Letter to the editor
To the editor:
Robert Lerman’s concerns ("Answers not enough to vote ‘yes,’" Aug. 30, 2002, Page 10A) cannot be adequately addressed in this brief letter. It is critical the public be given as much information as possible about the bond referendum and school expansion. However, it would be difficult to summarize the process that has been ongoing for two years or more. I have attended many school district meetings over the past several years. Beginning with building utilization committee meetings, school board meetings, referendum committee meetings (four simultaneous subcommittees), the planning process is now winding down with the architect’s presentations.
Early in the process many alternatives were discussed. Room usage was evaluated, resulting in existing space being used more efficiently. Leasing/buying temporary classrooms was considered, but determined to be too expensive, with little or no residual value.
Will enrollment level off or decline? After five, 10, 20, 30 years? Maybe, maybe not. The further out projections go, the less reliable they would be. The district paid a demographer to project enrollment. The demographer’s numbers were higher than the more conservative numbers used for the referendum. On multiple occasions David Shafter explained why the more conservative numbers are realistic. Scott Prisco, the district’s architect, supports Mr. Shafter’s enrollment projections, adding that his methodology is widely accepted in the industry and by the state.
As to the supply of housing being fixed, the number of housing units is a finite number. However, the more pertinent question is, what will the mix of households represent: Those with children now; those with none now, but possibly some in the future; those with none now and no likelihood of any in the future. Components of that mix will continuously change for however long anyone would like to project. I believe the district has put forth a good-faith effort to determine what those numbers will be.
Regarding another of Mr. Lerman’s concerns, the reason we need to take advantage of this $20 million is once the state funds are depleted, there is no assurance of replenishment. While the money is not "free," it is going to be distributed to some school district. If the referendum is not accepted residents will have paid into the fund, but gotten nothing in return. (If the referendum doesn’t pass the district risks losing the $20 million the state has committed.)
The district is obligated to provide adequate space for educating its children. The changes proposed in the referendum were included to ensure compliance with the standards and class sizes put forth by the state. Since these standards were the basis for the referendum, any reductions to the current proposal would be minimal. If we don’t take advantage of this funding now, a few years down the road we’ll be faced with funding 100 percent of the cost instead of just 60 or 70 percent.
The costs of the referendum/construction are summarized in the Prisco proposal. The benefits are quality education and better school performance.
The costs of rejecting the referendum are increased long-term costs, poorer quality education and unacceptable school ratings. I don’t believe there is any associated benefit.
Edward Fago
East Windsor