September 25-27, 2016
Sep 25 01:31 Rejecting the referendum, Part I Sep 25 07:29 The Establishment's argument Sep 25 08:29 Trump's big play Sep 26 01:56 Rejecting the referendum, Part II Sep 26 03:32 Charlotte investigation update Sep 27 03:02 Rejecting the referendum, Part III Sep 27 22:44 Was Hillary the debate winner?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Rejecting the referendum, Part I
The ISD742 School Board is trying to ram a $143,000,000 bonding referendum down its residents' throats because they started with a predetermined destination, then put together a plan to reach that destination. In the Board's arrogance, they've decided they didn't need to listen to their constituents. That decision was the worst decision they've collectively ever made.
The Board decided they wanted to build a new Tech HS without first determining what the students' and the district's needs were. They made that decision without first determining whether the district was shrinking or growing. (It's shrinking.) The plan that they're promoting would equip St. Cloud with 2 high school buildings, each with a capacity of 1,800 students. The last full school year, high school enrollment for ISD742 was approximately 2,700 students.
The first question that must be asked by taxpayers is this: why the Board would overbuild the district's needs. Claire VanderEyk, a Tech graduate who took an interest in last year's referendum, wrote this post on her blog of Feb. 17, 2016. At the time, Claire wrote "I haven't seen stats on this - but according to many people I've spoken with, District 742 is losing students. One cause of this, I'm told, is the quality of high schools in the neighboring districts of Sartell and Sauk Rapids. This is frustrating, I agree. It is difficult to maintain proper school facilities and high quality staff when the tax base that supports your district is dwindling."
Claire stated that she thinks renovation is possible when she wrote "But, as I've said before, I have not been provided evidence that these issues cannot be overcome and would make the feasibility of retaining Tech High School as an educational facility for another 100 years impossible." The truth is that there are parts of Tech that are quite usable.
The truth is that the Board hasn't considered any option other than building a $100,000,000 brand new Tech HS that's too big for the district's needs.
Posted Sunday, September 25, 2016 1:31 AM
No comments.
The Establishment's argument
It isn't surprising that the Establishment has a different perspective on whether to build a new Tech High School. The title of their Our View Editorial is "Vote 'yes' twice to deliver best value for schools." To be fair, not everything in the editorial is foolishness.
For instance, they have a legitimate point when they say "If you think it's adequately built to educate today's youth - not to mention future generations - you have not been in its crowded hallways between classes, especially if your mobility is impaired."
The question isn't whether doing nothing is an option. It isn't. The question is whether the options on this November's ballot represent the best value for students and taxpayers. They don't. The current options are the School Board's choice. The School Board started with a goal, then they tried figuring out how to make it happen.
They didn't ask, in any meaningful way anyway, what the district's enrollments would be in 2020. They certainly didn't think of what the district's need would be in 2050. It's certain that ISD742 will look dramatically different in 2040 than it looks today. This argument is total foolishness:
If both questions pass, the monthly increase in taxes for a $150,000 home will be about $13. Approving just a new Tech costs about $9 a month.
So what? The important question that still hasn't gotten asked is what the district's needs are. Telling me that the payments on something are $13 a month for the next generation doesn't tell me whether that something will be useful for the next generation.
The other question that hasn't been asked is why these prices reflect prevailing wage bids. The cost of everything is increased with prevailing wage bids. The quality doesn't increase, either. Why would taxpayers want to pay extra for something that isn't dramatically better? The unions might howl about this but that isn't my responsibility. My responsibility is to vote for the best product at the least expensive price.
For example, to address neighborhood concerns about the future of the Tech campus, the district has said it will move its administrative offices and welcome center to the older parts of Tech. Similarly, more thorough research was done - and remains available - about the costs of building new compared with rebuilding old.
There's no question that more information is available this time. Still, there's no question that the School Board still hasn't answered the most important questions. There's no question that building a new high school and renovating Apollo doesn't represent a great value to students and taxpayers. It's too expensive and it's too big for our needs.
Posted Sunday, September 25, 2016 7:29 AM
No comments.
Trump's big play
We know that Hillary has outspent Donald Trump by outrageous margins, especially in Florida and nationally. It's frightening for Mrs. Clinton to think that she's spent that much money and leads by the slimmest of margins with essentially 6 weeks left before Election Day. What should frighten Mrs. Clinton is the news that "Donald Trump's campaign is expected to drop an estimated $140 million on ads through Election Day , AP reported late Friday."
According to the article "The Republican nominee's team will devote $60 million of the TV ads to local markets, including Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Maine, New Mexico and Wisconsin. The remaining $40 million of TV funding will go toward national commercials." The article also says "The buy would include $100 million in television airtime and $40 million in digital ads."
This marks the first significant, sustained ad buy by Mr. Trump. He's within striking distance or ahead of Mrs. Clinton in most battleground states, including in the states listed above. It isn't just the size of the ad buy, though, that should frighten Mrs. Clinton.
It's that he's connecting with voters that she isn't connecting with. Specifically, he's connecting with blue collar workers, especially in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. He's leading in Ohio. It's close in Michigan. It's extremely close in Pennsylvania. Thanks to these ad buys and the tight races in those states, Mrs. Clinton will have to play defense in these states. We've seen that she isn't that adept at playing defense.
It should frighten Mrs. Clinton that the states where she's on defense in is expanding. The question that's now on the table is whether these ad buys will break through Mrs. Clinton's firewall. At this point, that's a distinct possibility. If she's playing defense in that many Rust Belt blue collar states, she's got a real fight on her hands.
Kellyanne Conway, Mr. Trump's campaign manager, explained things perfectly during this interview:
This ad buy will make the closing push extra-interesting. I'm certain this isn't what Mrs. Clinton wanted.
Posted Sunday, September 25, 2016 8:29 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 25-Sep-16 11:53 AM
Well, the conventional wisdom is that if your campaign is playing defense you are losing. So far, though, Hillary's ads have been very offensive. Almost as if she has nothing positive to run on.
Rejecting the referendum, Part II
In Part I of this series, I highlighted the fact that the ISD742 School Board still hasn't told voters these important things: what the district's high school enrollment is, whether the district's high school enrollment is declining or increasing and whether that's likely to continue into the future.
Another thing that hasn't happened is that the School Board hasn't told voters that they've already bought the land where the new Tech HS is to be built. We found that out because one of the school board members called into Dan Ochsner's Ox in the Afternoon show and said that they'd already purchased the land. The first question that I'd ask is simple: where did they get the money to pay for a tract of land that big? The next question I'd ask is just as simple: Why didn't the School Board announce this acquisition when it happened? That isn't the type of thing that should've gotten inadvertently revealed on talk radio. It should've gotten announced.
Something that should be asked of every school board candidate is whether they support the bonding referendum. If they support it, they should be pressed on why they support it. I'd ask them if they've looked at the high school enrollment forecasts, too. If they haven't, then they're likely to rubberstamp Superintendent Jett's agenda without questioning. Have they considered whether downsizing might be the better option?
This should be about doing what's right for the students and the taxpayers. This shouldn't be about what's got the School Board excited. If it's determined that the district doesn't need this building, then it should be rejected handily.
Finally, the question is whether St. Cloud needs this type of facility or whether that's too big:
Based on enrollment patterns, I don't think it's justified. That's why the referendum should be rejected.
Posted Monday, September 26, 2016 1:56 AM
No comments.
Charlotte investigation update
Since the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC, Scott's widow has accused the officers involved in the Scott shooting of shooting him without justification. That's another myth that's being accepted as verified fact by Democratic politicians. This Washington Post article provides a timeline of events that give us an accurate picture of what's truth.
For instance, the article says that "Due to the combination of illegal drugs and the gun Mr. Scott had in his possession, officers decided to take enforcement action for public safety concerns. Officers departed the immediate area to outfit themselves with marked duty vests and equipment that would clearly identify them as police officers. Upon returning, the officers again witnessed Mr. Scott in possession of a gun. The officers immediately identified themselves as police officers and gave clear, loud and repeated verbal commands to drop the gun. Mr. Scott refused to follow the officers repeated verbal commands."
Additionally, the article says that "Mr. Scott then exited the vehicle with the gun and backed away from the vehicle while continuing to ignore officers' repeated loud verbal commands to drop the gun. Officer Vinson perceived Mr. Scott's actions and movements as an imminent physical threat to himself and the other officers. Officer Vinson fired his issued service weapon, striking Mr. Scott. Officers immediately rendered first aid and requested Medic to respond to the scene."
Most importantly, this is part of the report:
Homicide Unit Detectives interviewed multiple independent civilian witnesses at the scene and at police headquarters. Those witnesses confirmed that officers gave numerous loud verbal commands for Mr. Scott to drop the weapon and also confirmed that at no time did Mr. Scott comply with their commands.
A lab analysis conducted of the gun crime scene investigators recovered at the scene revealed the presence of Mr. Scott's DNA and his fingerprints on the gun. It was also determined that the gun Mr. Scott possessed was loaded at the time of the encounter with the officers. The investigation also revealed that Mr. Scott was wearing an ankle holster at the time of the event.
Finally, there's this:
That's the gun Scott allegedly wouldn't drop when told to by police officers. That's the gun that allegedly has Scott's DNA on it. It's important that a thorough investigation is completed of this incident so that we get past this election-season myth that police officers have suddenly turned into bloodthirsty killing machines.
Where there's forensic evidence that a police officer shot a man without justification, prosecute that officer to the fullest extent of the law. It's equally important that Democrats stop characterizing the police as bloodthirsty criminals. Their rhetoric might get innocent officers killed.
Posted Monday, September 26, 2016 3:32 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 26-Sep-16 08:34 AM
Apparently Black Lives Matter but Facts do not.
Rejecting the referendum, Part III
Thus far in this series, I've highlighted the fact that the ISD742 School Board hasn't talked about St. Cloud's high school enrollment forecasts for the short-, medium- and long-term. They didn't tell voters that they've already purchased the land for a new Tech HS . That wasn't announced on the District's website. It was announced this past week on Dan Ochsner's radio program when a current school board member called into Ox's show and blurted that information out.
Last year, voters found out in the newspaper that there wasn't a finalized set of blueprints for people to look at because, according to Barclay Carriar , "with the cost of designing a building, 80 percent of it isn't going to be designed until after the referendum. And the plans we've got now are still tentative."
Last year, taxpayers didn't know that the plans were "still tentative." This year, we didn't know that the District had already purchased the land where the new Tech HS is supposed to be built at. The next logical question that taxpayers should demand answers to is what other information the School Board hasn't disclosed. At this point, taxpayers don't know where the money came from to pay for the Tech HS land. That's certainly something that we should know. Did the District have enough money tucked away to pay for the land? At this point, taxpayers don't know.
The thing that taxpayers know, though, is that they aren't writing any blank checks this year. This isn't the time when people are trusting politicians. The School Board is asking taxpayers to approve the biggest property tax increase in St. Cloud history without telling taxpayers that they've already bought the land for the new high school. That's terrible because the taxpayers haven't approved the bonds yet. That tells taxpayers that the School Board is taking them for granted.
Just because the School Board is a rubberstamp doesn't mean that taxpayers are a rubberstamp. Taxpayers don't want a canned presentation. They want input from start to finish. That's something that the School Board isn't willing to relinquish.
In my estimation, the ISD742 School Board has transitioned from being public servants to being arrogant taskmasters. That's why the bonding referendum must be defeated. That's why we need new School Board members elected ASAP.
Posted Tuesday, September 27, 2016 3:02 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 27-Sep-16 09:30 AM
How on earth does a land purchase not wind up in board minutes?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Sep-16 02:55 PM
Great point, Bob. I'm betting it's proof of the Board's arrogance & their disdain for transparency.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 28-Sep-16 02:18 PM
My question was rhetorical, of course :D
Was Hillary the debate winner?
According to the Agenda Media, Hillary Clinton mopped the proverbial floor with Donald Trump's behind. The storyline connecting all of the stories is that she was well-prepared and that she was masterful at getting Trump to take the bait time after time.
That's the traditional angle, though. It's the conventional wisdom angle. According to this article , though, voters in swing states might have a different opinion. It's telling that the article notices "Kae Roberts and Jay Eardly were leaning toward Hillary Clinton before Monday night's debate. By the end, they had both pulled away. John Kokos and Hank Federal were undecided going in, potential Clinton backers. By the end, they'd ruled her out."
Any night that voters say that they're going to vote for you, it's a good thing. It's also good when voters rule out your opponent. That's what appears to be happening in the post-debate aftermath. That isn't to say that Trump turned in a masterful performance. He didn't. He didn't capitalize on the opportunities that Mrs. Clinton gave him often enough.
Democrats were switching allegiances in Pennsylvania, too:
Ken Reed sat down at the main bar of the Tin Lizzy tavern with two things in mind: to dig into the tavern's oversize cheese steak, and watch the presidential debate. "I am hungry and undecided, in that order," he said, digging into the savory dish in a bar that dates back to 1746.
Kady Letoksy, a paralegal by day, a waitress and bartender at night at the Tin Lizzy, sat beside him. At 28, she has never voted before, and she is now thinking it might be a good idea to start. Letosky entered the evening undecided in a town that is heavily Democratic in registration. Her sister and father are on opposite sides of the political aisle. Donald "Trump had the upper hand this evening," she said, citing his command of the back-and-forth between him and Hillary Clinton.
Reed, 35, is a registered Democrat and small businessman. "By the end of the debate, Clinton never said a thing to persuade me that she had anything to offer me or my family or my community," he said, sitting at the same bar that has boasted local icons as regulars, such as the late Fred Rogers, and Arnold Palmer, who had his own stash of PM Whiskey hidden behind newer bottles of whiskey for his regular visits. "Have to say Trump had the edge this evening, he came out swinging but also talked about specifics on jobs and the economy," Reed said.
Trump's goal for the debates is to help him win the election. As such, the debates are a tool to be used to help him win. Viewed in that light , Trump definitely benefited from last night's debate. It isn't as much a matter of winning or losing as much as it's about whether you benefited from it.
Posted Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:44 PM
No comments.
