We must have faith that our community with get what they need in order to prosper. This is for all of us! Although our community is dealing with layoffs and lose of jobs we have to remember we aren't feeling the dramatic impact as the east coast is. Remember it is us that must hold everyone accountable. If you don't have a voice you share then the accountablility is weak. You must be involved!! Those that live in St. Joseph please consider the need and how you can be apart of the education process.

Looks like someone should have paid more attention in class.

VOTE NO TWICE.

for the length of this debate, the district has maintained that it is not a permanent tax. well in the wording of the ballot, it is. thank you for your unwaivering honesty SJSD. looks like you haven't a clue what you are talking about, or think voters are not able to comprehend what they are voting for. read the ballot questions folks, don't skim them, read them.

One of the most vocal supporters of this initiative was against replacing Neely several years back. Now it is the other way around. This goes to what I have stated previously, these things should have been addressed years ago and now I learn someone who is now for this was against it previously? If we did not agree with the cause back then, than why was there not an alternative proposal thrown out there to fix it? In my view, that decision back then needlessly jeopardized the safety and well being of the kids. That is a core argument on these buildings now, safety concerns, so why was it different back then?

Still amazed...that I have not seen an article with the thoughts of St. Joseph "leadership" expressed, i.e. the city council or mayor. If these are the people that are suppose to "lead" the community into the future and they have no opinoin, then it's a sad state of affairs.

I am just as perplexed about that one. This is one of several reasons in my view outside interests attempt to dictate the future course of the city.

I hope both pass, it will be extremely difficult for any teacher to be as effective teaching a split class (2 grade levels).

About accountability-7 school board members are elected at staggered times, to approve policies and budgets of the district. This is accountability. This is how the citizens of St. Joseph hold the school district accountable. There is an accountability system in place.

Supporters-Get to the vote on Tuesday with all your friends and neighbors and vote yes twice!

Yes & Yes on Tuesday.

Take if from a Hall of Fame player - Vote yes twice.

The district is holding the teachers' contracts for next year until the results of the operating levy vote. It is pretty clear that if the vote fails, some teachers will be cut. I am not sure I want to screw the kids just to prove a point on taxes.

No opinion from leadership means that they KNOW that the time is WRONg to ask for this, and I agree Wholeheartedly.
Put the sunset clause back in, and build ONE school for now. You may be able to get the second school in 5 or 10 years,, otherwise things will remain just like they are.
I do not plan to pass a PERMANENT Levy down to my GREAT, GREAT, GREAT Grandchildren I do not have the right to spend the money of future generations and neither does anyone else, they will be perfectly capable of making their OWN decision on these matters. Let them know that you want them to Backup and Regroup, VOTE NO and NO to save St. Joe
from the ETERNITY Tax !!

Steve-O

I would have never guessed that a mere 3 bucks a month would cause such angst for some people! My suspicion is that they are just constant critics who will always be complaining about something. They will never be happy. Too bad for them.

Progress is on the way! Tell your friends to vote YES twice!

Steve-O it is a good thing that your grandparents did not do what you are proposing. At least three schools were built in the Great Depression. Economic times were tougher then and our grandparents still built schools because they knew the value of a quality education. Time to step and honor them and then honor your "Great, Great, Great grandchildren" by spending another $2 a week.

Mr. Reeder cracks me up, he says he would vote for the levy but for the sunset clause exclusion. He vote against the levy on 2004 when it had a sunset clause. He is a former SUBSTITUTE teacher with an agenda and no kids of his own.

Vote Yes and Yes and do it for our Great, Great, Great Grandchildren.

If we do not continually upgrade our facilities and keep our district competitive, we will not have to worry about the taxes for our great great grandchildren because your family will have moved from a town that cannot support growth.

Vote yes twice, for our children, for our businesses, for our community.

Yes and yes on Tuesday!

I am still on the fence about this one. On one hand I say yes the kids and teachers deserve a nice new state of the art facility. On the other hand I believe it will be more than 3 dollars a month for me anyway. And wildwest brings a good point up. A few years ago Steve Holdenried was marching up the the school board, the newspress, and KQ2 about them closing neely. Now all the sudden it is ok. I wouldn't trust his choices at all. He voted a couple a years ago for a buchanan county office holder who I am told leaves early on Friday and calls in sick on Monday and takes 3 to 4 hour lunches. I'll bet he supports that person again. So I don't trust anything he says.

Truebetold, I think Mr. Holdenried fought to keep Neely open at the time because there was no other option on the table for his grand kids. Now that there is a better option he his for that better option. I say one thing for him, once the board agreed to keep Neely open a little while longer he became an active volunteer for the school by giving time weekly to the kids and actively encouraged others to do so. I can respect that.

It's time to let the District know that they can't assume that voters will roll over and arbitrarily give them money every time they ask for it.

It's time to let your voices be heard.

It's time for change.

NO AND NO.

Expect, no, DEMAND, better from our school administrators.

Steve-o Do you realize that your great grand children probably won't want to live in St. Joseph if we don't start doing something to our schools and helping our community thrive. Decisions are made everyday that effect the future. It is refreshing to hear that you think about the future of your grandchildren and their rights, but what about sending them to these unsafe schools years from now before they can even vote when we have begun the process of building as needed. You are a passionate person and smart. Honestly, I know that grandchildren and children for that matter acquire many if not most of their values and beliefs from the generations that lead up to them. If you strongly support this and believe it is best for everyone now then later your grandchildren will thank you. This levy and bond issue are going to go in the history of this community either way. Please help us now to build the future for everyone in this community.

wr49tm- This is a perfect example why I think this levy should be permanent. Why put a clause in, when then the children of our community would be at the sacrifice of the voters every 5 years. You confuse me you say "It is time for change." From what I have heard there will be change, but only ones that will not benefit our children of this community. Why not change it for the good? Please don't make our children pay because you have it out for the administration. We aren't always going to agree with them, but truly they are the only ones that live with the constant accountability from the state and know all the issue facts by heart I am sure!

I thank my parents, grandparents, and my great grandparents for teaching me that education is the single-most important factor for positive change in a person's life. My family has always been in support of schools, and has passed that value on to me. I will continue to pass this core value on to my own children, by voting yes twice on Tuesday.

Vote yes, twice!

Vote No & No.

The sad truth is there should not even be a debate over the issue of the education of our children. There is plenty of money within our community to pay for there education if people would just be willing to give. Everything should be set aside from our parks and recreation to the expansion and buisness growth of the city. Money should not be an issue concerning this matter. We are a very old city with a very RICH history. If this city would have been ran appropriately with proper concern and direction this would not even be an issue. My question is why has this happened. Why are you going to destroy good solid structures instead of revamping them. My concern is more for there quality of ecucation, what they are being taught and by whom. I once lived in a tee pee with an x professor from Harvard in the mountains of Colorado for two months. I learned more in that Tee Pee in two months than I learned within the St. Joe. scool district within 18 years. The classroom itself has very little if anything to do with the proper education of any individual. The bottom line is these children first need love and concern then they will trust you to teach them. Most seem to be most concerned about the future of our country, the city as opposed to truly concerned for the welfare and well being of our children. "God help us"

I cannot wait to see how St. Joseph votes Tuesday. Wouldn't it be great to have a huge turnout and a huge YES-YES vote to go with it? What a wonderful message that would be to the naysayers, and the outside activists?

YES-YES for St. Joe's children and St. Joe's future.

Apple, I do not know exactly what you are referring to about early morning posts, I stated in an earlier post my wife and I are supporting the initiative and I made it very clear I am not a Reeder fan or will allow outside interests to dictate the future course of this community. I asked a very direct question about a concern I have. A core argument for this initiative is safety of the present buildings being slated to close, so my question is why a proposition to address this years ago was defeated by someone who ran a opposing campaign and is now vocal about passing this one. If a core argument is safety, and I agree those buildings should not even be open now, (I took the tours like everyone suggested and have been in them before) then why have we allowed this for so long? I do not buy into no other option was available at time. If safety is one priority issue, then it should of been fixed then, because it was not, it is now a crisis. And again what is going to be done to address all of the older buildings, that is another argument, old and outdated buildings, so until the new ones get built, these 2 that are going to close will still be utilized for another 4 years minimum and what is going to be done to address the other 14 that will still be around? Are we as a community going to forget them or address those as well? A while back someone posted a comment about a 100 million dollar bond idea. To be straight, if that was actually a measure for vote on this initiative, my support for the cause would have been there much sooner, because that in my view is a more aggressive approach that would help address it all.

Two issues, operating budget, Personal costs will never go down, who expects a pay cut to those making too little already. Make it permanent so budgets can be built looking forward.
Construction bond, we have to keep neighborhood schools where the students live. We haven't adjusted for growth in years. Time to get right.
Vote yes twice!

Apple, the time of day that I post is not relevant to ANY of these other people, I Serve NO MAN, I do not know any of these people nor what AX they have to grind, I vote my heart EVERY time there is something of significance. Your comments seem like that of a desperate person that don't believe that anyone else is allowed have an opinion. Let me tell you that I have spent over 100 hours on the computer researching some of the people who are trying to push this thing through, and not a SINGLE one are in financial distress. Most have MORE than enough, and many are in the employ of the SJSD. It seems like they are totally blind to the fact that many in our city are literally scraping to get by, but the saddest part of ALL is the lack of compassion for toward those people. They seem to think that everyone is in the same financial place as themselves and have plenty but just don't want to part with it. And as far as my Grand Children moving away from St. Joe, who could blame them, and it will not be due to the schools. Our city leaders don't want any big business to move here, they proved that when they let the Prison slip through their fingers and go to Cameron. Give me a list of ANY business' who have considered or ARE considering moving here, but be specific, because I can confirm or Debunk it in no time at all. You also believe that everyone has since forgotten how they Cried that they were out of money in 2004, then when you were given the TEMPORARY levy, all of the sudden, the Govenor released $30-$40 Million dollars that he had been withholding, well that is still fresh in the minds of many!
I believe it will be what it will be, and no one is going to shame anyone into changing there minds by saying, Do it for the kids !

christlove- sounds like you had a good teacher and VERY low class size- one-to-one ratio. WOW I bet the students at Coleman that have 29 in their class wish they could learn more and have more one-on-one time with their teacher.

VOTE YES TWICE

Wildwest- what is different now/this time around? The ADMINISTRATION!

Also, Steve H. did not want to see his neighborhood school go-now (this time) his neighborhood will have a new school.

Steve H. so glad you are an active volunteer for your school. This volunteering and being in the schools TRULY gives one an accurate picture about education! thanks

PLEASE realize- if the operating levy does not pass we will be at $3.04 operating levy- LOWER than 30 other disticts around us. Really people you don't think this money is needed. Accountablity every 5 years my FOOT! Do you really think that in 5 years costs and expenses are going to go down and the district is not going to need this money? Wake up and look at all the operating levies around us- some for MUCH smaller districts.

$3.04 is less than the state requires for an operating levy-then what. I intend to find out tomorrow by calling DESE.

Steve-o- Build one school now and another in 5 or 10 years -now that is some long range planning. Wow at that rate we could have all of the schools replaced in about 200 years.

We can't wait 5 to 10 years to build the second school. It takes almost 2 years just to build it. Who are you going to make wait?

VOTE YES TWICE.

Wildwest- I agree with you in some areas. Think of the naysayers (you were one -with reasoning-not just administation haters, people with axes to grind, people who just like to be obstinant, can't afford it..etc.)

I totally agree what about the other buildings. However, can you imagine the backlash that would have come out with a vision for multiple buildings and 100 million plus bond. It is difficult enough in this community to work on this vision. Unfortunately, some people can only handle the little pieces of the picture and some desire the BIG picture.
I feel confident the current administration sees beyond this current vision-but for a city that does not easily accept change nor is very trusting and has not built a new school for 38 years- it may be necessary to move in baby steps at first.

What do you think?
P.S. Thanks for your support.
Also, I am not sure-but did not think apple was talking about you.

Steve-o I have stated before if it is for financial reasons alone that you are unable to support this- I can understand that.

However, you have stated more than a handful of other reasons as to why you won't support this. (I have attempted to explain the 2004 $ issues on other posts-no response from you so, not sure if you read them and had further insight or questions.)

If you think only the people with $ in this city are supporting these ballot issues- then you are wrong. Many people of various socio economic statuses are supporting this. And for many people it is not about the $$ only about the education and community. Many people did not need all the information or prompting-it is automatic. Just as it is in Blue Springs. Many people think why question $$ for education (this does not mean there is not accountability- BUT there is TRUST!!!)

I think Dr. Smith and the board is worthy of our TRUST and so is this community. We need this in order to move forward.

VOTE YES TWICE.

When you feel you have nothing else- have FAITH!

Don't forget that two entire staffs and half of the teachers from Hall, Neeley, Webster and Noyes will likely be without jobs regardless of your vote. From the story, it seems like the District will close some or all of these long before the new schools are built.

Redistricting MUST take place regardless of your vote.

Trailors will be brought in, at least temporarily regardless of your vote.

The same teachers will be teaching your children regardless of your vote.

Be informed.

Sidmo- Yes-Please be informed.

A person asked Dr. Smith, "If the bond passes will Webster be closed next year."

Answer-no we hope to do everything at the same time. Also, stated at that meeting- the 2 new school buildings will be done within months of each other.

Also- the teachers from the closing buildings will not be the ones to loose their jobs necessarily. The district has Board policies that will be followed when a school is closed. This is based on years of service in the school district. If some are to loose jobs it will be the last ones hired not just because they are employed at these buildings.

No one has stated that trailers will be brought in during building.

If the operating levy does not pass- No all of the same teachers will not be teaching our children. Some will loose their jobs.

Yes- please be informed!

Vote YES TWICE!

first Steve-O what is that complex on Frederick Avenue ... A prison. Second prisons are not great jobs. One big problem with getting jobs here is the illiterate workforce. Our illiteracy rate for those over 35 is very high. We need to educate more and better. We need to spend the money to attract good teachers. Our teachers can go to KC and make another 10,000 a year easily. Our students need competitive buildings with all the necessary tools to learn in. The average cost spent in this district educating a non-IDEA child is low. (In order to get a proper comparison you need to remove that population as it skews the average.)

One big reason for the turnover is the unwillingness of our citizens like you to financially support our schools. One big reason for the lack of jobs that you want is the poorly educated workforce. Draw the line.

Let's look at the 63 cent levy another way. Let's just say the levy doesn't pass and you gain back the money from the taxes. Average person in town will gain 20 to 35 dollars, those of you who rent do you believe your land lord will lower your rent? Have you ever seen that happen? Those of you who own, what will this amount of money buy? If your lucky maybe one dinner, a shirt, or a pair of shoes. Will you really be able to remember what you bought in a year from now? However, because of that extra money people will keep their jobs, more people will be employed, the children in the community will not know the adults were fighting over such a small amount, and life will go on so we can argue over another tax some day. It is your choice, but in today's economy $30 dollars doesn't go very far individually, however together it becomes a whole lot it becomes someones future. Regardless how you feel about administration, taking away funding can only mean a step backwards.

Take a look around folks, this city is decaying right before your eyes. Are you going to sit on your hands and complain or are you going to do something about it? Here we are bickering about 4 bucks a month? Are you serious? It is so sad to witness a community that chooses to regress rather than make a few small sacrifices and progress. Apparently we are alright with all the TIF money being given to big conglomerates but we balk at the notion of doing something that will benefit the citizens of St. Joseph for generations to come?

I see people on here complaining that the SJSD has no long range plan. How in the hell are you suppose to have a long range plan if you don't even know what your budget is going to be 5 years out? Could you make a monthly budget if you only knew what your income was going to be for the first week?

I hope that it is not too late for the voters of this city to recognize the significance of this issue. This is about bringing St. Joseph into the future. This is about building a strong foundation that this city can stand on for years to come. This is about showing the surrounding communities that we are in charge of our future and it is a future filled with promise and progress. We can do this St. Jo, doing the right thing is rarely easy, there will be sacrifices to be made, but in the end we will have brought new life into this old river city. Please for the city and all of it's citizens, Vote Yes Twice on April 7th.

MAMA3girls, Before the 2004 levy the SJSD was operating correct? Then they got the levy and SAVED Most of it. Do you think that the taxpayers of JoeTown are going to continue to add Millions of $ a year to the SJSD Savings account when we can't even save enough to buy ourselves a new roof for our OWN house? It goes right back to the old saying, " The More you have, The More you Want ", and right smack dab in the middle of the worst ecconomy since the Great Depression. I have no doubt that we need some new schools, well I need a newer Car Too, but I have to wait, because this is NOT a good time. The Law of Supply and Demand does not mean, You Demand it, and We'll supply it,
IF that were the case I have a few demands of my own. It's not the end of the world like you are making it sound. A different time no doubt would have had this thing pass, Hands Down, but some people have Never learned to, or Had to WAIT. If you do not get what you want, don't cry, and blame the tax payers, blame the people who decided that this was the right time, and couldn't WAIT !!!!!

Thanks terrebatu it is always good to hear from new yes voters and their reasoning. To piggy back onto apple's comment after St. Joe Christian moved somebody came in bought that building and revamped it. Now for my next comment people are probably going to holler, but here goes. Wouldn't it be cool when they close Neely, to open a brand new school (positive thinking,) they turn it into apartments. People will have what they want a new school ready for all those kids from the apartments and for the ones who love old buildings Neely will still be standing. See a yes vote could be the best for both worlds. Vote YES/YES

238er, To What do you attribute the high Illiteracy rate to? Old schools? And everyone says it''s a $4.00 a month raise, but they don't say that this is on the Real Estate Tax Alone, I woulld like to see some figures on how much additional Personal Property tax this will generate. Do the people realize that the increase on Personel Property tax ALSO includes, cars, trucks, vans, mobile homes, busses, motorcycles, atvs, motorhomes, camping trailers, homemade boats, factory made boats, jet skis, airplanes, grains you have stored, ALL farm machinery, ALL livestock ?
A raise in taxes on ALL of these things will hit some people HARD, and everyone needs to know that if you own these things, you can count on MORE than $4.00 a month raise in your taxes. I don't think people realize what all of this means, it amounts to significantly more than everyone is letting on, I woulldn't be surprised if the increase was $100.00 a month for some people, OR More !

"bad things will happen" if this does not pass -

How do you feel about that comment?

A threat, do you like to be threatened?

Bullied, are we being bullied?

I dunno, I'm not yet decided on how I am going to vote.

I will vote YES twice!!

steve-o, the number which I believe is $3.50 per month on a $100,000 house. You quote this number like you will be paying it. It is only an example. Residential is assessed differently from commercial which is till different than ag. Personal property is also assessed and taxed. If one wants to truly now the total tax bill in a particular year then they need to get the assessed values of all property and figure it out.

So Steve_o, add up your airplanes, boats, jetskis, your rolls royce, etc. and you can get to your true final number.

Meanwhile, what say you about the facility on Frederick Avenue?

apple- I relooked over the postings and am not sure what you are getting at about early vote comment??

MAMA3girls,

Dr. Smith and Mr. Huff said at a Coleman meeting that it is very likely another Trailor will be brought onto the parking lot before schools are built. Said once they are built, they'll take the trailor(s) down. Also said that if the bond doesn't pass, the trailors will stay on the parking lot.

its like they are saying it doesnt matter what we want as a community and it doesnt matter how we vote they ARE going to close schools and they ARE going to buy the land and build. If this is true..why are we even voting? To make it seem like we have a voice and it matters. Im voting no twice. All this well help is the wealthier people in the east side and the others will have to wait for new things. Point in case..a couple of newspress articles back it said that there will be a new school built sometime in the future in the southside. How long? When? Where? They are going to make the people that count happy first and then worry about the rest of us. I tired of the school district wasting my money. I'm voting NO TWICE. Even though it doesnt seem to matter anyways.

Huh?? They are building a school smack dab in the middle of Midtown along with the one being built in the Northeast. Bearie's comments make no sense.

Vote yes, twice, for the future of our community and its children.

The need for the 22 cent levy is well documented. The Northeast part of town needs a school. The shifting student population has created this need for a school in that area. The district needs to figure out a way to reduce the number of elementary schools down from 18. The second school and land acquisition point the district in this direction. The bond market may be good for the school district, but the timing is bad for the rest of us.

The 63 cent operating levy was 'temporary' and supposed to fix the district's financial situation. According to the DESE, in 2004, the total expenditures was $86 million to $118 in 2008. The current expenditures was $69 million to $90 million over the same period. "Current expenditures" are what are used to calculate the cost of education per student, and exclude certain items. From 2004 to 2008, total expenditures increased $32 million, current expenditures increased $21 million.

According to DESE reports, the current expenditures divided by daily average attendance (not student enrollment) increased from $6137 in 2004, up to $8226 in 2008.

The student population has remained at or near 11,500 throughout this period. Average salaries for FTE roughly went from $39,000 to $44,000 over this period, and increased from 792 to 860 FTEs.

If the school district wants to renew the 63 cents, they should show that they were frugal and ran the district in a cost-efficient fashion.

The school district listed a "budget" of $114 million and broke everything into categories and listed the percentages from each category. Where is the real budget? The public does not want to see a budget summary. Where are the previous years budgets? Where is a summary of cost of operation broken down by building? Where is the raw data, so there can be some fact checking?

The need for the 22 cent levy is there.

But I give the distict an "F" for proving that they need to renew the 63 cent operating levy. All this information was found on the DESE, why can't the district make all this information readily available and archive past budgets so people can make informed decisions? This lack of transparency only hurts the district.

And with a $32 million fund balance/surplus, you think the district could replace the loss of $6 million in revenue for a year or two before they tried to pass another operating levy. If the levy prior to 2004 (without the 63 cents) wasn't keeping pace with the operating needs, I could buy the need for an increase of some amount, but to ask for a full 63 cents which has enabled the district to increase its fund balance to $32 million seems a bit rich.

And this message is to the organized "opposition": Ask some real questions! Stop focusing on travel or meals. You have a point about the sunset clause. Stop with the automated phone calls already!

Steve-o 'defferent time and it would have passed hands down'- what different time??

Name me one time in this town money for education was voted on and passed hands down. It is never the right time for this town (for some) that is the problem.

As for the 2004 levy, yes the district was running -but to high standards...? I think the 2004 levy allowed the district to upgrade technology (Which how fast does technolgy chnage and need to be upgraded again?) upgrade curriculum and purchase new text and supplemental learning supplies. As for putting all the $$ into savings- I don't think this is accurate for many factors. (I have stated before.) Also, remember the district did voluntarily roll back the levy (is this not being responsible with tax payer $$- I think it is.)

Sidamo- If you were told that at Coleman I am sure it is accurate. I was referring to Neely and Hall. They would probably like to alleviate the overcrowding for Coleman while building. That would be good for about 17 months as a short term solutions.

Now I did hear that if it does not pass there will be more trailers- not a great long term solution.

bearie- seems you have a grudge for the wealthier people in town. (yet another personal axe to grind that is affecting a vote)

please do not forget the midtown kiddos- Neely services a high percentage of title kids and Hall missed qualify for title by just percentage points.

If you have not made up your mind- you have one day. Speak to someone who can give you accurate information. Seek out the truth so, you can be educated when you vote.

Any burning questions?- which have not already been answered 10X on here.

Levy rollback:
No, rolling back the levy was not responsible of the district. If they need money that badly, why did they not collect the full amount?!

Saving me a nickel in property tax on two cars and a house saved me under $10 for the entire year. I doubt the district had me or any other tax payer in mind when they had this voluntary rollback. How much did this rollback cost the district?

The Assessed value increased in 2005 up to $862 million from $804 million the year before. Taxing jurisidictions are allowed a 5% increase from existing property (new construction does not count against this). It appeared the district collected 6.25% more from 2004 to 2005. I have no figure for what amount of assessed value was from new construction.

Was this voluntary rollback to comply with hancock because the district collected excess revenue? I don't know. If I remember, there was some proposed legistlation that would affect taxing jurisdictions adversely if they were currently at the maximum. Perhaps the voluntary rollback had something to do with that.

The rollback in 2006 was called voluntary, and the rollback in 2007 was mandatory. However, I would not characterize this rollback as responsible to anyone.

This going back and forth about whether it was "voluntary" or not, just distracts from the more serious issues.

(Information seeking: certain questions have been repeatedly dodged and danced around, certain information has only been provided in a format that is utterly useless, and this has been going on for some time)

fike- they rolled back, because in 2006 they were getting more than needed. See they cannot forsee changes in property valuation or state funding from year to year.

Again, there are some people that would not be pleased with any amount of info and some that have heard more than enough.

A difference of opinion. I do not need to see what the district spends on paper clips or toliet paper, busing or anything else. I firmly beleive my money is well spent and that our administration and board have the best interest of the children and community at heart. I will leave the line item budget to the experts who live this everyday.

VOTE YES TWICE

238er, the facility on Frederick Ave coulld NOT even be compared to Cameron. It was basically put there to apease those who were furious about them not allowing the BIG prison to be built over at Rosecrans. There is not even a remote comparison to the two. I worked at Crossroads during it's construction and the Diagnostic Center on Frederick is like a Daycare center compared to Crossroads. I don't think that Fred. Ave even employees 10% of the people working at the Cameron Prisons. So now lets see a list of all of the BIG business' that have decided against locating in St. Joe because of our schools, or at Least a list of ones who are considering moving here, and please leave out Convienant Stores, Lawncare business', and auto parts stores.

Mama3girls, first I want to say thank you for always respecting my view points from the start of this debate. You even challenged me on some of them in a very nice way and got me to take another look :). For the most part, almost all who initially supported the cause have been respectful of my opinions and I certainly appreciate that alot. I still have concerns, but there are other ways and avenues to address them when it is all said and done. And it is not the only issue I will have concerns about. This is a great community with alot of potential and I do not want to see any hinderance in progression on all elements.
Moving slowly towards what needs to be accomplished I can understand, but a main concern of mine is the thought process of the community not being aggressive enough on a variety of core infrastructure issues. If this passes, I do not want to see the other buildings forgotten and then years from now, it comes up again. We as a community know all the buildings are old and need eventually replacement, so we should strive to get it all accomplished and then to keep up with it over time. Different administrations and accountability play a key part in that and what is very disturbing to me is the fact our own elected leaders did not take any stand on this at all. That in my view is a core reason why the "Reeder factor" is taking place with outside interests trying to dictate. I was impressed with the printed ad in the paper that specifically attacked the outside interest groups and addressed a major problem relating to outside influence that hits a chord with many. It stayed away from the other elements that are being debated on and focused specifically on this. It was a good campaign move.

The safety concern, the argument was brought up as a major reason for this cause, and when I saw the buildings I was very upset nothing was done long ago, which goes to why I questioned what happened in the past. An argument as to why the Neely closure was defeated years ago is because there was no other plan. The "no plan B" argument that is good for one issue but not another is perplexing. The building is either safe or it is not, and if it is not and that is an argument to support a cause to close, then it should have been done long ago. Because it was not along with the other buildings, then we as a community have put our children at risk on something we knew existed but did nothing or very little to address it.

So in saying that, here is my 2 sense worth to those still on the side lines or are going into this with a no vote. I have my concerns as well, but the 3 most pressing issues with me are:

Safety-if these do fail, then we continue to put our kids at risk in these buildings, knowing full well these buildings have safety issues. Even though they will close either way, failure of the initiative will probably prolong it unless there is a major effort to shut them down on that element alone.

Outside interests-no one from the outside should be dictating and telling us what to do in this community. There are competitive, political and business reasons these interests are attempting to manipulate the vote.

Civic leadership-All of our elected officials have said nothing or have not taken any position on this. And then there is an editorial from one of our representatives who states he cannot take a local position. A "plausable deniability cop out" in my view. It will be interesting when he decides to move some legislation forward in the future that will require a public vote and he will want support.

So in light of this and my concerns, I think it is best to show latitude and vote on giving the tools the district says they need to move forward. In lieu of that, we give them the tools, and hold them accountable to fix what they say they are going to do. If they don't, it needs to be addressed. That includes new administrations after this one. And moving forward, when election times come, we as a community should seriously start thinking about getting people into office that will take a stand, will move things forward and will work together with all entities involved to fix things that are long overdue.

wildwest, doing something about it don't have to mean REPLACE ! You can do a lot of fixing for 1/2 what they are asking for. If maintenance had been done when the problems were noticed, it could have been fixed cheaper, However, it can Still be fixed. My house is 110 yrs old, and I would like a new one at 12 Oaks TOO, but it is not going to happen strictly due to financial reasons. These schools CAN be re-done. they are NOT used up. Humboly is 50 yrs older than the Oldest of these, and it is staying, I mean Damn, in the 60s-70s, these schools were considered Bomb Shelters, you could not duplicate that kind of construction today. I'll bet that they would have to bring in a wrecking ball just to tear one of these schools down, I don't buy that they are falling down,, No Way.
Vote NO and NO, and let's see plan B

Let's get out and vote, just reading the last 2 post it appears that it is currently 1 yes, 1 no. Let's see what the rest of St. Joseph has to say. Get out supporters, call your friends, let's get the bond and levy passed tomorrow!

Vote yes and yes.

Mama3girls: I did some rough math, and $430,000 was what a nickel would have gained in that year.

And I have never suggested that I want to see it broken out into how much is spent on "paper clips" and things like that, but what would be nice is to see how much was spent maintaining each facility.

And it would be nice seeing a real budget, so the people know how that money was spent, because within the past 4 years, there was close to a 25% increase in expenditures.

If the district spent more on teachers, but had to get class sizes smaller, then that explains part of the increase. If transportation costs went up, then that explains part of the increase. But taxing jurisdictions need to be accountable, and anyone who wants to review those numbers should have easy access to them. The City has a link on their front page to their budget. How hard would it be for the district to do the same?

^ Class size will be larger for every school except Coleman weather or not the levy passes, in many cases almost double from 16 students (Neely 3rd grade) to 27 students (Dr. Smith's target). Not my words, but Dr. Smith's. More effecient? ... technically. Better for children learning? ... doubtful.

^ SJSD wants to build 2 new schools that your kids will probably not attend. And in return, the class size at the school your children do attend will be larger.

^ Don't forget all the children that attend private schools that may re-enroll back into the SJSD in order to attend a new school. This means layoffs at the private schools.

->Consider the entire picture.

Sidamo, your attitude reflects so many .... what's in it for me? What do we need to pay you off to get your vote? That is largely what drive the last bond issue with some small improvements to each building, those with their hand out saying what about me? That is why the district didn't close Neely 10 years ago when they should have. They kept it open and the precinct in that area still voted against the ballot issues.

As to the kids in private school there are a ton of reasons they are there and a new building is not chief among them. In any way, the kids would have to be from the district boundaries of the new building. St. Francis, Cathedral, Christian, St. Paul all draw from the entire city and beyond. I doubt a single student transfers for a new building.

238er,
I am talking about what's in it for our children, just like you, but outlining the details that will affect real-world people after they vote - that they may not consider in advance, since SJSD does not present these arguments on their site. And, what's in it for MOST children is larger class sizes and fewer teachers. That is the only point I make in this regard. Unlike many posters, I say exactly what I mean and make an attempt to leave nothing rhetorical or between the lines.

apple,
parents of St. Joe Christian snd Cathedral _are_ concerned about a drop in enrollment and reduction in teachers (jobs). This would also mean that enrollment at the SJSD will increase, which, in turn, may skew the district's estimates on new boundaries.

Proponents tend to present the argument as being for the children or against the children - an emotional and exhausting appeal. But now the emotions have had time to settle and weary voters are considering the real-world, permanent implications of these votes. And they are remembering the sentiment and promises from 5 years ago, and the conflicted Board who voted against the Superintendant, and who are not interviewed in the newspaper. Also, noting that the Council has not dared speak on this issue - presented as VITAL to our community. Were it so urgent, the entire leadership would be united.

Just to clear up the argument about HUMBOLDT being the oldest. The land it sits on maybe, but the school is not. The original building burnt down and the school that sits there now is not as old as the other two. It is apparent the head of maintenance, the engineers they hire, and anyone else involved in safety checking those schools must know something you don't Steve O or this school would also be on the chopping block. Our buildings are not unsafe they are too old for modernizing without pouring almost as much into them as a new efficient building would cost. The aesthetic boost a new school would give to that area is one good selling point. The second it would cut down on Carden Park being used as an after hour place for teenagers and younger who are up to no good. This can only be a win, win situation for midtown.
Wildwest you have made great points and I have agreed all along we need to hold this new administration accountable. Also, to who ever keeps bringing up that this is a bad time to put a tax on the ballot. The district did not have a choice, because of the sunset clause. The tax is up and they either lose money or take it to the people and see if they will continue the tax. So it is up to us either we are willing to invest or we are willing to accept the consequences. Either way the children will keep on learning, because ultimately the good teachers and administrators in our district know this is truly what matters. Step out in faith and vote yes/yes to help improve out community.

Apple.I am seriously proud of you that you have the money, and I suspect that you have never seriously wanted for anything in your lifetime, therefore I understand WHY you can't see it from the less fortunates side. Take a little from you and you wont miss it, but take a little more from us, and it's devistating, but GOD Bless you anyway.
Classyt, Thank you for clearing up the fact that these buildings ARE structuraly sound, it has been said by many that they are FALLING down around our children, and UNSAFE!
Now we know that they are just Not Wanted any more, and everyone just wants NEW,, That's all I needed to know!
GOD Bless you TOO !

SteveO with all due respect you pulled from my blog what you wanted and left out what you didn't want. That's okay, I will no longer try and convince you to vote for the taxes. Just so you know I came from poor and am only low middle class to this day. I want to see St. Joseph thrive so my children, who grew up in the Humboldt district, will be able to say they are middle to upper income class. I seek a better tomorrow for all children and am willing to sacrifice and yes I had to pick something to give up to afford this tax. It is all about priorities and only you know your income and priorities. I do hope you have a nice day tomorrow no matter the outcome and may life be good to you.

I really like these folks on this list, there such a wonderful logic. If the Board does what the administration suggests they are rubber stamps. If they exercise their own judgment and do what they were elected to do they are idiots for not do what the administration suggests. How can they win?

Also, it is the right thing for the council and mayor to not take a position as an elected body. They were elected to serve a difference political subdivision ... the city and the boundaries don't match!

I disagree, by not taking a position it shows community weakness and allows outside interests to attempt to do what they are trying to do now. I am curious, if anyone on here was an elected official as passionate as many are about this topic, in my opinion I do not for one second believe anyone would have stayed quiet about where they stood on it, especially after the "Reeder factor". That to me would have been a good thing, and I mentioned in an earlier post if some of the bloggers on here took a crack at an elected office, I would probably vote for them because they are active and take a stand. Elected officials from other municipalities all over the country take a stand on community issues. Here, nothing, absolutely nothing.

I believe our officials should have spoken up too. They are a big part of our community; people elected them to stand for our city. We should know if they back the educational institute or if they don't, why not. They could have shed light on why not from another business point of view. Their points might have made a difference to people who weren't sure of how they wanted to vote. Anytime their is an issue that involves the city our people, whom we elected to lead us, should voice their opinion. After all they too live in this city and pay taxes. It's been a pleasure listening to how people feel from both sides. I hope this tax goes for the school, but to those who are against the taxes, if it doesn't pass, please be proactive and give good sound reasons to the district as to why you didn't vote yes. Then give them a plan as to how they may gain your yes vote and trust. VOTE YES/YES; last attempt to sway your vote:}

We'll probably see articles illustrating "Wednesday Morning" City leadership AFTER the results are in.

If so, I hope those who run for office to lead Saint Joseph, but fear the limelight of leadership will be rewarded at the polls.

We are parents of a Webster student & we are voting NO Twice. No matter how the vote goes, they are going to close schools, people are going to lose their jobs. If you believe what school tells you then those of you for the tax are fooling yourselves. They don't care about our kids, they want more money to waste.

Sad message to send to your kids that they should be distrusting of their schools.

Just got back from voting yes, twice!

Giingeebread, we were suckered into putting the levy in in the first place in 2004 by believing it was needed, like we were told, ONLY to find out the Governor had $40 mil rat holed to release only AFTER we gave the levy to you !
Fool me once, Shame on you,,, Fool me Twice,,, Shame on ME!
I just got back from Canceling your Yes Votes!
But by NOW,,, IT IS FINISHED !