Starting May 3, ballots will be sent to registered voters to consider the $21 million bond issue. This money will be used to demolish historic Custer elementary school, and replace it with a brand new school, and demolish and replace one concrete building in North Bellingham elementary school.
Change Ferndale does not support this bond for the following reasons:
1) In 2006, a $3.6 million bond was approved by the voters to improve Custer elementary school. Without voter approval, the Ferndale School District (FSD) decided to use $ 1 million on the design plans for a new school according to the district's data.
2) Custer elementary is a historic landmark built back in 1936 by the Work Progress Administration (WPA an organization created to combat the high unemployment during the great depression), and the identity of the Custer community. To tear it down would damage the community by removing a testament to an important part US history, and rob the next generations of part of their heritage FOREVER.
3) According to the precinct by precinct results a majority of Custer residents did not support the $21 million bond, ran in March 2008, to replace their school.
4) The school chose to re-run the March bond request, which failed to achieve its 60% majority. The May bond is the same as the March bond. The FSD has ignored the wishes of the district voters, which constitutes a failure on the part of the FSD to respond to the wishes of the voters.
5) The new Custer school would increase enrolment slots at the Custer elementary school by 30-40 slots. We believe this is too little progress for $21 million.
6) Bad economic timing makes this increase in debt for our community a foolish and dangerous proposition. Land owners will pay for it with their property taxes, those renting property will pay for it because landlords will pass the tax to their tenant's, and the community will have an even harder time providing its residents with affordable housing. We believe that this expensive bond will prevent some families from their dream of home ownership, and perhaps drive families out of their homes.
7) The level of deceit (exhibited in point 1) combined with the arrogant nature of the FSD (exhibited in point 4) and their total lack of regard for the people their policy will be impacting (exhibited in points 2 & 6) make Change Ferndale sceptical of entrusting $21 million of our tax dollars to their pet project.
For these reasons we urge a NO vote on the May ballot for the $21 million bond issue.
Our position is that renovation, not demolition, will be both a cost effective and proactive way to ensure the children have a safe school and the taxpayer is not burdened with wasteful and harmful policy.
Until the FSD can provide these changes we urge a NO vote on the $21 million bond issue.
Thank you for your interest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
What are is the FSD reason for demolishing instead of retrofitting?
What is the biggest problem with the schools in question?
Are the schools fixable?
Quite the billboard you have up. Caught my attention and now I'm here. I have 2 boys at Custer and am against the $21 million debt as it sounds like you are. I'll be voting against it May.
I don't have much money or time, but would like to lend what support I can to your organization. I'm concerned a bit about who is in your organization and what agenda you might have beyond this one issue.
Thanks,
Wally
To "the bob":
According to the materials handed out during the FSD meetings retrofitting the Custer school would not address the 30 year life span, nor would it increase the size of the building. According to their data, the cost for the safety/seismic & accessibility upgrades at Custer would be $1,696,000. This would address accessibility upgrades, seismic upgrades (for the entire school) mechanical/electrical, provide fire truck access, and septic upgrades.
At a meeting the architects suggested it would be easier to tear it down and build a new school, this seems to be the position of the FSD because there was no objection to this comment.
The most immediate problem with the schools in question is that they are in need of seismic upgrade.
The schools, according to the FSD data, are fixable and estimates available.
Custer elementary was to be upgraded with the $3.6 million bond approved in 2006, the recent and sudden discovery of the North Bellingham school problems have created a need to address the problems at that location as well.
Change Ferndale believes that it was inappropriate to use the 2006 bond money for anything other than what the voters had approved it for. The sudden discovery of the problems at North Bellingham, offer no guarantee that other facilities are not in the same condition. It would therefore be unwise of the community to approve a bond of this magnitude, because it would leave us vulnerable to the possibility of other schools desperately needing funding, and not having it available.
We also believe that to prevent any such sudden surprises, such as the ones at North Bellingham, the FSD should survey the facilities to see where we stand structurally speaking.
thank you "the bob"
To "wally":
We thank you for your support, and if you would like, the best way you may help is to spread the word about the website so that healthy dialogue can be produced. We encourage visitors to post support and questions. We will do our best to answer them.
As for our membership, given the nature of the issues we will be facing we do not disclose who is part of the organization. Those who would like may disclose it themselves.
As for our agenda beyond this one, we want to improve communications between taxpayers and local officials. If you are concerned by our endorsement and reaction to policy, located in our mission statement, the purpose of the website is to foster debate and exchange of ideas. We at Change Ferndale will offer justification for the policy we endorse or question, and we will act accordingly. The visitors will always have a chance to comment and do not necessarily have to support our actions, so long as their opinion is justified. We will act in what we believe is in the interest of the community, we will explain our action and position to the community on our website and encourage community participation.
I hope your concerns have been addressed, and admire your support
Thank you "wally"
Thank you for this forum. Questions: Enrollment is declining, we are paying for an entire school on Lummi Island for 55 students, we have a brand new school on Church Road almost completed. Why do we need to spend 21 million on demolishing and rebuilding? Redo boundaries and use the new school until if/when the economy rebounds. Close Beach school and save, save, save. (Some of the 21 million is earmarked for Beach school with its 55 students). North Bellingham is one building. This cannot possibly cost 21 million if Ferndale Admin weren't so much in need of a showcase school. Look at the recent large buildings built in Whatcom County. Not 21 million worth. They didn't pay millions to an architect. How much of the 21 million goes to Rolluda? Let's use Custer for a community center and leave the heritage.
Thank you. I believe in signing names but won't for fear of backlash.
Are you suggesting to bus Lummi Island kids to the Mainland School everyday?
It is actually done on number of the small Islands around Anacortes, as a example.
Definitely ,idea to conceder.
Can you give us examples of shcools that have retrofitted instead of demolition?
"the bob" :
Below, I am posting a link to study completed by "Washington Trust" in 2002, organization I am a proud member of.
That study analysis many examples, how School Districts deals with historic school renovation projects, demolition, replacements and all options one can imagine, specifically in the State of Washington.
I hope other people will find it interesting too.
art rojsza
Enjoy:
http://www.wa-trust.org/PDFs/2002WTHPHistoricSchoolsStatus
Report1.pdf
It's unfortunate you aren't taking the time to do the real research before protesting funding. Aside from the fact, that this bond would NOT increase taxes (although the passed levy will), the "facts" you are presenting are not neccessarily very accurate. You're choosing to share only part of the picture to make your point.
Ultimately though, not supporting school bonds and levies always has the most impact on those who are most important, and that's the kids. Learning will suffer without community support. Community support is all the schools have, because they certainly don't have it from the government, who continually passes down more mandates while not financially supporting those mandates and cutting other funding. This 21 million dollar bond needs to be approved now. If it's not approved, it will only worsen the situation and cost taxpayers more money later.
I find it sad that people, particularly parents who have children, are not willing to support schools. They are quick to make judgements without knowing the whole story, and unfortunately, they listen to people like you who think you know how schools work or "should" work.
For years, schools and teachers have been underfunded and underpayed, yet people expect more and more. It's time to have realistic expectations. With a decline in government funding and community support, you need to expect a decline in student performance. Not passing this bond WILL make the situation worse and then where will our kids be?
Anonymous, please expand on the 'facts that are not necessarily very accurate'. What exactly are you telling us that Art is misrepresenting.
Personally I'm a bit confused. We are being told that we need more classroom space for the future but the Custer rebuild will only add noimminally to the existing classrooms. I've heard the growth card played (even with declining enrollmnet), how is that planning for the future?
More troubling is the idea of spending even a dollar building any NEW building at North Bellingham. This is a busy intersection that will only get more congested in the future. Is this really a good place for a school? And what happens in 5-10 years when it is too small or needs more renovation. What about an adequate parking lot? Where will that go, in the play yard?
Change Ferndale,
I agree with almost everything your organization has stated. I believe that in a community where most people are having such a hard time financially, it would be irresponsible of us to allow such a bond to go through if our property taxes are at risk of going sky high. Just speaking for myself and the people in my household, our property taxes have gone up over $160+ dollars in the past 6 months. For those of us who live on a tight budget, that hurts. Let's not even mention the fact that Ferndale has some of the highest water & sewer rates in the county.
Kids are our most precious possessions. They depend on us to provide them with a stable, loving and healthy upbringing. In my mind, education in this county is NOT put first and it should be. More emphasis should be put on Education than building a new skate park or putting in a new street light. Without molding the children of today into productive members of society, what good are those new street lights or skate parks? From what I have read, it seems to me that FSD has lost sight of that fact and is more concerned with just getting another new building. Sure, the new Custer school would be fantastic but I am sure everyone in this community could think of one, two, five or even 10 different things that they would love to change about their house but the fact of the matter is, we do the best that we can do with what we've got. If we've got a building that can be upgraded and retrofitted for a mere fraction of what a new building would cost.. well.. that just seems like a no brainer to me!
The one thing though that sticks out like a sore thumb in my husband's and my mind is that Change Ferndale refuses to disclose who it's members are. If you truly believe in what you are fighting for and really want to make a change, what do you have to hide? I would think you would be proud of who you are and standing up for what you believe in.
Before you think I am just some new and naive Ferndale resident, I must say that my family has lived in Whatcom County for over 60 years. My grandfather, who has passed away, was extremely involved with the Chamber in Bellingham, owned several local businesses and was very well respected. I understand that in this generally backwards county, news travels fast and people are quick to damn others who don't fit the typical "Whatcom County" mold but if you are so concerned about that happening to you and effecting your family and or business, why even bother to do this? It seems to me that it would be the more honorable to stand up and say.. "This is who I am and this is what I support." You can't have it both ways. You cannot live in the shadows but try to convince a vast majority of people to make a big change like this.
To “anonymous”:
I am happy for you interest in the bond issue and thank you for sharing your perspective, however I disagree with you on a number of your points.
First, it would be helpful if you would cite your problems with the” facts”. We would love to clarify, and if need be defend, our position but it is virtually impossible if you have not offered us what “facts” you disagree with.
Second, taxes WOULD increase if the bond was passed. Before that money from the bond becomes the responsibility of the FSD it belongs to the community. The approving of the $21 million bond would raise our taxes back to what we have been paying. This is not helpful at a time when gas prices are dancing close to $4 a gallon, food prices are increasing, and foreclosures are more frequent. This tax increase may not trouble those who can afford it, but those who cannot, may be pushed out of their homes, forced to pay higher rent or property taxes and their children will likely suffer because of it.
Third, money wasted does not help the children. Money well spent does. Destroying a building like Custer is foolish and building a new one is expensive. Destroying it is foolish because it is a historic building, you can’t get it back once you have demolished it.
Fourth, the $21 million bond ran in March was not approved and Change Ferndale did not exist to comment on it. We believe you are not giving the voters the credit they deserve. It is they who determine if the schools are worthy of their support, not Change Ferndale. They do not “make judgments without knowing the whole story” they know the whole story and then make a judgment. You may not like that people disagree with you but that is no reason to assume that they are making choices uninformed.
Fifth, we at Change Ferndale encourage dialogue and believe that all sides of the issue should be considered. We do not intend to force people to vote the way we want them to. We state our position and reasons why we hold that position, and offer a chance for people to agree and disagree on this website. We offer information and a chance for people to exchange information at their own pleasure.
Sixth, if a business owner suddenly finds herself unable to support her business because customers have lost interest, found alternatives, or simply said no to her products, she must respond in a way that corrects the problems. Proposing this bond is analogous to the business owner continuing to make bad choices that do not play well with her customers. Things will not get worse if we do not support this bond, things will get worse if the FSD continues to push wasteful bonds on the community.
Thank you for your input
To “Caitlin Stephens”:
You are concerned with our no disclosure policy. If you are asking who I am my name is Norbert Rojsza, and if you would like you may read all about my role in the organization in the Ferndale record journal. As for our members, I would like to make this very clear.
Under no circumstance will Change Ferndale ever revile who its members are; those who are interested may reveal themselves.
We hold this policy out of respect for people who do not want to be put under scrutiny. I truly believe in what I am advocating, and I have nothing to lose by disclosing who I am. Some people could have more to lose, for example if I was an employee of the school district I may not want the district to know my position on the bond issue. That shouldn’t stop me from expressing my opinion and learning what others think about the same issue.
Sometimes people just don’t want to be on record as members of organizations and we respect that. Those who do can, at their own discretion, reveal it but we will not.
I respect your opinion, but think that people can divulge on their own. I wouldn’t want to be responsible for someone else’s hardship or even responsible for someone not expressing their opinion on the website. Everyone deserves a chance to express themselves and our no disclosure policy ensures that people are not afraid to come out of the shadows and talk about these community issues.
Thank you
Norbert,
As you know I have been monitoring and gathering information off your blog since its creation earlier this month. I have recently seen the concerns of who you are and the broader question of who is “Change Ferndale”? The below comment I cut and pasted from Sam Taylor’s blog on the Herald site, http://blogs.bellinghamherald.com/index.php?blog=12. Sam was introducing your Blog to his blogging audience. And to give credit where credit is due, Sam was informed of your blog from fellow blogger Wally, http://www.wallywonderswhy.com/?p=1100 which also has a discussion going. Below is what Sam’s first commenter, Steve Lydolph, had to say:
Comment from: Steve Lydolph [Visitor] • http://washouts.blogspot.com
Interesting... this "group" would like to discuss issues BUT their not telling anyone who they are or when they meet? A blog with no names, no contact email or phone number?
This "group" sound mighty fishy.
Permalink 04/24/08 @ 20:13
I completely understand how he quickly got to his conclusion, but feel his and others people’s concerns could be easily answered and addressed. I personally don’t have these concerns, but I also personally know both you and your father and I am little closer to Ferndale politics in general. Our larger community is not!
I would suggest you check out some of the other community blogs and conform with basic “blog etiquette”, so to speak. There is no one all format, but there are some standard essentials such as what Mr. Lydolph points out. Since you are a group, you might also consider listing other contributors (people that can post an original comment or article) too, i.e. Art. As far as your membership roster is considered, I completely understand and agree with your no disclosure policy. However, once your grassroots movement gets some momentum the logical evolution would dictate some sort of organized structure. Maybe even a board of directors or elected/appointed officers. Once Change Ferndale gets there, I would suggest listing your officers on the blog at a minimum. The basic rational for most of these suggestions is transparency and legitimacy. And again these are just some friendly suggestions.
In the meantime, there is a very informative and active discussion happening on the above mentioned political blog Sam Taylor moderates. Seems there are others that are interested too!
Steve Malpezzi
To “Steve Malpezzi”:
Thank you for your suggestions.
We are focusing on defeating the wasteful $21 million May bond for the time being because it is the most urgent issue. The bond is what got the group together and it needs the community’s attention.
We do not feel that we have the resources to host a formal organization. We do, however, have a dedicated group of people who have similar goals. Our goals are wiser spending of local tax money, more participation from the community on important issues, and an all around better Ferndale.
This website is a marketplace of ideas, we will (and have) investigate issues facing the community and express our opinion based on our research. We invite and encourage all who are interested to participate in our discussions.
I am encouraged that the issue of the May bond is being discussed elsewhere as well, this is ultimately what we are striving for more community participation.
Thank you Steve
Well, one thing is certain: Change Ferndale has a special affinity for old, dilapidated buildings and obfuscation.
To "selatik":
Our position is to preserve history not destroy it. the FSD decision to let Custer elementary deteriorate after voters approve $3.6 million to renovate it in 2006 was a disservice to those who value history, namely those who approved the money in 2006.
We believe this position was, and is, shared by the broader community evident by voter behavior in 2006 to approve saving the building, and voter behavior in April 2008 to reject tearing it down.
We are confident that the community still shares this view in May 2008.
thank you
I understand that everyone loves the Custer Elementary School building and wants to save it but there are major things wrong with the building. The reason the 3.6 million wasn't spent is because they can't use it. The building is in too poor of shape. The state says that once they start to fix what's wrong, they will have to fix everything that's wrong and 3.6million doesn't cover it.
Custer is becoming/is a safety hazard. There's mold in the walls, the sewage backs up into the kitchen, bathrooms, and covered playshed (on occasion), part of the building is sinking, the students have to smell the sewer in the playshed daily, the roof leaks, the temperature can't be controlled, and there 36ish entrances/exits to the school (not safe for children). I could probably keep going...I didn't mention the fact that an earthquake could be tragic.
I realize that Custer residents didn't appear to support the bond but there were a great deal that didn't vote because they assumed it would pass. The bonds always do. Boy did they learn their lesson! There is also a lot of people in Custer that aren't registered to vote, which is unfortunate.
Custer Elementary isn't just the building. The original Custer has been added on to many, many times. They are even going to reuse parts of Custer in the new building and make a memory hall to help preserve its heritage. Custer will be just as wonderful if it is rebuilt as it is now! Just a whole lot safer!!
I've read the info sent by FSD and have been on tours of the two locations. Both schools are in dire need of demolition. I'm voting yes because the legacy I want to leave my grandchildren (I don't have any yet)is one of quality schools not of wasteful spending on crumbling buildings. Bringing Custer up to code would cost more than a new school without adding needed space. The new schools are designed to be 50 year buildings - an updated Custer won't last that long. I believe there are historic buildings and there are sentimentally "historic" buildings. Custer falls into the latter category.
The cost of building the needed schools is only going to increase and who knows how long we can count on matching funds from Olympia. Now is the best time to build. The current building plan of FSD will actually save millions of dollars over the life of the new schools and will better meet the growing needs of our community.
The bond narrowly failed last time. I understand that FSD polled citizens of Ferndale and found many people assumed the bond would pass and did not bother to vote. Many people were stunned that it failed and I hope they all cast a "YES" vote.
I also think there are members of Change Ferndale who hope to profit from their stance that Custer School is historic and should be renovated. If the bond fails and Custer is renovated (NOTE - there won't actually be any money for renovation without a future bond-the remaining $2.6 million won't even come close to covering the costs and we won't get matching funds from the State)it will be interesting to see who bids on the project. I'll bet spending millions on Custer won't seem so wasteful then.
Post a Comment