How to Sell BEX IV?
The Times has two stories about levies/bonds that make me wonder how the district, via the Schools First group who does the levy/bond campaigns, is going to sell BEX IV.
The first story is a round-up of Eastside capital bonds on the ballot Tuesday.
Mercer Island wants to renovate ALL its schools - 3 elementaries, 1 middle and upgrades at their only high school. Interestingly, opponents think they should build a new elementary to end the overcrowding at the elementaries. Their bond is for $193.3M.
Issaquah is asking for $219.1M and has no opposition.
Renton is trying again to pass a $97M for a new middle school. They almost passed it in Feb. but it only received 58% of the vote rather than the needed 60%. That election also saw all the operations levies on the ballot pass.
Now you may have noticed that the Eastside elections are for bonds but Seattle Schools cannot chance a bond with such a high dollar ask. They are asking for the money via a capital levy. That is one reason why the projects on the preliminary list will take longer than if we had a bond (and received all the money up-front).
The second article is an editorial today by the Times board noting the large (and looming) line-up of levies/bonds for Seattle voters.
Now on Wednesday the editorial board said this on the issue of the Eastside bond measures:
Rebuilding aging schools supports learning every bit as much as buying textbooks or hiring a new teacher.
Extremely low interest rates make now an optimal time for school construction.
That are good points and ones that you would hope would resinate with voters.
They also say:
Some voters are likely feeling pinched by funding requests coming from other areas of government in addition to schools. Prioritizing is the proper approach. Schools should be at the top of the priority list.
So that throws down the gauntlet for voters - do your homework (and that includes the math).
So today's editorial points out that the first levy election coming up for Seattle is for Seattle libraries. Those do help educate children and provide needed computer access to low-income folks.
Then there is the King County levy to replace the really run-down Youth Services Center. It's a nine-year levy that would cost the average homeowner $25 a year. Those youth do receive some education at the Youth Center.
Then Mayor McGinn wants a levy on the ballot for the seawall. Not educational but safety first, no?
The editorial then gets to Seattle Schools:
Not too far in the distance, probably next February, looms Seattle Public Schools levies for building and operations. The B-word, $1 billion, has been mentioned as the potential price.
Voters should pay close attention because the result can be ballot overload.
Between now and 2016, there are about 14 levies and bonds to appear on various ballots. Luckily, BEX IV comes earlier in that line-up rather than say, Parks, which comes later.
Now parents can try to help sell BEX IV by telling neighbors and friends about the dire state of their own building and/or the crowding. This is something that most people could see and believe with their own eyes.
BUT we also have the visual memory of the district closing schools in the not-so-distant past. And, the district is even proposing closing a school, Roxhill, and scattering their students (with most going to Arbor Heights). So will they close Roxhill only to open it in several years?
So readers, you're savvy consumers - how would you sell BEX IV?
Also, quick and unscientific poll - which amount would you vote for? $540M, $700M or $890M?
The first story is a round-up of Eastside capital bonds on the ballot Tuesday.
Mercer Island wants to renovate ALL its schools - 3 elementaries, 1 middle and upgrades at their only high school. Interestingly, opponents think they should build a new elementary to end the overcrowding at the elementaries. Their bond is for $193.3M.
Issaquah is asking for $219.1M and has no opposition.
Renton is trying again to pass a $97M for a new middle school. They almost passed it in Feb. but it only received 58% of the vote rather than the needed 60%. That election also saw all the operations levies on the ballot pass.
Now you may have noticed that the Eastside elections are for bonds but Seattle Schools cannot chance a bond with such a high dollar ask. They are asking for the money via a capital levy. That is one reason why the projects on the preliminary list will take longer than if we had a bond (and received all the money up-front).
The second article is an editorial today by the Times board noting the large (and looming) line-up of levies/bonds for Seattle voters.
Now on Wednesday the editorial board said this on the issue of the Eastside bond measures:
Rebuilding aging schools supports learning every bit as much as buying textbooks or hiring a new teacher.
Extremely low interest rates make now an optimal time for school construction.
That are good points and ones that you would hope would resinate with voters.
They also say:
Some voters are likely feeling pinched by funding requests coming from other areas of government in addition to schools. Prioritizing is the proper approach. Schools should be at the top of the priority list.
So that throws down the gauntlet for voters - do your homework (and that includes the math).
So today's editorial points out that the first levy election coming up for Seattle is for Seattle libraries. Those do help educate children and provide needed computer access to low-income folks.
Then there is the King County levy to replace the really run-down Youth Services Center. It's a nine-year levy that would cost the average homeowner $25 a year. Those youth do receive some education at the Youth Center.
Then Mayor McGinn wants a levy on the ballot for the seawall. Not educational but safety first, no?
The editorial then gets to Seattle Schools:
Not too far in the distance, probably next February, looms Seattle Public Schools levies for building and operations. The B-word, $1 billion, has been mentioned as the potential price.
Voters should pay close attention because the result can be ballot overload.
Between now and 2016, there are about 14 levies and bonds to appear on various ballots. Luckily, BEX IV comes earlier in that line-up rather than say, Parks, which comes later.
Now parents can try to help sell BEX IV by telling neighbors and friends about the dire state of their own building and/or the crowding. This is something that most people could see and believe with their own eyes.
BUT we also have the visual memory of the district closing schools in the not-so-distant past. And, the district is even proposing closing a school, Roxhill, and scattering their students (with most going to Arbor Heights). So will they close Roxhill only to open it in several years?
So readers, you're savvy consumers - how would you sell BEX IV?
Comments
Seriously. I voted against all the stadiums, because owners could well afford, or could finance, construction on their own. How did construction of sports palaces improve the welfare and education of our children.
I'm not a tea-party. I give generously and believe in helping those who need help. Burgess and his buddies don't need help.
Take it off the list.
-tired of paying more and more for less and less.
Also, I can't support the expense of building a new 1000-seat middle school at Olympic Hills when there is already a middle school building in the area (Jane Addams). Seems like it would be cheaper to build a new K-8 for the Jane Addams population, which would help lower the overall cost of the levy package, making it more attractive to voters.
- North End Mom
But since you ask how to sell Bex, my 2c. Speak to me where I am at instead of doing the same old. I am weary of being asked for money, weary of ballots, weary of being in a semi-economic depression with the end of the world coming. I am mired in uncertainty. I feel the district is always looking away to its own mean plan rather than the community desires, driven by desire for the best for their children (whatever that is). Because of this reality I am this close to saying "forget any BEX money, I prefer the crappy building we are in than your future because this one thing is known and I don't trust the district to do The Right Thing."
I want someone to claim to be doing the right thing. Let the buck stop somewhere. So, to vote yes I have to hear that you are doing the right thing finally. That you are going to build green, that you are building for the future - not just to cope with this demographic fart or that economic crisis, but that you have a vision, clarity, a way to make us proud of our schools.
500 million, 800 million... they are both nuts if you don't have a vision, clarity. For me its all or nothing. I am not voting yes for a half-articulated, covering-ass, will-sort-it-out later kinda plan.
People need to see the far-reaching plan that can be clearly explained and understood.
observer
--Cranky
Yes, this levy won't fail either I think, but it does matter which one (out of the proposed 3) will win. There is a HUGE difference between the numbers. So they better be prepared to give us a good enough explanation (or selling it the right way), Shannon is totally right.
- A
The district officials know that they have an electorate that will reliably vote in favor of school levies, so they don't have to be mindful of what they put on the levy or how they spend the money.
Even if I thought 30% of the levy were wasted, I would still vote for it to get the 70% that the schools actually need.
Just so you know, there were ones in the early '90s that failed and it was to John Stanford's great humiliation. The district likes to trace the decline in spending on maintenance to ones that failed in the late '70s.
Yes, Seattlites support education. But the context of my thread is that Seattle is facing down a LOT of levies. Also, I think for many parents the SLU school might be a game changer.
MC
MC
Considering DeBell's absolute failure to oversee the district, extension of MGJ's contract and subsequent $0.36M in severance package, I"d like to see a little more fiscal management/ pressure from the board to get things right i.e. Human Resourcesetc. There is atleast one Director that has zero tolerance for incompetence and fiscal management. The question is: Will DeBell continue to restrain the voices and actions of these individuals?
I want to see strenous oversight and demand for competent management of district dollars...even if it means a few board members getting fired up.
What I'd need said in order to be enthusiastically in favor of the levy is that it's doing what needs to be done to house the kids safely and contains no fluff. I can't honestly say that now, and it's hard to vote for a measure where 30% of the money is probably going to be wasted or misdirected. I might hold my nose and vote for it anyway, but I won't be out telling all my neighbors to vote for it.
PS The anti-levy people on Mercer Island offered a false choice. They said they want a fourth elementary instead of renovating 3 schools, but there's no land available and everyone knows it. It's easy to snipe from the side without offering a real alternative solution.
North End Mom
Don't we have more pressing allocation needs?
Working within a budget means you establish priorities for your money. Maybe if the board/district didn't think taxpayers had bottomless pockets and a forgiving nature, they would learn this.
I guess I haven't noticed the signs from SPS.
The Shoreline signs are HUGE. Hard not to notice them.
North End Mom
If the interest rate is lower than the inflation rate, bonds will buy you more. If the inflation rate is lower than the interest rate, then levies will buy you more.
Both rates are very low right now and it would be tough to say which would be the better deal going forward.
Also, levies only need a simply majority to pass while bonds need a 60% majority.
Bonds need more than 60% yes, don't they? Don't they also still need enough voters to turn in ballots. I believe there has to be some minimum number of votes based on the turnout of the most recent election, which will be November 2012 including the gubernatorial race. Turnout in February for school measures is generally quite low.
They have been unable in the past to provide this function in their contracts.
Why should taxpayers be expected to vote yes for capital construction levies without this basic assurance?
FTM