Once again my 1st objection is that they have not done a good job of looking forward at the entire picture. Is the student population increasing or decreasing? Is the cost per sq foot and cost per pupil comparable to similar projects elsewhere? Where precisely do we need schools to be located? And if the Charter school goes forward won't there be less students in the high school system? Their assumptions are over a decade old today, yet they continue to use them for the basis of the building program plans and things have changed dramatically since then.
Second, as you say they just added to the school bill without consent which is an issue of it's own. That plus the existing debt is worth consideration. The question is what can we afford, not how can they make us pay or trick us into paying. But that seems of little concern to this bunch. I do hope the next election will bring in folks of a fresh perspective who care as much about the total cost as they claim to be for better education. So far it appears the quality of education is declining, not improving, with every additional dollar they bill us. Along that thought I would want to see a full audit and accountability of the School City. We want to know where is all that money going specifically and how much is questionable spending practices and possible shrinkage of supplies (AKA theft) before consideration of tacking on yet more debt service. Such accountability for the budget is the duty of every school board member and if some administrators or staff are dodging accountability they need to be gone regardless of what connections they have. Well actually we probably need to cut more administrative positions anyway as we've discussed since the 1st Times board began.
Third, is this exactly the old rejected building plan repackaged? Sounds like it is. I wonder if it includes the $30k a pop murals to decorate the walls?
Now I will grant you that $30k here & there sounds like a drop in the bucket on a $100+ mil project but that's one way the total gets higher than it needs to be. Further those new sports fields in the plan seem overly ambitious given the general move away from physical sports. It is not out of line to consider less extra curricular activities or at least weigh student student demand for those activities. Our primary goal is to educate not to get kids to college on sports scholarship who can't read, write, or balance a checkbook.
Keep us posted Tiger! While many of us are not really opposed to having a new building there are just too many issues with this particular plan to say yes today.
Dang, I remember when all the Munster kids had to go to Hammond High, as there was NO MUNSTER HIGH SCHOOL !!! Dang, if old buildings cause kids to fail, I am sure that NO BUILDINGS would be an educational disaster !!! (SARCASM).
