School district to buy former Blue Shield building
Woodland joint Unified School Board will be purchasing and occupying the former Blue Shield building located near East and Main, according to a Daily Democrat article published on Dec. 16. The local paper has been diligently reporting on the development of this acquisition. Board deliberations began almost a year ago. (Click the title to access the article.)
Board item: Purchase building and property at 435 6th St.
Board vote: 4-3 vote in favor (Glover, Villagrana and Berg dissenting)
Purchase price: $5.67 million (or ~ $142 per sq. ft)
New space (on 6th): 40,000 sq. ft.
Current space (on Cottonwood): 30,000 sq. ft.
Current lease: $225,000 a year
Funding source: Certificates of Participation (tax-exempt "bonds").
Terms: $450,000 plus 3% annual interest for 30 years
Total amount to be paid: $13.5 million plus interest (or ~337 per sq. ft.)
Prepayment penalties: None
Other costs: $140,965 to Brereton Architects for space planning and design
Considerations: WJUSD 10 year lease for 630 Cottonwood St. coming to an end
Expected employees by 2015: 111
Concerns: Time not right for such a costly project, district can't afford it, additional expenses for new furniture
Posts
72 comments:
I'm amazed that the administration is increasing its bureaucracy when test scores are not where they should be. This money would be better spent on private tutoring for students who are struggling. Folks, this is why hard questions for school board candidates matter!
There is a whole lot more to the intent to purchase that building and this community needs to hold the school board accountable for this.
Quote from Frank Glover "
One of the problems that I have with this purchase is that we literally can't afford the building without putting what's called a graduated payment," Glover said. "We're paying a lot more than the $5.6 million because for the first seven or eight years we're not paying principal, we're actually adding additional principal.
Why is he concerned because they are talking about purchasing it via
a reverse or negative amortization mortgage.
What is that you asked well
A negative amortization mortgage is sometimes referred to as a reverse amortization mortgage. With either terminology, what happens with this type of mortgage is that the principal owed on the mortgage is allowed to increase in the early stage of the mortgage. This early stage is commonly referred to as the negative amortization or negam portion of the mortgage. This negam stage usually lasts 3 to 5 years.
For example, a borrower takes a mortgage on his/her property for $300,000. Under the terms of the mortgage, he/she will be required to make the minimum monthly payment of $988.99 each month for the first 60 months, or 5 years of the mortgage. This 5-year period is, of course, the negam period. When you calculate the interest rate for this negam period you'll find that it is 1.173%!
When the negam period ends, basically, the party's over. Under the terms of this particular mortgage, the interest rate increases to 7.75% and that's not all! The interest rate has been 7.75% all along, but the borrower was not obligated to pay this much during the negam stage of the loan. So, what happened was, the interest that wasn't being paid during the negam stage was being added on to the principal of the mortgage. Now, 5 years later, the principal that was originally $300,000 has ballooned to $369,241.25!
Let's run the numbers for the post negam or regular stage of this mortgage. The term of the mortgage is 30 years. So now, there are 25 years left for the borrower to pay $369,241.25 at 7.75%. This will require a minimum monthly payment of $2,788.99, or exactly $1,800 a month more than the borrower has been paying.
These numbers are the exact numbers taken from an existing negative amortization mortgage. There are many variations to how a negam works, but with every one, the monthly payment starts small and the principal increases in the negam period. Then, in the regular period, the required monthly payment increases, sometimes to 2, 3 or even 4 times its original amount.
So that is just one of the issues we will be faced with down the road.
One of the problems I worry about is they are taking a large commcercial office space off the tax role. Nothing we can do about it but every little bit matters these days.
JM
I asked why they have to be downtown and I was told easier access for the bus route. That is crazy. Why are we allowing this to happen?
They need to be in the industrial area next to the Office of education that would make more sense to me. And yes taking it off the tax rolls is an issue as well. Not to mention the fact that they are paying 1.5 million more than it was 1 year ago. (more to come on that)
I got one for you who is the current owner of the building? and when did they purchase it?
Can anyone answer that??
If this was in the works for over a year, why are we just now hearing about it? After the fact!
What happens if the payments can not be made? Do they forclose like normal folks do?
Having the School Board in its current location killed the retail shopping center over there on Cottonwood. Maybe their move will be a good thing for that center.
It's a good idea for WJUSD to own property. Owning property does not add to bureacracy (increasing administrative staff does), and in the end the district will not be paying a mortgage or rent.
Comparing the overhead budget to tutoring is apples and oranges, but it does bring up an excellent point... the mortgage should reflect due diligence and financial savvy.
This is one of those government deals that might look good at first glance, but upon investigation it doesn't pencil-out (like the PBID or the Storm Drain rate proposals). Surely the district can find a better way to finance it.
The $140 per sq. ft. price tag is fair. It would cost twice as much to build from scratch. It doesn't bother me that the owner of the building is basically "flipping" the property for a profit.
What bothers me is (aside fromt the terms of the mortgage) is the unknown cost for interior work that Brereton Architects designs. Did you know that Brereton is a SF firm? They have an office in Pleasanton, too, but it seems like an old contact of the superintendent is getting a favor. Why not have someone local (at least in Sacramento) design the interior space? The district might save some money without losing quality.
Worrying about the interior is jumping ahead a bit, however, since there are concerns about the new location of the district office. It's better than it's current spot, that's for sure... what a weird set-up that is.
I'm undecided about the potential loss of sales tax revenue issue. Certainly, a business MIGHT come along at an undetermined point and time and MAYBE occupy that space... but the size and design of the building limits who might eventually move there. Another insurance company? I think bringing 100 employees to the downtown has its benefits.
Now, let's take a look at fitting 100 staffers in a 40,000 sq. ft. building. For fun, let's deduct space for a board meeting room, conference space, lunch room and bathrooms... how about 10,000 sq. ft. for the shared space? That still leaves 30,000 sq. ft. for 100 office workers. That comes to 300 sq. ft. per person, or a 20' x 15' space for each person (about the size of an ordinary living room). My point here is - has anyone (besides Brereton) checked the actual - real - space needs for our district?
considering that most office cubicles are far smaller than the average living room I don't think you made your point Dino. Are you saying that 15x20 is or isn't big enough?
Dino I agree with owning property but not this property there is no reason that they need to be downtown. Given the amount of vacancies in the industrial area there is a far greater opportunity to purchase a larger building for the same or less money and with the opportunity to expand later on. There they will outgrow the current selected site by 2011 according to their growth projections. So keeping that in mind they will be at full capacity by the time the loan starts to come full circle. Hmm then what??
Dino you mention "It doesn't bother me that the owner of the building is basically "flipping" the property for a profit."
Getting an estimated 1 million plus dollars over what they paid for the property is outrageous. Given the current market.
My quesiton(s) did they puchase knowing the district intent to purchase it? Insider information??
Did they make any financial contributions to the 2 running for school board?
Is that the current market value??
I agree with your thought with a fair market value. It is the community's money not theirs. Getting the best for our money is what they are voted in office to do, well they have not and as this thing becomes clearer you will see why this deal has flaws.
Oops the growth projected is 2013
Anon. 6:23
My point regarding the living room-size space was that it was too much allocated for employees. The article only mentions the Bay Area firm as providing interior design estimates, so I was wondering if there were second or third opinions to determine if that building is too big. Sorry, I wasn't very clear.
Fez,
There's vacancies downtown, too - constant reminders of which occur on this blog site. I'm undecided if the location, itself, should be reserved for a sales tax-generating use. I think bringing employees downtown is important, too.
I question the need for 40,000 sq. ft. You say the projections for 2015 suggest outgrowing the building, but I believe Brereton said that the estimated 111 employees by that time will be accommodated. In my previous comments I suggested that the district get other estimates for space. I have a feeling the space might be too big for their needs.
If there were back room deals between the property owner and the district that caused the $1m inflation price inflation, I would definitely be concerned. Do you have proof of that? Like I said before, $140 per sq. ft. seems like a fair price considering it would cost twice as much to build. Again, does the district really need that much space?
It would be good if the deal and the insinuations (if true) were revealed. You may absolutely be right in saying the whole thing is flawed. I brought up some areas of concern and so have you (and so has love2teach, JM and DM). There probably are cheaper spaces in the industrial area... but considering the persistent vacancies downtown, the locaton might be good for the community overall. I realize that I gripe about the bottom-line all the time, but I've also said cheaper isn't always better.
Remember, there are plenty of government buildings downtown that don't contribute to the city's sales tax revenue. The good thing is that it is not on Main Street where retail should be... the space is relegated next to the railroad tracks and the design of the building does not lend itself to retail. What's the likelihood of filling that space with another insurance company (or similar business)?
I know I'm all over the place on this one... but that means there are lots of unanswered questions (at least as far as the public is concerned). Thanks for bringing those up, Fez!
Why isn't the city making a stink about this like they did over the county trying to take the K-Mart building?
Obviously the comps in the area will not come anywhere close to that price range. The best comp is the sale done in August for 4.3M. Who are they using for the loan broker and finance company?
So where do I start.
Fact: The school district startd talking about purchasing this property about 1 year prior to dec 2007.
Fact: In March of 2007 this group now know as BLUE ICE LLC decided to show an interest in that property.
Fact: That property now closes escrow in AUG 2007 for 4.3 million.
Fact: In Dec 2007 The school district agrees to a 5.6 million dollar price tag for said property.
A 1.3 million dollar profit WOW!!
Can anyone show me hard facts of any commercial property in the downtown area getting such a high profit??
Fact: Blue Ice LLC at 610 Main St. Woodland. CA
has these people listed:
BOB K ARMSTRONG,
ELIZABETH S ARMSTRONG
RONALD S CACERAS,
LISA CAROLE CALHOUN,
GEORGE P CHRISTOPULOS
But that is just the start there is a whole lot more to this story folks the facts are just now coming to light.
6 years of interest at 5.3% getting put on the back end of the loan = 1,780,800 added to the total price. So reall we are buying this building for 7.38M.
Fact: An election was just held for School board members. I did not read a word about this. Hmmmmm.
Yes, the property is off the tax roles and that is a legitimate issue, but so is the uptick in sales tax and related revenues that will occur from bringing more people downtown. The problem with Blue Shield was that their lunch/break times were so short that they in effect prevented their employees from spending money downtown.
Incidentally, the Blue Shield project was another example of City investment downtown. It would never have happened without the City's involvement. Unfortunately, too many of the commenters on here don't have sufficient history to understand how much the City has done.
This commenter confuses me
"the Blue Shield project was another example of City investment downtown. It would never have happened without the City's involvement. Unfortunately, too many of the commenters on here don't have sufficient history to understand how much the City has done."
What the hell are you talking about?? They way you make it sound it' like we should be thanking the city for keeping the building so the school district can purchase it for more than it's real value.
Wow you either work for the local gov somehow or were on the council in the past.
JM what did the city sell the property to the wiseman group for ??
Maybe the comment refers to originally getting the blue shield to open in our downtown. Of course that was before they knew that blue shield would not provide enough break times for their employees. They might have been thinking that an office building that employed a lot of workers would help out our downtown merchants. Lets hope the School district gives their employees enough break time to support the downtown merchants:)
Does anyone remember the survey done by downtown coordinators office a few years back. They survery businesses and county and city employees a whopping 5-10% of them shopped downtown. That is pretty sad. There was even more information they gathered the city should have a copy of that report since they were funding that position.
JM can you locate that??
I have a basic question. What is the justification for this? I mean, what do we receive back in academic results for these increased costs? Since the purpose of school is academic proficience, the purpose of this new building better be higher academic proficience. They shouldn't be trusted to spend more without delivering more academically.
Americanvoter:
I don't see the comparison between the district buying property and academic achievements. In the long run (when the mortgage is paid), the district won't be paying rent. That will eventually save money, theoretcally perhaps for academic programs. It is short-sighted to equate this purchase with short-term program funding that may, or may not, result in higher test scores. In the long-run the district will save money.
The problem with this purchase, according to some of the commenters here, is that the price is too high for the Blue Shield building. Some have suggested the real estate comparisons are much lower - but no comps are provided.
The other issue is that there might be some insider "deals" and implied political "bribes" - yet there is concrete evidence missing. I would be very interested in learning more specifics on when the purchase was first discussed, who was in on the discussions, where is the real connection with those who discussed a move and those who bought the property, who contributed to whose school board campaign, etc.
Dino Quoted "In the long run (when the mortgage is paid), the district won't be paying rent."
Dino are you are saying it's okay for the district to pay that kind of money for that building?
Have you seen the numbers explained in the upper part of this story??
Anon. 6:37
Have you read what I've been saying?
"What the hell are you talking about?? They way you make it sound it' like we should be thanking the city for keeping the building so the school district can purchase it for more than it's real value.
Wow you either work for the local gov somehow or were on the council in the past."
I was simply responding to the oft-repeated suggestions in here that the City has never done anything for downtown, when in fact the City has done a great deal.
I made no comment on the wisdom of the school district purchasing the building other than to suggest that bringing employees downtown might further stimulate sales activity. I also know that the school district has paid millions out in rent over the past several years so that has to be compared against projected costs now to know whether it is a wise financial decision or not.
And yes, a little factual information does go a long way. As Daniel Moynihan once said: "You are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to your own set of facts? Consider yourself enlightened.
7:56
I think we're both getting pounded by out-of-context references. I think we're on the same page saying there is some merit to having that building occupied (since there's been much criticism about vacancies downtown).
There are apparently some odd circumstances surrounding the "deal" to purchase the property, but until some hard facts come to light, the $140 per sq. ft. seems like a reasonable price... but I could be wrong on that.
I also raised the question about 40,000 sq. ft. being too much. If that's the case, then the district is overspending.
As Daniel Moynihan once said: "You are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to your own set of facts? Consider yourself enlightened.
How did this go from school district to what the city has done for the downtown ??
What are we enlightned by ? I am just as confused as others now.
I wasn't around for the Blue Shield building. The council of that time, I assume, was making an investment in the downtown.
The property for the Wiseman Building was sold for a song. At the time, it seemed like an easy way to create some energy. The hope was that the building would raise property values and spur more investment in the area.
As far as the downtown survey, I will ask but I am not holding my breath. For the longest time this town had the worst record keeping imagineable. Since I have been on the council, we have been dragging this city into the information age. Most records and studies were stored in old boxes in the basement (where they were water damaged, eaten by moths, etc etc-it was pathetic). The last two to three years we have finally seen some real progress in that area and the city website is finally getting better - council minutes, agendas, etc.
Another priority for our new city manager is continued improvement in how the city communicates and stores data. It can be frustrating because government moves so very slow. We have a long ways to go yet.
JM
Fez,
Early on, the blog comments included the appropriateness of locating the district downtown. You made some of the comments. That's how other commenters started talking about downtown.
I'm still not seeing how Blue Ice is at fault here. If they spotted an interest in the site by the district, and then purchased the property, then I would say that is just a savvy investment. The likelihood that they bought it under its value would explain the large profit margin. I've also heard the difference is around a million. Could it be that Blue Ice refers to two properties... Blue Shield and Crystal Ice? Perhaps the group sees the potential of that area and are simply making wise investments.
If there was some deal made by the district... then to me it would be on the supertintendent and the school board candidates or members.
I think the school board should have looked at who the superintendent hired to do the space planning. To me, that is more suspect since the one Bay Area opinion led the board down the path to purchasing a 40,000 sq. ft., expensive interior design plans, and unknown remodeling costs.
School Boards aand Councils are only as good as their staff.
JM
Dino posting Blue Ice up there has is for people to look at the whole deal nothing implied other than knowing the players.
You guys really need to dig more.
The "Consultant that the sup. hired is a long time fried. Scott Sheldon. He was paid by the hour to assist in the finding an brokering in the deal.
At the board meeting it came out that he is a principal owner of the brokerage that is transaction the Blue Shield Building.
His is making $135,000 AND his wage as a consultant.
The board looked suprised to see know the board he was not making any commission on the purchase.
Even after that became known the four members voted for it...
Elections have consequences.
Fez:
Did you know the school board tour a tour of the building in late August?
Blue Ice, Inc. closed escrow on September 15th! Blue Ice bought the building for the sole purpose of selling it to the district.
When did the 5.6 million dollar figure get brought up? While escrow was closing? Did the building go up in value by 1.3 million in a few days.
The superintendent brings in an her hand picked "consultant" and is double dipping, the architect is a friend, the lawyer is a friend she brought in for the transaction.
The board has some major questions to answer to.
We all need to be calling the board for answers. Although I will not be calling Carol Souza Cole, or the other three sheep that passed this deal at the Superintendent's orders.
All they can say is "renting is better thna buying."
Anyone know the name of the consultant?
Business name? City resides
Premiere Commercial, Fairifield
You can Find them on the web:
http://www.pcres.net/
Scott Sheldon is the Supt. Buddy. Hey can she be my friend... I need a fat contract.
The "Consultant that the sup. hired is a long time fried. Scott Sheldon. He was paid by the hour to assist in the finding an brokering in the deal.
My question would be who hired them (he) was that done so with board approval and can anyone assist with minutes of the meetings ??
Should be in board minutes somewhere. I don't know where it would show up, or when.
I have looked. Generally, all things are required by the board at some level.
Yes where and how do we get minutes of those decisions ? That might help to clarify things
100 dollars a sq ft is no bargain, but a fair price. 140 dollars a square foot is a rip off. Would anyone in their right mind buy an empty building unless they knew it was a sure thing. hmmm, sounds like insider trading. Why did the previous owners sell to Blue ice?? Because it was sitting empty. They asked 4.3 mil and got full asking price. Something smells fishy. Blue Ice then marks it up 40 dollars a sq ft and gets full asking price from the school board. Wow. Must be nice.;
I do have to say, that apart from all the usual ranting and raving about government spending (Never matters what the project is - some folks are just a broken record), the notion that the consultant had a conflict of interest disturbs me greatly. Regardless of how he was payed he was hired to render independent recommendations, not ones in which he had an overriding financial interest.
I also have to say to those posters growling about "elections" and "back-door-deal" where have you been? We went through an entire election cycle featuring dismal candidates and no issues, despite the fact that a few brave souls have gone toe to toe with this superintendent and her empire-building propensities. Basically, if you're not willing to enter the fray when something can be done about it then you're all talk.
I was very disappointed to go through an election where I could not find ANY issues. This purchase should have been out in the open where the three dissenting voters made an issue out of it. My question is how many other major issues are not out in the public for opinions?
My "growling " about elections on here are the same "growlings" that I have had with other elections locally. How can we get citizens motivated to go out and cast their votes, if the candidates don't raise any issues, or create a platform?
This purchase smells of deciet. I am excited to see others posting on here with details not found in the local media or press.
The supt. didn't want to chance her water carrier (Souza Cole) not getting re-elected is my take. Did the Daily Disappointment even cover this race?
If the School Board want to come clean on this purchase, request the Board to have a outside full appraisal of building. Then the argument of value is solved. (101 business) is know your value before purchase
My point about spending more money must be accompanied by a plan for higher test scores is based on the purpose of public schools: to educate.
If making this move costs more money without the move resulting in better academic production by administrators and staff, then the move does not match the organization's purpose. That is, unless the purpose of public schools is now whatever makes the bureaucracy more comfortable.
We all need to expect more for the government school system. When more than five percent of the children are underachieving or dropping out, that's a crisis that needs to be fixed pronto. If we say we care about children, we must mean it. Time's awasting to fix the public schools that dumbing down our children.
That teacher who wrote in has a good idea for using the money to hire lots of tutors. I'd vote for that.
americanvoter:
You argument is still unconvincing to me... it's still an apples and oranges comparison. Right now the district is wasting money on rent. The purpose of buying a building is to own the property so that eventually the district has an asset and not an unnecessary expense.
Your reasoning does not make sense because you're mixing two essential budget items, overhead and programs. The fact is... along with the purpose of providing education, every district has expenses for the "teaching and learning" buildings and the "administrative and bureaucratic" buildings.
If you can extrapolate the long-term savings of rent over ownership, I'd be more inclined to get behind your logic. Right now, the district has a plan to increase test scores... it's called the "No Child Left Behind Act" and it's not working.
The best and most immediate thing the district can do to increase academic performance is to lower class size. Your idea to hire tutors is very siimplistic and not realistic.
Anon. 9:21
I like your touch and go comment about
S100 dollars per sq. ft. is no bargain, but a fair price. What is your source on that figure?
My suggestion that $140 per sq. ft. seems fair for the 40,000 sq. ft. comes from an inquiry to a commercial real estate broker.
If you go to loopnet.com you'll find area commercial properties for well over $200 per sq. ft. and industrial properties for well under $100 per sq. ft. The values fluctuate as the use and the total square footage changes.
Now... does the district really need 40,000 sq. ft. in the downtown? I don't know. Is there a better-suited property for less money? We don't know because it seems the superintendent has had a fixation on this particular property.
Obviously, you and I think the district should be prudent about purchasing any building and they should be selective about it. I frankly don't know if this is the best place for the district, but the sq. ft. price still seems fair. If you can cite some comps and credit a source... you will convince me that $140 is not really a good deal.
Having a personal tutor is better than smaller classes! To learn, you need to be instructed and guided and shown the way, bit by bit, making mistakes and learning why, being shown how and then trying it and showing you can do it, etc. My son has a tutor (me!) and is doing much, much better academically since we began homeschooling. The superiority of tutoring is why people pay for life coaches and personal trainers at the gym.
This deal is starting smell bad and Glover and Berg are the only with a good noses. This is one for the Grand Jury.
Anon. 2:12
Congratulations, I believe you just left the most ridiculous comment in Woodland Journal history.
Humor me and give me a rough estimate of what you think tutors will cost taxpayers if they're provided for every under-achieving child in this public school district.
Wow.
Wow? Dino, why do you have such as hard heart against homeschooling? This mother's comments make a lot of sense to me.
Home schooling: Great for some families
Tutoring: Excellent strategy for some students
Mothers: I love mothers
2:12's comments: Irrelevant to the blog topic
Is there really a need for this building?
111 District office staff?
How many district office staff are there now? 75? 80? 90? And that number has grown under this administration.
In the next decade is the district student growth going to increase by 25%-30%?
Dees the district staff increases need to be commiserate with the student population or exceed it?
Here's some info from wjusd.org - it doesn't really answer your good questions (like how many people work at the district office), but it might help frame some of the discussion of the topic:
Student population for grades K-12 exceeds 10,600 with an annual growth rate of approximately .5%. A $40 million construction bond (1999) allowed our second 4-year high school to open in the fall of 2003 with full occupation completed in fall of 2005. The bond also provided for modernization of most existing facilities.
With a budget of $77,700,000 for 2006-07, the District has adequate reserves to meet fiscal uncertainties. The District's 2006-07 revenue limit of $5,541.75 per ADA supports a wide variety of programs and a staff of 703 certificated and management employees and 581 classified employees.
Here's the contact info for Jackie Cottingim:
662-0201, Ext. 4316
jcottingim@wjusd.org
Ask your realtor for a vacant building. Sure fully rented with a lease for the next 20 years, bringng in great money on a monthly may go for a higher price. My info was from the broker who had the listing for this building. $100 a square foot, is a fair price, no real bargain but fair. $140 is crazy. I will email you comps for the are that I requested from a title company.
Anon 9:08
That would be great if you emailed the comp info to creative@marcobrando.com - or you can just post them.
What strikes me is funny is that you say the broker who listed the Blue Shield building indicated that $100 per sq. ft. is reasonable, yet he/she sold it to a public agency for $140 sq. ft. Why would the building be offered/marketed at a "crazy" price? I realize the seller and broker would want the highest price possible, but there's always some sensitivity to what a reasonable sale price is. Real estate brokers don't price their clients out of the market. So it doesn't make sense to market something at (what you claim is) an outlandish price... unless, of course, the buyer was already lined up (no matter what the cost for their ivory tower). If the comps are what you say, then things are truly off kilter.
Why does government have a need to own anything?
What a great philosophical question!
For this particular property, the local government must determine if it is a "needful building." To be fiscally responsible to citizens, the school district must consider the economic benefits of title to the property. Certainly the commonly known advantages of ownership over tenancy would prevail... but the question still remains, however, is the Blue Shield property a wise choice?
One option that has yet to surface is the possibility of using property (or buildings) already owned by the district. This option should have been considered before the new high school was built.
I hope that you save that question for future blogs about eminent domain.
Why should that option have been considered before the new high school was built? What are you implying? That a necessary academic use should been placed behind the needs of the district office? How absurd. People need to stop second guessing everything and deal with the practical matters of the issue. As a voter and as a taxpayer I would have been outraged if consideration for the district office had taken precedence over construction of the new high school, which was, not so incidentally supported by a huge margin of voters.
People always advocate using existing buildings. They think it's a cheaper way to go. Unfortunately, Woodland has gotten by on the cheap for many years and we have paid for it with sub-par schools. Some of them, Willow Springs for example, is a damn civic eyesore. It's a shame we don't invest more in our schools. After all, look at the communities with good school districts, they thrive economically and socially. Communities that short change their schools suffer lower property appraisals and other evidence of general decline.
So lets talk about the issue of maintaining that large building and what impacts that will have on the budget no one is addressing that issue as well. Build a bigger house pay more in utilities up keep etc... so in a time when money is tight you don't keep spending money you don't have. Lets not forget about that backwards loan which is really going to drive the price of property up.
The facts are clear that there is something up with this deal. We need to keep digging and someone please get those documents I think we will all learn something from this.
Yes, there will be costs associated with maintaining that building but the district was already paying costs to maintain the rented buildings that they are in. So what? I hear a lot of second guessing and very few facts. It's easy to allege dirty dealing but I have yet to see any evidence of it. I have been around politics in this town for a long time and while I have seen incompetence and plain backward decision making I have never seen an example of corruption even among people I disagree with. Here are some of my favorite over-used quotes:
"They had their mind made up all along.
This is a backroom deal.
They rushed this through."
The list is endless. The people who utter these phrases think they're being profound but for anyone who knows the people involved and the processes they use these "nuggets" of conventional wisdom just sound tired and stupid. Let's get off the right-wing endless treadmill of whining and backwardness and move on. Thanks!
6:04
The option to use existing property should have been considered before building the new high school because of these facts:
1) The district paid way too much for the property, in fact that whole deal was a blunder
2) The new high school is still incomplete
These are not second-guesses. And your own implication that I'm suggesting that a new district office should have been built before a new high school... or an expansion of Woodland High School... is just plain stupid.
And to 6:08...
I'm not advocating the use of existing buildings. I really wish people would actually read comments (and the thread) before making assumptions based on nothing. It's the thought process and decision-making abilities I'm questioning. The problem is many bureaucrats only understand bits of a problem (kind of like you reading this blog) and then move forward without any creativity or ingenuity.
There is perceived second-guessing after-the-fact because much of the decisions have to be pieced together later. Case-in-point, this post about the Blue Shield building. I still don't know if this is a good decision, or not, because there are still a lot of unanswered questions.
Dinomeister:
Don't blame me if you can't express yourself clearly. Yes, the district paid too much for the property and botched the deal in the process. So stipulated. And your point is?
Secondly,yes, the campus is still incomplete. The District counted on State funding that did not come in. Some additional funding came in and it was used to build the second gym at Woodland High on the basis that Woodland had waited longer. Pioneer will be next in line if additional funding comes through. Again, your point is what?
The point is Dino, I know that and what you're doing, whether you like it or not is called "second guessing." You have nothing knew to offer, nothing to make things better, just an apparently inexhaustible gasbag of remarks. So before you start throwing around the word "stupid" draw a deep, cleansing breath and...(use your imagination here). Tee hee...
Oh Dino, your use of words like "bureacrats" indicates where you're coming from. The fact that you don't understand the entire picture does not indicate that anything untoward happened. It probably indicates that you simply have not put in the time or effort to really understand what happened. You tend to be a harsh critic of both the city and the school district and yet, blogging, by definition is not exactly characterized by what might be construed as rigor of thought. To the contrary it's a "hot" medium better suited for quick, glib responses. It does not serve as a forum for insightful, credible policy analysis. I'm afraid that your basic ideological bent leaves you unable or unwilling to be either fair or accurate.
I'm not advocating the use of existing buildings. I really wish people would actually read comments (and the thread) before making assumptions based on nothing. It's the thought process and decision-making abilities I'm questioning. The problem is many bureaucrats only understand bits of a problem (kind of like you reading this blog) and then move forward without any creativity or ingenuity.
There is perceived second-guessing after-the-fact because much of the decisions have to be pieced together later. Case-in-point, this post about the Blue Shield building. I still don't know if this is a good decision, or not, because there are still a lot of unanswered questions.
Anonomiester,
The point was to clarify the comment you didn't understand in the first place (which was in response to an ambiguous comment you made). Obviously, no matter what I say you will not understand... so I'll try to be more clear in the future.
Speaking of gasbags, once again you strayed from the blog topic in an attempt to undermine my insight and opinions. We can go back and forth on my fairness or accuracy... or the time spent on the blog topic or individual comments.
It seems your own definition of blogs is an attempt to justify your existence here... to pick at individual comments (particularly mine) without yourself seeing the big picture. I will continue to call out comments as I see them (using words like stupid) in an attempt to weed out off-topic commentary.
I'm looking forward to any informative contributions you might have on the topic at hand. I take it at this point that you think the Blue Shield purchase satisfies a need and is a wise purchase. That's what I get out of your monologue, anyway.
No, Dino. I really don't know if it is a wise purchase or not. I would need more information to make that determination. I am not the type of person who immediately rejects a notion because of its location or because it represents the purchase of private property by a governmental entity. I do wish people had more facts to back up their claims about backroom deals, etc. I think we suffer from a "culture of complaint" in Woodland that holds us back. I apologize if I've been too hard on you or if I strayed off track. It was never my intention to become boorish in the process. I apologize.
Anytime there is a 4-3 vote on such a big purchase their needs to be more explanation by the district. There was absolutely no presentation given by the district at all regarding this purchase. Regardless of it being in closed session to discuss the pricing. Withholding information says that they are hiding something, now that the deal has been done.
When you have four board members willing to spend millions of the public's money and fail to provide a clear explanation and rational there should be questions. The district should make public the appraisal that thy were given to determine the purchase. They should disclose down to the dollar the amount of extra principal being added to the loan, the amount of every dollar spent on furniture.
This purchase is further troubling when the three dissenting votes come from the only board members that actually question and hold the district to some standards. I watch a lot of the meetings on the WAVE and the Villgrana, Berg and Glover are the only members that seem to know what do other than vote for what the superintendent puts in front of them without question, comment or clarification.
Anon 3:57, The "culture of complaint" you profess to be what is holding Woodland back could be explained a little differently. Try this...Identifying problem issues that require attention in order to move forward.
Fez and Dino have provided us bloggers with "facts" that Jim Smith could not provide. Even though he claims to have put this issue in the paper.
No one ever moved an issue forward by griping. Nor is it admirable to watch those who do try and do something get torn down by those who do nothing but criticize.
So you're saying because the school board is doing something based on a 4-3 vote, which was not well-publicized, and thus has raised many questions, that people shouldn't "gripe" about it?
Or are you saying the Blue Shield issue moved forward because nobody griped about it? If so, why wouldn't you consider Glover, Villagrana and Berg as "gripers?"
I'm afraid you have griping confused with holding government accountable.
To the commenter that posted this
"I do wish people had more facts to back up their claims about backroom deals, etc."
Thats the point of blogs like this. It is unfortunate that the editor of our newspaper doesn't know the meaning of investigative journalism. If he did he would have directed the reporters to dig deeper on this purchase.
The county is demolishing their old buildings as we speak and that property might be something that the county and district could work a deal on. Have they explored that??
What other properties were looked at?
These would be just the start of questions if I were to investigate the issue.
Post a Comment