I have lived in Crest Hill for 3 years now and am still unable to figure out why everyone seems to be so defensive of their city and so opposed to any other city. Every political entity that covers multiple cities seems to have their oppinions divided by those municipal boundries. This is not something I have really seen as much elsewhere.
District 205 (Lockport Township HS) seems forever divided by Lockport vs. Homer Glen. People in Lockport do not feel that a school in their district is theirs if it is in Homer Glen. And Homer Glen residents seem to have a chip on their shoulder that the district and the current schools bear the Lockport name.
The Des Plaines Valley Library District serves 70,000 people, but feels it needs 3 libraries to do so. Or more accurately feels that it needs to build a library in each city served if they are going to be able to get a building referendum passed. One library could serve the entire district, as long as the State sees fit to leave the bridges open and to even possibly build an addtional one someday. That would of course mean the library would be in one city and not the other two. The residents of the other two cities could not stand for that. They would scream that they were paying for another city's library. Of course they ignore the fact that they would still use it regardless of city boundries.
I can imagine if we all functioned the way that residents of this area do. We would insist that if the federal government wants to build an office building, they had better build one in every city becuase we will not support Washington DC's buildings with our tax dollars. And we should stop building highways that are driven on by people from other parts of the country. Sure we are all one country, but why should Arizona get a new "elite" highway that we have to pay for? They should break off and form a new nation and build their own highway!
I do not know why this attitude is so strong here. Why are we so protective of our cities and so opposed to our neighbors? Especially since so many of our local governments cross city borders. Our school districts, park districts, fire protection districts, library districts and townships cross municipal boundries. These entities provide us far more services than our cities do and should tie us together. And then we must ask the question of why can we go just a little west and see a different attitude? The four high schools with Plainfield in their names serve kids from a number of surrounding communities and there has been no outcry about their names and no one complains that Plainfield taxpayers built a school that is attended by kids from Joliet.
Showing posts with label school. Show all posts
Showing posts with label school. Show all posts
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
School Referendums Defeated
Lockport Township High School District saw their referendum go down in defeat for a second year in a row. Some supporters have chastised the voters for being cheapskates. I think this is wrong though, the voters were not merely acting out of financial self interest. They were reacting to a school district that has hidden facts, tried to borrow beyond their legal debt limit, paid huge sums of money to teachers and administrators, and wants to build $100+ million school palaces.
The April 2006 referendum was defeated because of concerns over how the boundary between the two high school was drawn, resistance to building a school for Homer Glen, raw emotions over Lockport West, and concern over why Lockport Central was to be abandoned. The district did not address these effectively prior to the 2007 referendum. The boundary issue was put off the table in favor of 2 two-year campuses until some future date. Of course, we all can guess what that division in the future may look like and we know that in the absence of a referendum the concerns of citizens will be ignored. Some explanation of why the loss of Lockport West was not really harmful was given, but a more thorough analysis should be given. Don't assume we are too stupid to understand it. The community movement in Homer Glen to form their own unit district makes the fears of losing another new high school shortly after construction very relevant. The issue of Lockport Central's fate has also been glossed over. Now it supposedly will not be used for classes, but will have some other function. Well, what is that function? And why is this building now no longer good enough for students?
I have previously discussed the issue of "creative" financing being used to borrow beyond the statutory debt limit. The district has continued to defend this practice and refuse to show any fiscal responsibility. They have also not explained why less expensive school designs have not been examined and presented to the public.
To top it all off schools continue to increase the exorbitant pay of administrators and teachers. I recognize that some starting teachers are not well paid, but it only takes a few years before teachers are very well compensated and a few more years and they can be in administration where they can really rake in the money. LTHS paid their driver's education teacher over $170,000 in 2006. Do you think this is a good use of taxpayer dollars? And can you justify giving more money to such a school district?
The April 2006 referendum was defeated because of concerns over how the boundary between the two high school was drawn, resistance to building a school for Homer Glen, raw emotions over Lockport West, and concern over why Lockport Central was to be abandoned. The district did not address these effectively prior to the 2007 referendum. The boundary issue was put off the table in favor of 2 two-year campuses until some future date. Of course, we all can guess what that division in the future may look like and we know that in the absence of a referendum the concerns of citizens will be ignored. Some explanation of why the loss of Lockport West was not really harmful was given, but a more thorough analysis should be given. Don't assume we are too stupid to understand it. The community movement in Homer Glen to form their own unit district makes the fears of losing another new high school shortly after construction very relevant. The issue of Lockport Central's fate has also been glossed over. Now it supposedly will not be used for classes, but will have some other function. Well, what is that function? And why is this building now no longer good enough for students?
I have previously discussed the issue of "creative" financing being used to borrow beyond the statutory debt limit. The district has continued to defend this practice and refuse to show any fiscal responsibility. They have also not explained why less expensive school designs have not been examined and presented to the public.
To top it all off schools continue to increase the exorbitant pay of administrators and teachers. I recognize that some starting teachers are not well paid, but it only takes a few years before teachers are very well compensated and a few more years and they can be in administration where they can really rake in the money. LTHS paid their driver's education teacher over $170,000 in 2006. Do you think this is a good use of taxpayer dollars? And can you justify giving more money to such a school district?
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Vote Today!
Today is election day and it is important that we all get out and cast our votes. There are important issues and races on the ballot for all of our communities. Schools are asking you to allow them to take out multi-million dollar loans using your property as collateral. Politicians are asking that you leave them in office so that they can continue to cozy up to developers and continue business as usual. Many of them do not believe in democracy and have done their best to keep opponents off of the ballot and to silence debate. However, we the people do believe in democracy and should show it by going to the polls today and at every election. If there is no one on the ballot that you can support in a given race, either write someone in or skip voting in that office. Politicians know what it means when 1000 people vote in a precinct, but only 200 vote for them in an uncontested race.
I will offer my opinions on a few items on today's ballot, but hope you will all do your own research and vote in accordance with your beliefs.
In urge you to vote NO on all school referendums. The various school districts turn to the taxpayers to finance grandiose school buildings, but refuse to consider cutting their operating costs. Yes, I know that operating and capital costs are separate, but if a district wants us to support more money for capital projects, then they should also offer to lower the taxes for operating expenses. I would support school district referendums if they were building simple utilitarian buildings and were sharing the pain by cutting back on costs and on perks for their employees.
I urge you to vote for JOHN VERSHAY for 1st Ward Alderman in Crest Hill. John is a very experienced member of the city council. He operates using common sense and fairness. He also demands that city staff do their jobs and is unrelenting in those demands. Betty Lou Semplinski, one of the other candidates in this race, has also served Crest Hill well and I wish she could also be elected. However, the 1st Ward was redistricted and only one of the three candidates in this ward will be elected. I feel that John is the best choice, but hope to see Betty Lou run in two years and hopefully return to the city council.
In the 4th Ward of Lockport, I urge you not to vote for Lisa Lovelace. She is a vindictive person who has harassed her neighbors, city employees, and passersby. She has been involved in numerous police calls and has shown herself to have no self control. Lockport has too much division and confrontation on their city council already and Lisa would only take that to a new level. While I do think Dev Trivedi is a better choice than Lisa Lovelace, I cannot in good faith endorse him either.
In the race for Joliet Mayor, I urge you to vote for DALE VOLLMER. Joliet has long ignored the best interest of its citizens and has forgotten that there is more east of Black Road than just the downtown. Art Schultz brags about how all new subdivisions are gated communities of $300,000+ homes. His idea of development is to have developers build homes that the rest of us cannot afford and to erect gates to keep us out, but to allow us to pay for schools and roads to serve these new residents. New leadership is needed.
I will offer my opinions on a few items on today's ballot, but hope you will all do your own research and vote in accordance with your beliefs.
In urge you to vote NO on all school referendums. The various school districts turn to the taxpayers to finance grandiose school buildings, but refuse to consider cutting their operating costs. Yes, I know that operating and capital costs are separate, but if a district wants us to support more money for capital projects, then they should also offer to lower the taxes for operating expenses. I would support school district referendums if they were building simple utilitarian buildings and were sharing the pain by cutting back on costs and on perks for their employees.
I urge you to vote for JOHN VERSHAY for 1st Ward Alderman in Crest Hill. John is a very experienced member of the city council. He operates using common sense and fairness. He also demands that city staff do their jobs and is unrelenting in those demands. Betty Lou Semplinski, one of the other candidates in this race, has also served Crest Hill well and I wish she could also be elected. However, the 1st Ward was redistricted and only one of the three candidates in this ward will be elected. I feel that John is the best choice, but hope to see Betty Lou run in two years and hopefully return to the city council.
In the 4th Ward of Lockport, I urge you not to vote for Lisa Lovelace. She is a vindictive person who has harassed her neighbors, city employees, and passersby. She has been involved in numerous police calls and has shown herself to have no self control. Lockport has too much division and confrontation on their city council already and Lisa would only take that to a new level. While I do think Dev Trivedi is a better choice than Lisa Lovelace, I cannot in good faith endorse him either.
In the race for Joliet Mayor, I urge you to vote for DALE VOLLMER. Joliet has long ignored the best interest of its citizens and has forgotten that there is more east of Black Road than just the downtown. Art Schultz brags about how all new subdivisions are gated communities of $300,000+ homes. His idea of development is to have developers build homes that the rest of us cannot afford and to erect gates to keep us out, but to allow us to pay for schools and roads to serve these new residents. New leadership is needed.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Extra Schools
The school districts of Will county have been on a building spree for the past decade or so and it shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon. This makes me think of the area I grew up in, Mt. Prospect and Arlington Heights in the northwest suburbs. I went to school there about 15 to 20 years after the school building boom in that area. Instead of new schools opening, we had schools closing.
The schools were closing not because of financial difficulties or because of neighborhoods being abandoned. They were closing because of declining enrollments. The area had many subdivisions built in the 1950's and 60's. Many of the buyers of these new homes were young families who brought children with them or had children soon after moving in. Soon the school districts were building many new schools to accommodate all these new students. By the early 1980's there were far fewer children in these schools. What had happened was that many of the families that had moved in when the homes were built seen their children grow up. Most of these empty nest couples stayed in their homes and the demographics of the neighborhood shifted. Now instead of a neighborhood filled with kids and young families, it was far more mixed and if anything tilted towards older households.
The school districts reacted to this by closing schools as enrollments fell. Half of the schools in my elementary school district were closed when I was a student in the district. And if it were not for a low income apartment complex filled with large families and young children, one more of the two remaining grade schools could have been closed.
The real problem though was that school districts, especially high schools, did not anticipate the changing demographics. They operated under the assumption that development would continue and enrollments would keep rising. This resulted in fiascoes such as Maine Township North High School that had students for less than a decade before being closed. This was a multi-million dollar state of the art high school, that is best remembered for its role in "The Breakfast Club." District 214 in Arlington Heights also went from building new high schools to closing schools in a period of less than 10 years. The bonds to build new schools lasted long beyond the time when the schools were needed.
Think of how many tens of millions of dollars could have been saved if these districts had been willing to endure a few years of either more crowded classrooms, mobile classrooms, or split shifts. New schools were a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Of course, the best solution would have been slower growth of new subdivisions. If the same subdivisions had been built over a longer period of time, the surge in number of students would have been spread out. This would have allowed schools only to need to be built for a sustainable number of students.
I see a future where Lockport decides it needs a third high school, for which it is right now seeking funds to buy the land for, and then realizes a few years later that it no longer has enough students to fill it. Many school districts may face this problem if they simply keep building schools based on future assumptions of enrollment.
The schools were closing not because of financial difficulties or because of neighborhoods being abandoned. They were closing because of declining enrollments. The area had many subdivisions built in the 1950's and 60's. Many of the buyers of these new homes were young families who brought children with them or had children soon after moving in. Soon the school districts were building many new schools to accommodate all these new students. By the early 1980's there were far fewer children in these schools. What had happened was that many of the families that had moved in when the homes were built seen their children grow up. Most of these empty nest couples stayed in their homes and the demographics of the neighborhood shifted. Now instead of a neighborhood filled with kids and young families, it was far more mixed and if anything tilted towards older households.
The school districts reacted to this by closing schools as enrollments fell. Half of the schools in my elementary school district were closed when I was a student in the district. And if it were not for a low income apartment complex filled with large families and young children, one more of the two remaining grade schools could have been closed.
The real problem though was that school districts, especially high schools, did not anticipate the changing demographics. They operated under the assumption that development would continue and enrollments would keep rising. This resulted in fiascoes such as Maine Township North High School that had students for less than a decade before being closed. This was a multi-million dollar state of the art high school, that is best remembered for its role in "The Breakfast Club." District 214 in Arlington Heights also went from building new high schools to closing schools in a period of less than 10 years. The bonds to build new schools lasted long beyond the time when the schools were needed.
Think of how many tens of millions of dollars could have been saved if these districts had been willing to endure a few years of either more crowded classrooms, mobile classrooms, or split shifts. New schools were a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Of course, the best solution would have been slower growth of new subdivisions. If the same subdivisions had been built over a longer period of time, the surge in number of students would have been spread out. This would have allowed schools only to need to be built for a sustainable number of students.
I see a future where Lockport decides it needs a third high school, for which it is right now seeking funds to buy the land for, and then realizes a few years later that it no longer has enough students to fill it. Many school districts may face this problem if they simply keep building schools based on future assumptions of enrollment.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
School Tricks
In my recent item about the Herald-News' lack of coverage, I referred to schools abusing the power to issue bonds after winning a referendum. This issue finally got some coverage in the Herald-News in the past few days thanks to two guest columns concerning the upcoming Lockport Township High School (LTHS) referendum to build a new high school.
The basis of how schools borrow more than they asked for at referendum is that instead of issuing $100 million of bonds at 5% interest and getting $100 million to spend; they issue $100 million of bonds at 8% interest and get $120 million to spend. The extra $20 million is called a bonus by the company that purchases the bonds. This is not some nice gift or really even a bonus. From the buyers perspective $100 million at 8% is the same at $120 million at 5%. They are just inflating the interest rate and then paying more than the face value of the bonds. To the buyers it is just semantics. But, to the school, the difference is that they have borrowing limits imposed by state law. These bonuses do not count towards their borrowing limits. This seems highly dishonest to me.
Beyond being dishonest though, it is financially irresponsible. The borrowing limit is in place because the State of Illinois does not want local governments to be able to borrow away all the property of their citizens. When a school, city, or county borrows money, it is your property that is the collateral. The bond owner may not be able to come and take your house, but they can force the taxing body to raise taxes to pay the debt; and if you cannot pay those taxes your home can be taken by the government. A school district that issues bonds with bonuses attached is being irresponsible with the finances of its citizens. Any government that would do this is irresponsible, however so far this type of financing scheme has been limited to schools.
LTHS has publicly stated that they will be issuing bonds with bonuses if the referendum passes and they have stated that they are doing so with the purpose of getting around their borrowing limit. They also have stated that the bonds will be back loaded so that most of the cost are postponed and payments get larger in future years. Their reasoning for this is that in the future there will be more taxpayers and property values will have gone up, thereby increasing their tax revenues. This sounds a lot like the logic used by people a couple years ago when they bought homes using interest only loans. They figured that by the time the payments went up in the future, they would be making more money and their homes would be more valuable. Many of those people are now experiencing foreclosure and losing their homes. Now, our schools want to take us all down this same road or financial uncertainty and gambling on the future.
I commend LTHS for being honest about issuing debt that is back loaded and manipulating their way around their borrowing limit. But, telling someone that you are planning to rob them before grabbing their wallet does not make you any less of a thief.
The basis of how schools borrow more than they asked for at referendum is that instead of issuing $100 million of bonds at 5% interest and getting $100 million to spend; they issue $100 million of bonds at 8% interest and get $120 million to spend. The extra $20 million is called a bonus by the company that purchases the bonds. This is not some nice gift or really even a bonus. From the buyers perspective $100 million at 8% is the same at $120 million at 5%. They are just inflating the interest rate and then paying more than the face value of the bonds. To the buyers it is just semantics. But, to the school, the difference is that they have borrowing limits imposed by state law. These bonuses do not count towards their borrowing limits. This seems highly dishonest to me.
Beyond being dishonest though, it is financially irresponsible. The borrowing limit is in place because the State of Illinois does not want local governments to be able to borrow away all the property of their citizens. When a school, city, or county borrows money, it is your property that is the collateral. The bond owner may not be able to come and take your house, but they can force the taxing body to raise taxes to pay the debt; and if you cannot pay those taxes your home can be taken by the government. A school district that issues bonds with bonuses attached is being irresponsible with the finances of its citizens. Any government that would do this is irresponsible, however so far this type of financing scheme has been limited to schools.
LTHS has publicly stated that they will be issuing bonds with bonuses if the referendum passes and they have stated that they are doing so with the purpose of getting around their borrowing limit. They also have stated that the bonds will be back loaded so that most of the cost are postponed and payments get larger in future years. Their reasoning for this is that in the future there will be more taxpayers and property values will have gone up, thereby increasing their tax revenues. This sounds a lot like the logic used by people a couple years ago when they bought homes using interest only loans. They figured that by the time the payments went up in the future, they would be making more money and their homes would be more valuable. Many of those people are now experiencing foreclosure and losing their homes. Now, our schools want to take us all down this same road or financial uncertainty and gambling on the future.
I commend LTHS for being honest about issuing debt that is back loaded and manipulating their way around their borrowing limit. But, telling someone that you are planning to rob them before grabbing their wallet does not make you any less of a thief.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Joliet Herald-News hides the news
Besides offering limited coverage of what is going on in our local governments, the Herald-News refuses to provide honest, unbiased coverage. In addition, they reward reporters for hiding the news, by promoting them.
In January of 2006, I read a series of articles in a different Illinois newspaper about how schools were issuing more in bonds than had been authorized by the voters. I then contacted the Plainfield School District with regards to their $252 million referendum at that time, the structure of the bonds they were issuing, and if they were considering utilizing the loophole to issue more than what they were asking for in the referendum. I then e-mailed Andrea Hein at the Herald-News with copies of the original articles and the information that I was able to get from the Plainfield School District.
Andrea, thanked me, said she was already working on a similar story, and would get back to me shortly. She never wrote the "similar" story she was working on and never got back to me. I guess she and Herald-News did not think the potential of millions of taxpayer dollars being spent beyond what the public had voted on was not a big deal. It is more important to keep the politicians happy. The Herald-News rewarded her lack of concern for her job by promoting her from covering Lockport & Crest Hill to covering Joliet.
In January of 2006, I read a series of articles in a different Illinois newspaper about how schools were issuing more in bonds than had been authorized by the voters. I then contacted the Plainfield School District with regards to their $252 million referendum at that time, the structure of the bonds they were issuing, and if they were considering utilizing the loophole to issue more than what they were asking for in the referendum. I then e-mailed Andrea Hein at the Herald-News with copies of the original articles and the information that I was able to get from the Plainfield School District.
Andrea, thanked me, said she was already working on a similar story, and would get back to me shortly. She never wrote the "similar" story she was working on and never got back to me. I guess she and Herald-News did not think the potential of millions of taxpayer dollars being spent beyond what the public had voted on was not a big deal. It is more important to keep the politicians happy. The Herald-News rewarded her lack of concern for her job by promoting her from covering Lockport & Crest Hill to covering Joliet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
