vision2020
Re: New High School
John Danahy wrote:
> ... In Duncan's response to my comments, he suggests that improving
> and maintaining older "stately" buildings takes less money away from
> education than building new. I do not quite understand this concept,
> As buildings age, it takes more and more ongoing funds to maintain and
> upgrade them. Such funds come from a districts ongoing budget. New
> buildings are built by voter approved tax levies, thus not impacting a
> districts budget ...
Dear Vision2020:
This is exactly my point. Just because a new school is built from levy
funds does not mean that there remains the same amount of money for
education. Whatever the name -- levy or district budget -- the source is
the same, the taxpayer, and the objective is the same: education. If a
new school costs $20 million and renovations to older buildings cost $10
million, then there is a loss of $10 million to education if a new
school is chosen. In addition, new mega schools, built at the edge of
town, do not provide the economies of scale they are claimed to have.
For example, they require more buses and drivers to transport students
to them, as well as large parking lots, since no one can walk or bike to
them.
The lesson is to promote maintenance and renovation of worthy old
buildings to the community. This is not merely the sentimental approach,
but the economically better view.
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