What's the difference between AISD's successful bond election and Jim Ned's attempt?
In the same election cycle, voters in Blanket and Trent rejected smaller school bond proposals. Voters in Ira and Merkel approved bonds for school buildings in excess of $10 million. Remember that it wasn't all that long ago that a bond issue failed in AISD (2008). So it isn't just a matter of community size or the cost of the proposals.
I'd say the main difference with Jim Ned was the fear of losing campuses in communities. I suppose if you are already bussing kids to Tuscola for the higher grades it doesn't seem such a stretch to extend that to all grades. But closing a community's school is HUGE. This change would have closed buildings in both Lawn and Buffalo Gap.
Would it make sense to replace two old buildings with a facility that would be safer and much cheaper to operate? Yes, that's a no-brainer. But when it means closing a building (or two) that have sheltered generations of students -- that's different. And then to move that group of kids out of town and down the road several miles, that's WAY different.
Add to that the possibility of higher taxes in a community where the masthead of the local paper proclaims it is "Proudly serving Buffalo Gap, TX and the Conservative (Once Silent) Majority of America." I just can't figure why anyone thought such a proposal had any chance of winning.
The approach I saw from AISD was nice. Those dog and pony shows help. But it takes much more than the right approach when you're dealing with the connection between a community and her school buildings. The bond failures in Blanket, Trent and Jim Ned remind us that we're in a climate of austerity. Any taxing entity needs to understand that and build their appeals appropriately.
In the same election cycle, voters in Blanket and Trent rejected smaller school bond proposals. Voters in Ira and Merkel approved bonds for school buildings in excess of $10 million. Remember that it wasn't all that long ago that a bond issue failed in AISD (2008). So it isn't just a matter of community size or the cost of the proposals.
I'd say the main difference with Jim Ned was the fear of losing campuses in communities. I suppose if you are already bussing kids to Tuscola for the higher grades it doesn't seem such a stretch to extend that to all grades. But closing a community's school is HUGE. This change would have closed buildings in both Lawn and Buffalo Gap.
Would it make sense to replace two old buildings with a facility that would be safer and much cheaper to operate? Yes, that's a no-brainer. But when it means closing a building (or two) that have sheltered generations of students -- that's different. And then to move that group of kids out of town and down the road several miles, that's WAY different.
Add to that the possibility of higher taxes in a community where the masthead of the local paper proclaims it is "Proudly serving Buffalo Gap, TX and the Conservative (Once Silent) Majority of America." I just can't figure why anyone thought such a proposal had any chance of winning.
The approach I saw from AISD was nice. Those dog and pony shows help. But it takes much more than the right approach when you're dealing with the connection between a community and her school buildings. The bond failures in Blanket, Trent and Jim Ned remind us that we're in a climate of austerity. Any taxing entity needs to understand that and build their appeals appropriately.
RSS Feed
