interested in any real dialogue or compromise. The sad truth is, if the school board and city are working against each other, they will both lose.
- Ken Hinton talked about the psychological effects green space has on children — that it “lifts a child’s spirit” and makes them want to learn! If so, how does he explain the dismal performance of Sterling school, which sits on 26 acres of spirit-lifting green space? Or that students in acreage-deprived Whittier are the fifth best in the district on standardized tests? Anomalies?
The most insulting part of this whole discussion is the clear implication that city leaders, parents, neighbors, and other concerned citizens are a bunch of malevolent obstructionists who get their jollies out of subjecting their own and others’ children to dilapidated educational facilities to satisfy their own selfish desires, and that the only kind-hearted, child-loving saints in the city are the seven members of the school board.
Yet their facilities “solution” is not based on any objective, evidence-based educational practices, but rather arbitrary standards and anecdotal evidence. I would recommend to the school board that they read a publication from the U. S. Department of Education called “Identifying and Implementing Educational Practices Supported by Rigorous Evidence: A User Friendly Guide.” (PDF File)
I would especially like to draw their attention to page iii, which states:
As illustrative examples of the potential impact of evidence-based interventions on educational outcomes, the following have been found to be effective in randomized controlled trials – research’s “gold standard†for establishing what works:
- One-on-one tutoring by qualified tutors for at-risk readers in grades 1-3 (the average tutored student reads more proficiently than approximately 75% of the untutored students in the control group).
- Life-Skills Training for junior high students (low-cost, replicable program reduces smoking by 20% and serious levels of substance abuse by about 30% by the end of high school, compared to the control group).
- Reducing class size in grades K-3 (the average student in small classes scores higher on the Stanford Achievement Test in reading/math than about 60% of students in regular-sized classes).
- Instruction for early readers in phonemic awareness and phonics (the average student in these interventions reads more proficiently than approximately 70% of students in the control group).
It’s interesting to note that “provide students with 15 acres of spirit-lifting green space” isn’t listed. That’s not to say they aren’t focusing on the things that are listed, as I’m sure they are, but the difference between these items and the 15-acre minimum is that the listed items have been proven effective.
To establish a 15-acre standard that has proven ineffective in the district’s own experience, produce no rigorous evidence indicating it will be effective in the future, and then tell the public they are somehow denying their children a quality education if they don’t give them said 15 acres, is nothing more than a hollow emotional plea — a straw man set up for no other purpose than to “guilt” people into agreement.
Frankly, to say I’m disappointed with the school district would be an understatement. I’ll continue to send my children to private school. And if I didn’t love Peoria so much despite the school district, I’d move out just to deny them my tax money.
When do the new school board members come on board and will their attendance in discussions and voting change anything? I find it interesting that all this hubbub has come AFTER an election in which none of this was an issue and BEFORE the seating of the new board members. It seems that such a long term issue should be domain of the new board.
The recent meetings that Mr. LaHood had were for nothing. District #150 plans to move forward with ths Park site. This school board meeting let out a lot of information as to a single story school to be constructed, unable to renovate the current Glen Oak school, ball fields to be constructed ,soccer field to be constructed. 150 is sticking to that 15 acre rule and they know that the City of Peoria can’t fund that amount of land purchase. Where will the soccer field go at the park site? ball field? will this be the end of the lagoon for a ball field or a soccer field? Say goodby to the “Peoples Park” now all speical use as a zoo and a school. King Mathison and Hinton rule. the heck with the residents and tax paying public. Hell, who listens to the little people any way. we just will get it in the rear and pay our taxes and like it. The abandonment of the East Bluff will be compleat with the closure of Glen Oak school. Why soulid I care or anyone else how this neighborhood is . it is apparent #150 does not care. Cut and run. This action just re-enforces the flight from this older neighborhood. Good people gone and drug houses and slum land loards haven! Litter for everyone!
Menwhile, no signed and executed intergovernmental agreement between D150 and PPD. No resolution of the lawasuit against the PPD for alleged violations of the open meetings act to ‘share park land without a price’ and D150 wants to continue to negotiate properties starting today or Wednesday.
So, will D150 purchase more land and approve the purchase after the fact????? in the same manner as the first $877,500 spent???
Where is the statutory reference that the transfer of the first $1.6 million????
I want to encourage you, Karrie, and others in the Glen Oaks district to keep fighting! I’m a member of Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste – and with River Rescue and Sierra Club – we got the attention of the county board, and plenty of local citizens – and helped defeat PDC’s hazardous waste landfill.
Successful citizen action is possible here in Peoria (despite what seems a strong tendency to stand by and, as Marty said above, “get it in the rear.” PFATW proved that you don’t have to! And PDC spent about $1 million on their expansion application. We spent about $25k.
Rally your neighbors, parents of the kids at your school. Start putting up yard signs, bombard the Journal Star with letters to the editor. Get a meeting with the Editorial Board (but make sure you are prepared with evidence and documentation in your favor). Bombard the school board members with emails and letters. Research other school districts that have had the same fight and won. Web research is easy, all it takes is a bit of skill with Google.
I’ve been told by many folks that Peorians are used to just watching local officials steam roll over what the public wants, and accepting it as “that’s how it works.” Well, it doesn’t have to.
PFATW is still working on the landfill situation, monitoring the appeal, holding fundraisers. It’s a tough row to hoe, but there are plenty of folks who’ll get your back.
But I thought Ray solved this whole problem before he galloped off into the sunset…
It sounds like we’re back to square one again.
They’re sneaky S.O.B.’s, aren’t they? The whole lot of ’em.
“As for accessibility, did they ever consider putting the children with special needs on the first floor, and the able-bodied children on the upper floor(s)? A sprawling, single-level school will look incongruous in the East Bluff.”
My sole objection to your excellent post: putting children with mobility problems (not all of whom are otherwise special-needs) on the first floor and fully-able children on the upper floors creates something of a separate-but-equal situation (and ergo inherently unequal); children with disabilities need to have access to the ENTIRE school building.
But then there’s these magical inventions called “elevators” that can be used in multi-story buildings ….
Here’s a sick thought- could Ray have secretly told them how to do a bait and switch the “Washington way”, because I was really surprised that Ray would back the current school site instead of the Park… so maybe he didn’t afterall… only made the public think he did.
This is especially sick on my part because I hate conspiracy theorists.
Can someone please explain why either site is so bad?
And good call Cara, comparing the fight against a landfill to the fight against a school. Sensationalism always prevails over common sense.
I don’t know the word. There has to be a word that describes Hinton and his merry band of taxpayer robbing cohorts. If 10 acres in Glen Oak Park is good enough for that site, why isn’t 10 acres good enough at the current GOS site? 10 acres is 10 acres. I would REALLY like this explained to me. However, I doubt it can be done with any explanation that makes common sense.
They want a new school in a park like atmosphere so they can say “look at us and our pretty new school”.
Any city council member that votes to close East & Republic doesn’t see my vote in the next election…..
Hinton is an Ass. I haven’t see such blatant arrogance in a long long time. .. (especially from a staff member versus lets say an elected).
Isn’t it just completely ironic that he keeps referring to the importance of it being a “community school” yet the “community” doesn’t want the school located in the park, and the “community” had absolutely zero involvement in the selection of that sight.
HINTON, 15 ACRES IS BULLSHIT. YOU KNOW IT, WE ALL KNOW IT. YOUR ULTIMATUM TO THE CITY IS ALSO COMPLETELY OUTLANDISH. REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU SAY, YOUR ACTIONS ARE WORKING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION AS YOUR SO-CALLED INTENT. THE DISTRICT’S REPUTATION IS WORSE OFF NOW THEN IT WAS JUST 6 MONTHS AGO BECAUSE OF THIS ONGOING SAGA. KEEP PREACHING COMMUNITY, JACK ASS!
Murrel, I believe Wolfmeyer is also a proponent of the 15 acres, if I remember correctly. I’m not sure about Stowell. Given that right now all seven are in favor of it, I don’t think it would make any difference if both the new members were against it — it would still be 5-2 in favor.
Eyebrows — I’m with you on the use of elevators. I was responding to Spangler’s concerns that elevators are a safety hazard for children with limited mobility in the event of a fire.
Tony — I don’t think anyone has any problems with the Glen Oak School site because it’s centrally located on the bluff and kids can easily walk or bike to school there. Since this new school is going to replace Glen Oak and White, the current Glen Oak building probably isn’t big enough. That means they would need some more land in order to build either (a) an addition or (b) a replacement and still have a playground and/or green space. The park site has advantages in terms of green space, but some major disadvantages: it’s on the extreme fringe of the bluff and across a very busy street. This means more busing/driving of students to school, and greater danger to those students who are close enough to walk or bike to school. It also further erodes Glen Oak parkland. That’s the short answer to your question. Also, Cara was not comparing the landfill issue to the school issue except to say that community activism can be successful, even in the face of overwhelming odds.
Sometimes comparisons, such as Cara’s, are better off not made.
I can follow and support all of your pro’s and con’s of the two sites, because they make sense. Every option has pro’s and con’s. I would like to add one more pro to the GOP site in that it would mean less $$ spent on land by PSD150 and it would mean less impact on the kids (new school in new location, move the kids when it is ready).
I don’t understand, though, why everyone is crying foul about BOTH sites. You are going to kill the park, you are going to kill the (mostly dead) East Bluff, etc.
With the current plan of consolidating school buildings (which is a good plan given the decreasing enrollment and age of the buildings) it is a definite that some construction will be needed, and some more land will be needed. There is NOT enough space at the current GOS site to expand or build a new school.
As for the 15 acre thing, we all know that it is not a mandate. But let’s be serious for a second: More land does make for more opportunites for the kids. Playing fields, outdoor activities, heck even a picnic. In the middle of the city, 15 acres seems like a huge amount. 8 would be nice though. If you go to the GOP site, the PSD has to purchase less land and still gets the benefit of a HUGE area for outdoor learning.
Fiscally, it seems that the GOP site is best. Community-wise it seems like the GOS site is best. The only thing for sure is that the people can’t continue to be against everything.
Tony: In a previous post at RALLY Peoria (May 10, 2006), there is an analysis of the cost per acre, here are the facts you are always asking for when posts are made.
Estimated cost of acquisition (calculated per acre) / demolition costs
GOS — $3.5 – $5.5 million / $590,000 and $935,000 – approximately 14 acres to be acquired [$250,000 to $392,857 per acre].
GOP — $1.6 million / $232,000 — however, no mention that taxpayers are only purchasing 5 acres [$320,000 per acre]
GOS is about 3 acres (Hinton told me this at a meeting) so add 2 to 7 acres and you are probably at the same per acre cost vs. the promoted and ‘perceived’ lower cost per acre at GOP.
I believe other assumptions have been made (and we know what that can mean) which have yet to be delivered. Here is the shopping list:
(1) GOP – D150 acquisition will make the budget of $1.6 million (because the other $232,000 is for demolition of the original $1.9 million) – what if D150 cannot consolidate for $1.6 million, then the actual cost per acre becomes higher than the GOS site? Where does D150 get the extra $$$$$? Is this another oops?;
(2) D150 has never provided the statutory reference which allowed for the budget amendment to transfer $1.6 million from the (20) Operations & Maintenance Fund to (60) Site & Construction/Capital Improvement. Why not? It should be straightforward.
(105 ILCS 5/10‑22.33) (from Ch. 122, par. 10‑22.33) Sec. 10‑22.33. Interfund loans. To authorize the treasurer to make interfund loans from (1) the operations and maintenance fund to the educational fund or fire prevention and safety fund, or (2) from the educational fund to the operations and maintenance fund or fire prevention and safety fund, or (3) from the operations and maintenance or educational fund to the transportation fund, or (4) from the transportation fund to the operations and maintenance, educational, or fire prevention and safety fund and to make the necessary transfers on his books, but such loans shall be repaid and retransferred to the proper fund within 3 years. In case such repayment is not made within 3 years the regional superintendent shall withhold further payments on claims authorized by Article 18 of this Act until repayment is made. (Source: P.A. 89‑3, eff. 2‑27‑95.)
There may be another state statute to allow this transfer, I have been waiting for thirty (30) days for Mr. Cahill to provide the reference. It takes thirty (30) days to provide no answer? What type of customer service is that?
And the above referenced statute does not allow a (20) to (60) transfer and if it did, please read the last line, it would have to be repaid within 3 years or the regional superintendent shall withhold further payments on claims …. So, is there another statute to cover this transfer?
Ask yourself, is it important to follow the state statutes? What are the consequences of not doing so? What message is being sent to our children, community, etc?
(3) In early April, there were meetings with Mr. Hinton and separately Mr. James Thornton of the PBC where both men stated that the GOS/GOP school would not be built with PBC bonds, that only HEALTH, LIFE, SAFETY bonds would be used.
To issue Health, Life, Safety bonds based on the presumption that the ISBE would concur that the cost of the health-life-safety remediation would be greater than the costs of new construction — Master Facility Plan (view at D15o website – page 14) Just where is the objective data on that??? What type of documentation is needed for this sign-off to occur??? How do we compare the apple primary school with an orange primary plus 6-8 plus birth to K component that was NEVER mentioned in the ISBE / CDB Program Statement that is in the Master Facility Plan (page 34) as K-6/8 schools?
D150 cannot have it both ways, all ways —– follow the Master Facility Plan or don’t — just don’t hang your hat on this document like picking entrees from a smorgasboard —- use it when it fits D150’s agenda and scrap it when it doesn’t. How is the community supposed to follow along and be engaged in the process?
Please hearken back to our earlier conversation regarding a feasibility study and CJ’s previous posts about the lack of objective data in the analysis of the building by a committee — nothing against the committee members — however, what qualifications and actual experience regarding renovation vs. new construction do they possess? As Gary Sandberg states you can present the facts or juice the numbers for a project to get it to fit what you want and then —oops down the road one or multiple times you sheepishly admit that you goofed with the calculations (FOIA will provide you with all the details)
(4) D150 is required to follow the municipality’s zoning ordinances — that would mean at the GOP site there would be a special use permit to build the school in a R-3 District as well as vacating the streets — who decides that —the Zoning Commission and then voted on by the city council.
Previous post from CJ — she is from the ISBE
Weitekamp said that the size of the school site is a local decision — the only requirements are that the site provide safe access for emergency vehicles and meet local zoning codes.
Additional reference, (105 ILCS 5/10-22.13a)
Sec. 10-22.13a. Zoning changes, variations, and special uses for school district property. To seek zoning changes, variations, or special uses for property held or controlled by the school district.
(Source: P.A. 90-566, eff. 1-2-98.)
Again, is it important for D150 to follow the state statutes?
(5) The Peoria Park District is alleged to have violated the Open Meetings Act of which there is a current, pending and unresolved to date lawsuit against them. That would seemingly need to be resolved.
(6) D150 and PPD have not published for public review, a draft form of an intergovernmental agreement for the use of PPD land to be shared with D150 for a GOP school, let alone a public review of the final document and inking of the deal.
(7) PPD also is required to follow the zoning ordinance and would need a Special Use Permit to put PPD land into the construction site for a GOP site. Again, Zoning Commission followed by the approval of the city council.
(8) Keller Williams has been hired by D150 to act as their agent for the property acquisitions. Of the eight (8) properties acquired so far, there was only a commission of $9,800.00 paid for the property at 2102 N. Prospect which was originally listed by Maloof Realty with the commission being split between Maloof and Keller Williams. Upon further document research —the MLS listing sheets show that there is a 5.0 compensation rate, which may be at 50 to 100% of the total compensation rate for both sides of the transaction, however the HUD-1 closing statements show that Keller Williams was paid NO $$$$$. Does that seem curious??
Why would the MLS sheeting list 5.0 and not 0.0 if no commission has been paid? You mean to say that Keller Williams is not earning any commission on these sales? Why was there no bidding for the real estate representation for D150? Sometimes the Keller Williams Agent is listed as the dual agent. How can a real estate agent appropriately represent a school district and a citizen property owner, especially in a controversial project? and so on Just asking.
You are always asking for the research — so here it is — all hard copy documents — so what is your response (not in a dare way — just as one taxpayer to another?)
This is not a private venture, this is ALL TAXPAYER $$$$$$.
And there is even more —- for another post. CJ may take away my privilege to post if I make this any longer.
Excerpts from a letter written by Bonnie W. Noble, Director, Parks and Recreation on March 30, 1998, reads as follows: Dear Park User: “During the past several years, the use of Glen Oak Park has increaed dramatically. As a result, we are currently experiencing a major traffic congestion problem. Emergency vehicles were blocked from providing service. First and foremost is public safety. When congestion occurs on park roads, public safety such as police, fire cannot effectively reach locations”, ect.—Hmmmmm.
Karrie Alms: Will you please run for an At Large CityCouncil seat in the next election? I have never seen anything set out as you have in the above post. How can anyone with half a brain read it and not see what is going on with the School Board and Park District. This is a vision and legacy Mr. Hinton wishes to leave us after he retires (which will be soon) and an opportunity to seize by the Park District, all of which has been swallowed by the School Board members–we have no real say in this unfortunately.
Roman: You do have a say. The School Board members are publicly elected.
There is no doubt that there are procedural issues with this whole process. Everyone is assuming that this is some conspiracy between PSD and PPD. I ask you this: To what gain? Is the PSD board so interested in Hinton’s legacy? Do you think that the people that serve on these boards, people that are essentially volunteering their time to serve their community, are out there to screw everyone?
People are acting like both ideas, the GOP site and now the GOS site, are essentially the worst ideas ever, with no chance of benefiting the people, and only causing more harm to the East Bluff. People are acting like the PSD and PPD are trying to screw the taxpayers, just because they can.
There is a scientific principle called Occam’s Razor. So let’s apply the Razor to this situation. Either the PSD and PPD are deliberatley trying to screw the taxpayers through an elaborate scheme of money, land swaps, and deception all the while ignoring several laws that directly apply to the situation; OR both boards got together and came up with the plan and just plain old botched the execution.
Which is it?
Tony: Interesting principle — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_Razor
I will have to agree to disagree with you. The process is inherently important to all community members — to me that is why we have such behavior-oriented problems in many areas of Peoria, especially older neighborhoods. ‘Following the rules applies to the other guy or gal not to me’ is the mantra frequently heard. Rules, laws, statutes, etc. are some of the building blocks which provide for a stable society if followed by all members of any social unit. Personal responsibility and accountability are essential — making a mistake or deliberate choices — consequences are attached and should be distributed, positive or negative.
The outcome is what all taxpayers are dealing whatever the original intent of the D150 and/or PPD Board Members. It would be inappropriate in my opinion to comment on what and how those respective board members make their decisions.
You want facts — the facts were presented. Taxpayers just want straightforward / forthright / honest answers about the spending of their tax $$$ ! You asked me to do a comparision of the old vs. new school idea – that is D150’s responsibility to conduct a feasbility study – not mine. Now, I ask you to help to provide the answers to these questions with documents to support any answers.
Reference D150’s Board of Education Policies — http://www.psd150.org/board/policy.html —- then go specifically to Section 3 — http://www.psd150.org/board/policy/Section3.pdf
then go specifically to Section 3:40 — Superintendent.
Look at all the responsibilites and to keep a short post —-
Just look at 10. ‘ See that all constitutional or statutory laws and the Peoria Charter or state regulations of the Board are effectively carried out.’
Now, look at my previous post — taxpayers are just looking for answers that should not take 4, 8, 12 weeks to come up with the answer. If D150 is transferring $$$$ from one fund to another, as Tony the taxpayer — are you interested that they are following the correct procedure??? Maybe or maybe not — that is your call.
Jack Fought, former owner and publisher of the Community Word, more than ten years ago published the following statement
“Trust is earned not given.”
As one taxpayer to another, I do not feel that either D150 nor PPD has earned my trust by their actions.
Tony: Have D150 and/or PPD earned your trust? (And it is okay to agree to disagree! :))
The PPD, in my opinion, is a very inconsequential group. Parks are great, but cities are not built on parks. D150 has earned my belief that they have a huge problem with putting the cart before the horse. Once they even considered hiring Kay Royster it was all over for me. Too little fact checking before decisions are made.
Does this mean that I distrust them? Well, first let me say that I don’t live in D150. That aside, I think their intentions are good, sometimes so good that they, as in this case, botch up a good thing.
The only thing I know for sure is that SOMETHING needs to be done in that area of the city. Building a new school is something, and I think it will have a positive impact on the kids, in an area where nothing much is positive.
I’m a senior citizen so you can all yawn now. I think this entire flap about 15 acres or no 15 acres is a bunch of hoo haw! I started school in a one room school, then went to a two room school, then a three story school with no yard, and finally a sprawling new school on lots of land. Did I learn better in the sprawling school or the three story one with no yard? Guess what? The building and land or lack of it didn’t teach me to read, do math, make change, or spell. The teacher inspired me (or not) to learn. He or she also had authority to keep troublemakers from disrupting class so that I could learn, and was backed up by the principal and parents.
A teacher who can teach is not dependent on a building, or land, or any other aesthetic trappings. Yes, they need materials to work with, but not to the ridiculous extent school boards try to pass off as absolutely indispensible to “education”. So called “educators” today have lost their minds. We should be more concerned about who is teaching, and what they are teaching, rather than if the building or the yard is big enough.
You may say, “Oh, I’ve heard all that before!” It’s a funny thing about the truth, it doesn’t change with the times.
Tony, I don’t believe people are against both sites. As far as I can tell, there is a fair amount of disagreement with consolidation, but that seems to be a done deal and people are starting to accept it. I think the parents and neighbors clearly prefer the Glen Oak School site, but don’t like the school district’s insistance on having 15 acres at that site. Most people I know aren’t opposed to some additional land around that site to give the children more play area or perhaps a soccer or baseball field. But 15 acres is a generic, arbitrary, and unjustifiable amount of land in the middle of the neighborhood.
What you call “Occam’s Razor” I call a “false dichotomy.” I don’t believe the school board is “deliberatley trying to screw the taxpayers through an elaborate scheme of money, land swaps, and deception.” But neither do I believe they “came up with the plan and just plain old botched the execution.” Rather, I believe they came up with a flawed plan based on faulty assumptions.
The biggest faulty assumption is that a suburban school setting is superior to an urban one for meeting educational objectives. This seems to be the clear implication of the board’s rhetoric and policies. At the school board meeting Monday night (6/19), several board members spoke of a one-story building set back from the road on a large plot of land with hiking trails and lots of athletic fields. That’s a description of a suburban school, not an urban one.
There’s no evidence such a site will improve student achievement. Board members say things like, “we want to do what’s best for the children,” “this is acreage the students don’t need, but deserve,” and “we believe this acreage is necessary.” These are all subjective and have no objective basis whatsoever. The acreage standards are outdated and arbitrary — the CEFPI has eliminated them, the ISBE doesn’t require them, and there is ample evidence to refute them.
Closed-mindedness, unwillingness to consider the evidence or listen to the residents, overconfidence in their own judgement, refusal to compromise — these are the problems with the school board, and this is why the residents, parents, and city are upset.
Thanks CJ. I too believe that the school board has just plain old screwed this up. I also believe that 15 acres is totally not necessary, and may be too much in an urban setting. I do however believe that the board was trying to do the right thing, that they believed that what they were planning was best for the kids.
The Occam’s Razor reference was just to illustrate that the board DID just screw up, and that this is NOT a conspiracy like some people (not you) seem to think.
I still think people should rally around these efforts, because doing something for the East Bluff would be better than nothing. Maybe the exact plans can and should change, but the overall concept of the new school, IMO, is a good thing.