You failed to answer my question. Referring to the planned expansion
of the already super-sized Roseville Area High School, I asked: What's
wrong with this picture? I did not ask for a meaningless stream of
“expert” “community” “engaging” buzzword bullshit.
http://dilbert.com/strip/1994-02-22
The District asked for many millions of dollars to expand the high
school. The building already accommodates more than 2000 students.
The planned expansion would add accommodations for 300 more students,
bringing the total student population at the sprawling complex to
close to 2500. According to a District “fact sheet,” the 300-student
expansion will “improve pedestrian and vehicular safety.” How can a
major expansion of the already overbuilt, outdated, and unsafe high
school improve safety for anyone? Other than increased enrollment,
and the increased revenue that comes with it, what are the “criteria
and goals” that would lead one to support a major expansion of a
facility that's already a traffic and safety nightmare?
You claim a shortage of real estate is one reason to continue
warehousing masses of students in outdated and unsafe buildings. Over
the past 30-40 years, how much property, including the site of the
recently demolished Lake Owasso School, has the Roseville School
District sold off? And when the expanded buildings once again start
to empty and become too costly to maintain, as they inevitably will,
how much property will the School District again need to jettison?
I did not mean to suggest the District should be “Razing all of our
buildings and replacing them with new construction.” Those are your
words, not mine. Obviously, the facilities that have evolved over the
past 60-70 years, buildings that Superintendent Sicoli calls outdated
and unsafe, are not going to be replaced overnight. Obviously, $144M
is not enough to pay for the demolition and replacement of every
school building. $144M is, however, a lot of money, and would be a
lot better spent if focused on the needs of the children of Roseville
area taxpayers rather than the needs of architectural consultants,
construction contractors and tax-exempt bond brokers – the vested
interests I believe you euphemistically refer to as “experts.”
As I would expect others to do as well, rather than responding on
behalf of the board, please speak for yourself.
Thank you.
Sheldon Gitis, Roseville