vision2020
Re: New High School & Russell Elementary
Dear Vision2020:
I will take up the gauntlet and respond to some of the issues about
Russell and the high school:
Judith Brown wrote:
> ... I think Russell has serious flaws as an elementary school.
> Most importantly, the asphalt-covered playground is undesirable for
> the fall-down-and-get-back-up-again kinds of activities young children
> need to engage in during their recesses.
I completely agree. It is a mystery to me that anyone paved over the
Russell School yard in the first place. It was a popular move in the
60's, I recall, since my schoolyard was paved over at that time. In any
case, rather than building a new elementary school elsewhere (which will
be less convenient to Fort Russell families), I strongly support
removing most of the asphalt (leaving enough for some basketball
purposes), and replacing it with turf or whatever synthetic product the
school industrial complex is using now (eventually, people will come to
their senses and return to turf).
> ... the narrow, steep streets around Russell, usually lined
> bumper-to-bumper with parked cars, make it difficult and dangerous for
> school buses to access Russell, and for school children to walk to and
> from Russell.
I think these problems are solvable by imposing and enforcing parking
restrictions and improving the existing steps.
> ... the school district's long-range facilities study
> includes a proposal to use Russell as the site of the alternative
> high school. I think that sounds like an interesting proposal.
As I understand the proposal, it does not make sense. Russell is too
large for the alternative school, I am told. Also, why separate the
alternative school from the high school and put it in the middle of a
purely residential area?
It is my opinion that the alternative school relocation idea has not
been fully developed, and that, just as the school district justified
de-commissioning the 1912 building by locating the administrative
offices there, the end result will be an excuse to defer maintenance to
Russell in favor of expenditures for new construction, which will lead,
inevitably, to the problem of what to do with Russell when it is beyond
the help of routine maintenance.
Storla, Robbie wrote:
> How would you address the parking problems for the staff that would be at
> the high school?
For staff, it looks as if there is some existing parking at the
high school. If there were two junior high schools, the on-site parking
situation would be improved, since the number of staff members would be
reduced.
Also, if the present high school were converted to a junior high, there
would be fewer students trying to park there, so the street parking
situation would be improved.
Finally, I have always thought the school district should consider
buying some or all the lots surrounding it, except for the church. This
could provide more parking for staff.
Faithfully,
Duncan Palmatier
Law Office of Duncan Palmatier
530 South Asbury, Suite 5
Moscow, Idaho 83843
Tel: (208) 892-2962
Fax: (208) 892-3853
Email: dpalm@earthlink.net
Back to TOC