NO MEANS NO
Why no still means no....many voters in the Swartz Creek School District are stating their reasons why they do not support the Swartz Creek School Bond Proposals..what follows is a collection of those reasons
November 8, 2007
Voter 1: Swartz Creek is one of the few school districts in the area not struggling with budget concerns; yet this bond will throw them into debt. Why would they want to go that route, in this economy, in an attempt to solve their issues? (NOTE: Discovered back in August 2007 another district, in Macomb County, having secured 128 million dollar bond, will not be able to open their newly constructed buildings for the 2007/2008 school year, as state funding has been cut to the point the district - Chippewa Valley - will not have the funds to provide daily operations of the new buildings; now this district's residents are in debt to the tune of 128 million and they cannot utilize their new facilities!)>>>>> Voter 2: Supported the last 2 bonds, now has decided enough is enough. They noted that the dollar amounts keep increasing with each request with no changes to the plan; they are also afraid that the administration may indeed spread the projects out to the point that, once they use the 78.9 million they want, they will actually have to have the 20 million more they want in order to "complete" projects.>>>>> Voter 3: Expressed concerns that, since bonds cannot be secured for maintenance, that the district is going to fold the overdue maintenance into what they are calling "upgrades". Case in point: the current HS is reportedly unfit for the HS students but, if the bonds are passed, said building can be "upgraded and renovated" for the JHS. The voter wonders: if the HS is in such bad shape one group of students cannot attend it, then what makes it okay to fix it up for another group?>>>>> Voter 4: Pointed out a few fixes, although sound far-fetched, haven't even been publicly addressed by the school board: ---Spin Gaines off as its own district ---Build a 2nd HS in Gaines, keeping it under the jurisdiction of Swartz Creek, but have students in Gaines and surrounding areas (south of Grand Blanc Rd., west of Van Vleet Rd.) attend. ---Use the land they already own west of the current HS for an auditorium/ classroom building. They can build vertically, perhaps 3-4 floors, thereby utilizing minimal land mass but yet attaining the space they say they THINK they will need; while these ideas seem odd, is it any more strange than making the same attempt at failure over and over and over?>>>>> Voter 5: Is feeling tricked by the administration: while it is said by others the school's website is not the "official" site for board meeting information, the latest edition of the Swartz Creek Schools bulletin states the site is indeed the place to get official news on all elements of the district; and when they change a meeting time at the last minute, it sure should have been on their website. This voter believes the district attempted to keep many voices from being heard.>>>>> Voter 6: Supported the last 2 bonds, but feels the district is blind to the fact that the economy is crumbling down around us, with layoffs and cutback hours (which has happened to this voter's family in the last 6 weeks) happening to many district residents. Now the district wants even more than the last bond in total; however, if they even get the one bond, which is only 11 million less than the May 2007 request, this voter and many others still cannot afford that at this time.>>>>> Voter 7: Noted the current MEAP scores for Swartz Creek have fallen, while other districts with older schools and cramped conditions actually improved; this voter wouldn't be surprised if the administration attempted to use the poor MEAP performance as an argument for their case of expansion and construction; but it wouldn't hold much validity for them; perhaps the scores are lowered by the out-of-district students? Is there a breakdown available? Do the government subsidized housing students play a role in the lowered scores? Would the administration be forthcoming with that information?>>>>> Voter 8: Feels it is too much too late. Supported bond 1, but not the last one; feels insulted that they are trying AGAIN, and no matter what, as long as this same scenario is still in place, will not support the next bond. No more support from this fella until there is another, more reasonable, game plan in place.>>>>> Voter 9: Disagrees with the argument that building on the current land west of the HS would create "parking issues". There are ALREADY parking issues. If anything, more parking could be added; besides, numerous students that are new to the district are within walking distance, and do so already. There's no reason not to entertain something on this land; and sell that white elephant at Hill and Morrish!>>>>> Voter 10: Enrollment is now down, ever slightly, but wonders if perhaps this isn't an anomoly, but a sign of the economic times. Cannot, will not, support a huge bond until proof of need is established, and to date, they feel it has not. As a matter of fact, they think the reason to vote 'no' is getting stronger.>>>>>Voter 11: Is a retired senior who can well afford the bond, by not driving Cadillacs and drinking lattes; feels that if they can budget their money and live well, the district should manage to do the same; refuses to give in to the districts apparent mismanagement of funds; asks why the schools were allowed to go with no upgrades and updates for almost 50 years, where has all the money gone, why wasn't better care taken? Fears the new schools would meet the same fate before the bonds are even paid off.>>>>>Voter 12: Has issue with the student population arguments. First we were told the population would increase, which facilitated the need for the new schools. Now that the population is leveling off and may even begin to drop, we are told we need the schools to attract the students. Feels the administration may be trying to convince us through exaggerations to cover up their mismanangement of funds/property.>>>>>Voter 13: At the Fall 2007 headcount, the student population was down about 20; a few days later, it was reported that, oops, it was actually UP by about 20. If they can't count the students they have, how valid are their "projections"? And if they can't count kids, can they count money?>>>>>Voter 14: It is reported that the new buildings will attract better teachers...so are they saying the ones we have now suck? That's not a very good reflection upon the current administration's management of the children's education.>>>>>Voter 15: More teachers mean fewer students per teacher, supposedly guaranteeing a better education; yet in the poorer districts in the county, student to teacher ratios are 16:1, 17:1, 19:1; these are the ones with the LOW MEAP scores; feels this argument, like all the others, has no bearing.>>>>Voter 16: Doesn't buy the argument that Mary Crapo school was only 27 years old when a bond was passed to build the current high school; the difference being that, at the time the current high school was built, there was a housing boom going on, Winchester Village was under construction and Winchester Woods was on the drawing board. At this time, the housing market is DEAD, developers going under, with foreclosures in Winchester Village and Woods, not to mention numerous houses on the market that have been there for months, some for years. Also agrees that if other districts can maintain/upgrade their 50+ year old buildings, Swartz Creek should have been able to do the same.>>>>>Voter 17: Notes that they can find the money to keep things going if they really have to....case in point: pimping out the cafetria space to retailers to raise funds; and believes they will come up with enough money "somehow" to upgrade and maintain what they have, as quite frankly, this voter believes they could have done all along.>>>>>Voter 18: Supports fine arts to a point, but to emphasize that area of study in this age of technology? Feels that is wasteful and ignorant; thinks we'll be churning out not engineers and doctors as the third world countries do, but rather unemployed cartoonists existing on welfare in their parents' basements.
This site will be updated as more voters give their opinions as to why they do not and will not support the bond issues. Thanks to Lucille for helping, and know that we are NOT kid haters, but just the opposite...if a bond passes and fails, as it is doomed to given the current economy and recent histories of other area districts, then the community's children are doomed to substandard education. There is no real "crisis" for a bond, just one that is created and edited every time a bond fails. CAREFULLY WATCH FOR VOTING DATE, AS THE BOARD MAY CHANGE IT AGAIN!!!! XXXOOO, Audrey Katherine
Accesses: 
|
|