apple, I agree with everything you just said. I know the district needs to keep the .63 levy for operations. Just as I think the majority of the citizens would have agreed, had it been explained just like you did on TV or in an editorial or whatever, without the mention of the bond issue. But, having said that, the main thing that voters were looking at was the 30 million in reserves. Having to keep that money in reserves to keep the district solvant according to state guidelines is where you start losing the voters. They look at 30 million and think, wow if the district has that much money, they don't need my .63 cents. Right wrong or in between, that is the way it is. If that type of thinking is not addressed in a respectful manner, you get a no vote. Plain and simple. That is why I think we need to tackle both of these issues seperately and one at a time. If the only way to get the levy passed is with a sunset clause, put one on. All it means is that it will be re visited in 5 years. In that 5 years improvements and programs should have been instituted that will show the voter what they got for their money. If all they got for their money is a solvant district, then that should be the main focus. Seperately, to get the tax passed will most definately be more difficult. But again, show the voters a visible plan, that includes St. Joseph businesses involvment such as construction, lodging, restaraunts ect., so not only will you be addressing the working public, but also maintaining a balance with the community. This should not be an "us against them" type of thing. When you start including all people of the community in your vision and they can see the benefit, the votes will come easier. Seriously, Ken Reeder and Axiom did not have as much to do with the failure as you think.

On Parents decry loss of schools

Page 1 of 27 | Next