"God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board." said Mark Twain.
We read today that the district 64 board is moving forward in exploring the city's proposal to acquire the district's headquarters site for a new police station. The preliminary estimate submitted by Green Associates is in the range of $3,000,000.00, and doesn't include costs for acquiring a new site, demolition of the old site, replacement of the district's technology hub and phone system, nor any new furnishings.
The operative phrase being used is "cost neutral". Meaning, district 64 will insist that the city pay for all costs associated with a move.
"Cost neutral". Sounds pretty good.
"Cost neutral" to district 64. For the city? Not so "cost neutral".
Are the city's taxpayers all that different from district 64's taxpayers?
"Cost neutral" for whom?
3 comments:
Exactly...it's all of OUR money.
Why is this such a pressing need for the School District anyway?
Isn't this just the entity to whom the voters just gave a significant tax increase?
The taxpayers take it on the chin again....thanks D64...way to payback the voters who gave you the extra cash you "needed."
Not sure if I understand all the issues here, but I have a couple of questions. First, isn't D64 looking into this because the city asked them to, because the city wants this building? Second, is it possible that by buying this building, and paying to "move" the D64 office, the city might actually be spending less than it would to build a new police station elsewhere?
Good questions. You should ask your alderman and the rest of the city administration to answer them.
Yes, the district 64 board is looking into this because the city asked them to. The city is interested in their site, not their building. The board didn't have to say yes to the city's proposal. The board did say their headquarters building was serving them just fine. The board also should not be attempting to present the issue as "cost neutral" to their voters, because it is not "cost neutral" to their voters. That is nothing more than sly tongued and disingenuous.
As we see it, the city could build on property it already owns and not pay acquisition costs for land. Or, the added cost for district 64's move, the added cost of district 64's new building, and a new police station.
We add the extra costs for a new building and move for district 64 and we come up with more expenses, not less.
You were an English major, weren't you? ;-)
Post a Comment