I have started a new thread I have copied and pasted a post from a previous thread to begin the discussion because I think this topic deserves its own thread (I have also copied and pasted the two responses to the original post - the first date is the original post the second is when I posted them here):
I would ask the you keep to the topic of the impact of the facilities plan on the city.
Original Post by Anonymous
Saturday, April 21, 2007 11:25:00 AM CST
Check out this open letter from Kent Monte to the mayor and members of the city council.
"To Mayor Tower and Oshkosh Common Council Members,I would like to address an issue that is evolving within our school district that will have a great influence on city assessments for many years to come. As most of you already know, the school board has approved an open ended scenario 7 to be addressed by the administration. If this scenario is allowed to be brought to completion, it will mean a drastic reduction in property values in many areas throughout the city while stagnating growth on the south/west section of the city. This scenario is NOT a viable option for Oshkosh and should NOT be considered acceptable by this council. I plea with you step in and protect the cities interest in this matter. It will have a lasting negative effect on this city and should not be allowed to be completed. Further scenario discussions should include City Administration to represent the council and homeowners/taxpayers.Thank you for your time and consideration.Kent Monte"
Where does one even begin to comment about his ridiculous ramblings? First, he has absolutely no idea what the board is going to ask for in a referendum, so to suggest it will have such long-term, devastating effects is asinine and irresponsible. We should be able to expect more from someone who wanted to be a city leader. Second, we have to take care of ALL sections of Oshkosh, not just the side he lives on. And in case he hasn't noticed, the city is landlocked so any growth we have -- and there will always be growth despite his prediction of stagnation under scenario 7 -- will be to the west.I'm sure there are others who can more appropriately address his complaints about scenario 7. But the one thing to remember about the Montes is they've never seen a scenario they liked; and probably never will. They will find reasons to bitch about anything the district comes up with because they are naysayers who want no change whatsoever.Last, but certainly not least, I realize Kent is not a product of the Oshkosh school system, but I question what he learned in whatever school system he did come from. Take a look at his sentence structure and grammar in the sentence that starts with the words "I plea." Wow, is this guy for real? So much for quality control in his letter. He might want to think about having English major wife Michelle check out his ramblings in the future. Oh, that's right, she's about as bad and makes the same mistakes as he.
Saturday, April 21, 2007 11:25:00 AM CST
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Kent Monte said...
I should have known that someone on this site would rip on me for my email to the council.
First, if all you have is personal attacks and poor grammar, I feel for you. I am NOT an English major and Michelle doesn't need nor want to proof read everything that I write. I rely on spell/grammar check from Microsoft to handle those duties. With the exception of "stagnating", it didn't have a problem with my writing so I really don't care if you do.
As for my "assumptions" of the property values; how can you possibly think that it is incorrect? The proposal is to send Casey Meadows to Read, Merrill and North. How can you think that won't have an effect on the value of that property? The same goes for the Oakwood, Lakeside, Green Meadow, Smith, Lincoln, etc. districts. When you close or reconfigure a school, it has an effect on the property values surrounding those schools, Period. If you think you can prove me wrong, be my guest. I have lived it. My neighborhood school closed when I went to middle school. It affected the surrounding properties to include my parents. Who wants to move into a house that they know that they have to bus their children rather than letting them walk? Let's use a bit of common sense.
Finally, I never said a word about ANY REFERENDUM. You are correct about my knowledge of what it will be, nor do I care. I am more concerned about the reconfiguration in my communication to the council. That is what is going to effect property values. Not the referendum.
As for a scenario that I like, I think using a bit of common sense would take the board and administration a long way. There are too many alternatives to what is proposed and they are ignoring all of them.
Ending with a question; Is this personal or do you really like scenario 7? You really don't have to answer. I know what it is.
Saturday, April 21, 2007 1:15:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...
Scenario 7 will be tweaked and modified but they needed a starting point. That point was made clear at the meeting when the vote was taken, but you and Michelle must've missed that part of the discussion.
Also, you have no idea what the property values are going to do. Have you done some analytical study to base your claims on or is this another wild comment like when you predicted what the city would save after doing a study?
Your grammar, sentence structure, and misspellings tell the rest of the story.
Saturday, April 21, 2007 7:07:00 PM CST
One thing Mr. Monte fails to understand is much of the growth he is talking about will occur OUTSIDE the city of Oshkosh, in the Towns of Algoma, Nekimi and Black Wolf. I would hope the city/common council does not see their role as making sure growth occurs in the surrounding towns.
I would hope the city/council would see that it has a duty to maintain all parts of our city, including the central city. One of the "suggestions" out there is to build a new high school West of town and turn West High into a "giant" elementary school. I would hate to see everything shift Westward because right now people seem to want brand new houses... I would hope the city would focus on encouraging rebuilding our oldest neighborhoods much like what was suggested in a recent Oshkosh Northwestern Editorial:
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070420/OSH06/704200464/1190/OSHopinion
This "so called" growth is really just a shifting of residents from one part of town to another. While everyone has every right to live where they choose, I don't think the city or the school district has a duty to make sure one area of town is "taken care of" to the exculsion of all others.
I also find it quite interesting that one of the people "complaining" about the city's reassessment and the higher taxes is now complaining that the property values might go down and with that taxes as well. You really can't have it both ways.
I also wonder about the dichotomy of comments all over the blogs about how Oshkosh taxpayers cannot afford this or that, are on fixed incomes, don't have jobs etc. Yet developers continue to build $200,000+ houses. In my world you need a lot of money to buy such houses.
Now to some of the specifics of Mr. Monte's post:
{As for my "assumptions" of the property values; how can you possibly think that it is incorrect? The proposal is to send Casey Meadows to Read, Merrill and North. How can you think that won't have an effect on the value of that property? The same goes for the Oakwood, Lakeside, Green Meadow, Smith, Lincoln, etc. districts.}
What people need to realize is that (I think the figure is) 75% of Oshkosh residents do NOT have children in school, so the majority of people buying houses probably don't either so where children go to school may or may not have an affect on housing prices. As for Oakwood, Green Meadow and Lakeside, NONE of those schools are located within the city limits of Oshkosh so I don't think our city officials or council members will have a lot to say about that.
As for Lincoln, first of all, Mrs. Monte advocated closing that school, second Lincoln students will go to Read and Washington, both schools are located less than 2 miles from Lincoln.
When you look at Smith, those students will go to Jefferson, a school that is a mere 6 blocks from Smith -- some students will actually live CLOSER to school than they currently do, for others school will be 6 BLOCKS farther ---hardly something that will cause property vaules to drop.
To say that we will no longer have neighborhood schools tells me Mr. Monte hasn't really looked at the map:
http://www.oshkosh.k12.wi.us/site_uploads/uploads/LongRangeFacilitiesPlanning/west_grwth_area.pdf
Appleton has approximately 5,000 more students than Oshkosh but has fewer elementary and middle schools. I think property values are higher in Appleton... hmmm.. how do you explain that??
Scenario 7 does not require students to "potentially" walk any further than any current students "potentially" walk. I say "potentially" because we all know that plenty of students who could walk to school do not, they are driven to school.
I hope the city and council members do get involved in this discussion, but to preserve our city (especially the oldest parts) not to facilitate growth in the surrounding towns.
Wonderful points, Teresa. They show that once again, the Montes are not nearly as correct as they want us to believe they are.
Mrs. Thiel,
Casey Meadows is in the City of Oshkosh. It is a large subdivision that has annexed land out as far as Clairville road. It is a 10 year project that will be made up of several different types of houses that will be built with the family in mind.
Also, the surrounding communities were not the reason that I wrote to the council. There are lots (to include my own) that were once part of Algoma. They were annexed into the city before being built on. Do you think that will be limited? Developers have found that annexing property in order to gain access to sewer and water makes the property more attractive and raising the overall property value. Granted, it means that the buyer will pay more taxes, but most are willing to make that choice.
You are comparing us to a surrounding community again. Appleton and Oshkosh are not the same. Stop treating them that way. But since you brought it up, they have a lower tax rate than us.
If you doubt my accuracy of my statements regarding the drop in property value, feel free to call ANY real estate agent and ask them what will happen to the value of property when the surrounding schools close or are reorganized.
As for my complaining about being reassessed. Yes, I didn't like having a $500 jump in my taxes all at once. Especially since they assessed the entire city to 100% saying that the law required it. Actually the law says 90%. That would have made less of an impact on some while still meeting the state requirement. Now that it is there, I would like to keep it there. The assessors office is not going to run out and lower property values when schools close or reorganize. That will have to be requested and most won't bother. It will be the market value that will suffer the most. Again, if you don't believe me, call a real estate agent (any one will do) and ask.
I also never said that none of the schools should close. I don't think that the correct decisions are being made regarding the South and West sides of town. That is the area with the most potential for growth, yet nothing is being done to address the lack of classrooms here. Instead, just add 3 busses (you said that K-12 will not ride on the same bus) to carry all of the children from the newest subdivision across town for all of their school years. Good choice.
I didn't say that changes shouldn't be made. But let's work together and use a bit of common sense. Let's include the people that have the knowledge (builders, real estate, city planner, town board members, community development, etc.). We are a community, let's work together and find the best possible solution for everyone. That is what will benefit the students.
This is NOT personal. I really think that we need to work together rather than bicker about it on blogs. Do you think that is possible? If not, I will not be responding again. It is not productive to argue about this.
Thank you and have a nice evening.
What do the Montes know about working together? The mere suggestion of that by Kent Monte is laughable. They talk out of both sides of their mouth and are famous for being nice to someone's face and stabbing them in the back later. Or have people forgotten the last year's recount. What a treat these 2 are.
the school board has approved an open ended scenario 7 to be addressed by the administration. Mr. Monte said: {If this scenario is allowed to be brought to completion, it will mean a drastic reduction in property values in many areas throughout the city while stagnating growth on the south/west section of the city. This scenario is NOT a viable option for Oshkosh and should NOT be considered acceptable by this council.}
Mr. Monte, the above just doesn't sound like someone who is open to "compromise" or wants to work with anyone. When you say that closing a school has a negative impact on property values, that leads me to believe that you think NO schools should be closed. Otherwise, where is it acceptable for the property values to "drop" and where is it not acceptable? I don't believe that Scenario 7 will have the drastic impact on property values you suggest it will because Oshkosh currently has so many elementary schools located very close to one another. Taking one out of a neighborhood, still leaves a school in that neighborhood.
I understand the fiscal constraints the school district is in and will be in as long as revenue caps are in place. People constantly talk about efficiencies and "living within ones means" well scenario 7 does that, as well as a number of other positive things like put most Special Education programs in all our schools, so that students with special needs can likely go to their neighborhood school, as well as giving special education programs a much more permanent home than they have had in the past.
I did a simple Rand McNally driving directions search and found that it is 5 miles from Traeger to Read and guess what it is also 5 miles from Green Meadow to Traeger...and 7 miles from Green Meadow to Tipler...so again, students from Casey's Meadow will not be travelling any farther than some students currently do.
It is the school district's duty to do what is in the best interests of the students, not make sure developers can continue to develop areas where there schools are already overcrowded.
Teresa,
Please understand that the distance from Casey Meadow to any north side school is not the issue. The issue is that most of the houses that are being built can SEE Traeger from one or more windows. To be that close and NEVER set foot in that building is a disservice to those students. And then to bus those students from the shadow of one school, past another to a third just doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps it never will.
Next, Green Meadow should not be closed. Before we go crazy, please let me explain.
If Green Meadow and Lakeside must close, so be it. BUT if we do that knowing that the south and west sides of the city have the most growth potential, aren't we shooting ourselves in the foot? Again, it is just an observation that doesn't make sense to me.
I like the thought of SAGE and what it has done for the students. I also like the idea of the special education (my daughter is in special ed. at Traeger). I am worried that bussing students from non SAGE schools to the SAGE schools will screw up the ratio that allows for the program to break even and we will not be able to finance it. That is my ONLY concern about SAGE.
I also feel that the city NEEDS to be involved in this. To leave them out is irresponsible. This should be a collaborative effort.
Please don't dismiss an idea only because of the source. I am pointing out what I feel are shortfalls in the plan. I do have some solutions to these problems but don't want to get slammed for my effort. I will be happy to share (it may not be any good anyway) but let's not get personal here, OK?
Thank you for the civil dialogue. It is nice to know that it is possible. It is clear that we don't see eye to eye on most of this plan but let's not get nasty and perhaps we can make some progress.
Kent,
I agree the city should be involved in this since the majority of the school district is located in the city and the entire city is part of the school district. I don't think the city should get involved to "stop" the plan or to facilitate growth in the Green Meadow, Lakeside, Town of Algoma areas.
I would point out again that the growth you talk about is really just a shifting of the population from the central parts of our city to the outskirts and beyond. Since some of that shifting will be to growth in the towns, I don't believe it is in the best interst of the city to promote that. As someone who lives in the Central part of our city (by choice) I also don't want to see everything shift Westward. I don't think developers care one bit about the city or the school district (and that is fine they are in business to make money selling lots) they will just build where the land is. I personally don't want to see the older portions of our city become a wasteland and I would hope our council doesn't either.
As for Casey's Meadow, maybe that is not the best choice but the other choice will have just as many, no more crying foul --- The fact is Oakwood and Traeger are over capacity and most of the schools South of the river are at or near capacity so the only choices are to build another school on the West side, which I oppose as explained above, or shift Oakwood and Traeger students to the North side schools that have capacity.
I really don't think developers should build houses for families in an area where schools are at capacity and just expect the district to make room!
As I stated before, this is NOT a matter of new growth in the district --- the enrollment is projected to decline, it is a SHIFTING Westward and I see no reason to facilitate that to the detriment of the rest of the city.
Teresa,
Although I understand that the administration is projecting lower enrollments, I don't think that the cause is based on people moving to the outskirts of town. Those projections may be based on the loss of many industrial jobs locally and the relocation of many families out of the area. As the jobs return and people have a reason to move here (this too is speculation) we will have increased enrollment.
As for the migration of central city residents to the south and west. I really don't see that as bad. I see that as improvement. It is families that have improved their financial status enough to afford a new house. I think that is great. We should not limit that nor discourage that with limitations on schools. It also opens up some starter homes for those who have been renting for many years but are unable to afford newer homes in the new subdivisions.
As for the Casey Meadows vs. Oakwood arguement. You can't please everyone. Oakwood has been facing this possibility for many years. I don't think it is fair that we single them out but in the same token, it does slow the growth of the new subdivision that could potentially see more than a $1 million increase in tax base in the next 5-10 years. Oakwood is mainly in the Town of Algoma. Using the Town vs. City theory, the city should prevail.
There are no easy solutions. Unfortunately the only solution that I have come up with to this point is to add on to the schools on this end of town to compensate for the increase in population over here. Yes, there is a cost, but does it really make sense to close schools that are in the growth area and add onto schools in areas that are seeing a decline? I don't see that as sensible. I also am not real convinced that the K-3 4-8 configuration is a good idea either. There isn't enough data to support that drastic of a change and we shouldn't be pioneers when budgets are so tight. We will have enough to bite off with a referendum as it is. Let's stick to what can be proven rather than speculations.
I have been accused of not giving anything a chance. Well, I have not been given the information that proves it will work. If we have solid data to base our decisions on, then I may be more inclined to support this scenario. Until then, I would like to continue this discussion. It has been productive and I feel that although neither of us is going to change our minds, perhaps we can better educate ourselves and others with us. Also, for others that are reading this, these opinions and statements are mine alone. Michelle answers any questions that I have but the opinions are my own, not hers.
Have a good evening.
The city has a long range annexation plan with the Town of Algoma. I believe it is a 25 or 30 year plan. Much of the Town of Algoma will eventually be city of Oshkosh. Even now the city planning commission has to ok developments in the Town of Algoma before they can take place. Another point. Do you really believe that when Traeger was buildt that Casey Meadow was not to attend Traeger. Those kids belong at Traeger. Boundaries are based on geography not who was there first.
Did developers actually think just because they build houses extra space will magically appear in already over-crowded schools? If people don't have children they probably won't care too much which attendance area their house is in and we know the majority of taxpyers in Oshkosh do NOT have children in school.
That same majority, Mrs Thiel, is on limited and fixed incomes and many live in senior condos and assisted living facilitites. They cannot and do not plan to move away from the conveniences they need like pharmacies, groceries, and clinics to live out by the 20th ave YMCA.
In addition, you need to brush up on school district history. OASD bought the Traeger property from Tom Rusch. It was part of a larger parcel he owned. It is ludicrous for OASD to not expect the remainder of the parcel be developed for families who intend to attend the school being built.
Such a comment shows short-sidedness on your part. Simply because a property was purchased with certain things in mind does not mean those things have to become reality no matter what. Time and circumstances change. Those who remain steadfast in past plans, no matter how out of step with the times they may be today, will get us into trouble. True visionaries and those who will lead us to good things are people who can and will be fleixble to changing times.
Spin it however you like, but children who live across the street from a school should attend that school, not one across town. Especially when the only reason they are to be bussed across town is because their parents make a good living wage. Logic over a twisted vision with an agenda.
The days of neighborhood schools as YOU want them to exist are gone. This is 2007 and time have changed. The only thing that hasn't is standards from years gone by. You're a dinosaur and your ideas just as extinct.
neighborhood schools are one thing. bussing kids by 2 schools on the way to another is silly.
Quote from Kent Monte on Oshkonversation: "Seems like some on the board and admin should take a litmus test. They clearly don't have the wires in the right places."
The man can't even use the words "litmus test" appropriately in a sentence yet he's passing judgment on a facilities plan? Holy cow!
Please give me one logical reason why children who live across the street from a school should be bussed across town. This has nothing to do with vision and everything to do with socio-economics and the agenda of a few people.
Explanations have been given. But because they're not logical in your mind, you don't think they're logical at all. No one is ever going to be 100% happy no matter what this district does.
This is not about making people happy. This is about social engineering. Why not just slide the school boundaries to the west so more West side children will attend north side schools? Answer, because the parents of Roosevelt or Jefferson student do not have the desired income levels for some board members. I wonder what the reaction would be if we took a few north side neighborhoods and bussed those children to the west side because their parents did not make enough money and we needed to balance out the 2 high schools socio-economically? Can you imagine the outcry from Karen and Amy. How can you single out these poor children due to economic status? It goes both ways.
Anonymous 10:59 said: "Why not just slide the school boundaries to the west so more West side children will attend north side schools?"
Uh, shifting boundaries to the WEST won't help... that is where the overcrowding is. Why should everyone be inconvenienced by boundary shifts because a developer wants to build houses next to an already overcrowded school? Anyone who wants to buy a house there will do so knowing their child will go to Read, Merrill, North --- no surprises. Those already living there will be grandfathered in...
Actually shifting the boundary WEST, as in across the river, would help as West side children would go to North. Casey's Meadow was being planned before Traeger was even buildt, as was all the other developments in the area. News flash, there will be more building to the west. So, using your logic, lets say we build a school on Ryf road on the north side and the school fills up but there is a some land right across from the school that is the last parcel to be developed in the area. Do we now send those kids to a school on the west side with room? Or, do we need to determine their family income before maikng that decision? You know as well as I do, when a school is buildt all the land surrounding the school is planned for development in the near future. Does it now become a 1st come 1st serve that allows children who live closer to schools like Shapiro and Oakwood to attend Traeger rather than the kids who live across the street from the school. Maybe we should penalize parents who move into an area with a school that is full. Why did you move into the Oakwood area when you knew the school was full? Boundaries need to be fluid and moved to compensate for changes in neighborhoods. You do not move children based on socio-economic reasons.
I see the city is planning a bypass 4 miles west of town. I guess the city plans to expand to the west. Home builders beware, Traeger is full and we have a first come first serve rule for our schools. Guess we will have to bus all those students to the north side given the policy our school system has adopted.
I realize I am a little late in posting this comment, but I'm a late-comer. I would just suggest to you, Ms. Theil, that you be careful about your snide comments regarding grammar and writing. I am an English teacher, and your latest entry on Aug 7 is full of errors and poor sentence fluency. I usually find that those that comment about grammar make plenty of their own mistakes.
Post a Comment