Scam from the School Board?
I just realized that I've not been commenting on cincy and it's environs. Oh well, no one is reading this damn thing anyway. But it gets my vitriol on the outside, so that's probably good. Now on to local issues. 3 Rivers School district is having a bond issue. Here's my take on the recent flyer they sent out.
Building new is cheaper than repairing or renovating the old.
Says who? Where are the studies regarding renovation? I haven’t seen any. Why should taxpayers take the word of those who allowed our schools to get in such shape they require immediate replacement? They say there is “major structural repair needed” in the middle school. Where? If it’s so dangerous, why did they leave the middle school open, close Hitchens and move even more students inside. Something doesn’t seem right here, does it?
Bear one thing in mind my fellow taxpayers. I am not against improving our schools. I am not against our children, our teachers or our school employees. I personally feel that the district and the “Citizens for Three Rivers” have not been forthright with the voters, taxpayers, and certain communities in our district. And until such time as they are, I am urging you to vote no on the bond issue. Thank you for taking the time to participate in the democratic process
It’s time the voters of our area said, “ENOUGH!”
It’s time the taxpayers of Three Rivers said, “ENOUGH!”
It’s time the residents of Addyston, North Bend and Cleves said, “ENOUGH!”
Recently, a packet was sent to voters in the district to tell us “Things we need to know about the Three Rivers Bond issue” and “A sound community investment” Let’s look at some the “issues” raised by the school board in the letter.
The district will go from five buildings to two and will lower its operating expenses in the long run by 2 million dollars a year.
A 54.5 million dollar expenditure that will save 2 million a year in the long run? The first building opens in 2009, the second in 2011. So, if the “savings” is in full force by then and presuming there are no additional expenses, then by the year 2038, our 2 million dollar savings will equal our expenditure of 54.5 million dollars. Oh, sorry, the state will “give” us 4 million. That cuts it back to 2036, just to break even.
The land for the new school is already owned by the district. It has clean soil and is not near any environmentally contaminated sites.
OK, let’s just lay this major piece of misdirection to rest. The EPA “findings” state that if you live by Lanxess 24-7 for a period of seventy years or more, you might run a very slightly elevated risk of developing some ailment. If you live seventy years ANYWHERE, you run a risk of developing an ailment. Remember, the EPA didn’t close Hitchens, your school board did. If there was a danger, why didn’t the EPA cite or close Lanxess? Why was some outside, political organization called in to make us “aware” of this threat? Might there actually be a political or a social agenda at work here? Besides, what is the school board, or the township or the EPA doing to help the residents of Addyston and North Bend who are “at risk?” Makes you wonder about certain people’s agendas, doesn’t it?
The money raised is restricted to just construction costs and cannot be diverted to salaries benefits, etc.
The issue language is similar to that used in the Cincinnati bond issue. Now that enrollment has dropped in the city, have you heard of rebates to the taxpayers? No, because the money is being diverted, or plans expanded, despite promises to the contrary.
The new buildings will include expanding access to technology, so Three Rivers students can get more skills for college or in joining the workforce.
Who’s going to pay for this technology? Bond issue money pays for the buildings only. Technology costs money for equipment and trained personnel to teach it. Where will that money come from? That’s right, additional operating levies, more taxes. Instead of technology, that benefits a few, why isn’t emphasis being place on basic academics to benefit the majority?
It’s time the taxpayers of Three Rivers said, “ENOUGH!”
It’s time the residents of Addyston, North Bend and Cleves said, “ENOUGH!”
Recently, a packet was sent to voters in the district to tell us “Things we need to know about the Three Rivers Bond issue” and “A sound community investment” Let’s look at some the “issues” raised by the school board in the letter.
The district will go from five buildings to two and will lower its operating expenses in the long run by 2 million dollars a year.
A 54.5 million dollar expenditure that will save 2 million a year in the long run? The first building opens in 2009, the second in 2011. So, if the “savings” is in full force by then and presuming there are no additional expenses, then by the year 2038, our 2 million dollar savings will equal our expenditure of 54.5 million dollars. Oh, sorry, the state will “give” us 4 million. That cuts it back to 2036, just to break even.
The land for the new school is already owned by the district. It has clean soil and is not near any environmentally contaminated sites.
OK, let’s just lay this major piece of misdirection to rest. The EPA “findings” state that if you live by Lanxess 24-7 for a period of seventy years or more, you might run a very slightly elevated risk of developing some ailment. If you live seventy years ANYWHERE, you run a risk of developing an ailment. Remember, the EPA didn’t close Hitchens, your school board did. If there was a danger, why didn’t the EPA cite or close Lanxess? Why was some outside, political organization called in to make us “aware” of this threat? Might there actually be a political or a social agenda at work here? Besides, what is the school board, or the township or the EPA doing to help the residents of Addyston and North Bend who are “at risk?” Makes you wonder about certain people’s agendas, doesn’t it?
The money raised is restricted to just construction costs and cannot be diverted to salaries benefits, etc.
The issue language is similar to that used in the Cincinnati bond issue. Now that enrollment has dropped in the city, have you heard of rebates to the taxpayers? No, because the money is being diverted, or plans expanded, despite promises to the contrary.
The new buildings will include expanding access to technology, so Three Rivers students can get more skills for college or in joining the workforce.
Who’s going to pay for this technology? Bond issue money pays for the buildings only. Technology costs money for equipment and trained personnel to teach it. Where will that money come from? That’s right, additional operating levies, more taxes. Instead of technology, that benefits a few, why isn’t emphasis being place on basic academics to benefit the majority?
Building new is cheaper than repairing or renovating the old.
Says who? Where are the studies regarding renovation? I haven’t seen any. Why should taxpayers take the word of those who allowed our schools to get in such shape they require immediate replacement? They say there is “major structural repair needed” in the middle school. Where? If it’s so dangerous, why did they leave the middle school open, close Hitchens and move even more students inside. Something doesn’t seem right here, does it?
Bear one thing in mind my fellow taxpayers. I am not against improving our schools. I am not against our children, our teachers or our school employees. I personally feel that the district and the “Citizens for Three Rivers” have not been forthright with the voters, taxpayers, and certain communities in our district. And until such time as they are, I am urging you to vote no on the bond issue. Thank you for taking the time to participate in the democratic process
posted by Dalt Danyon at 5:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home