Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Voters would happily pay for new schools over aquatic centers and $1M bus stops.

Not every voter would rather that money go to schools than the aquatic center. Especially not senior citizens who are more concerned with their own amenities than with schools, and who turn out to vote in far greater numbers than parents of school-aged children. Million dollar bus stops have already been nixed.

Let's give the voters a chance to voice their opinion. Put to a vote, don't make decisions based on perceived fears.

Put what to a vote? Bonds aren’t either/or.

Put up a bond for school projects.

They are doing that. They do it every two years.

But they are not asking for everything we need.

1. They can’t do that without blowing our credit rating out of the water.

2. Because of 1, the county board won’t approve it, and they have ultimate say in how much of a bond will be put up for schools.

3. You think voters wouldn’t react to a half billion dollar school bond referendum? If the bond gets voted down, that means no additional bond money for two years, and every project relying on that money as well as everything planned for after it gets set back two years. That includes Reed, the CC high school, the Ed Center renovation, the Arlington Tech expansion, the middle school expansion, the new elementary school for 2029, and a bunch of MC/MM. That’s a pretty big risk to take just to figure out how far the voters can be pushed.

Lots of fear talking.

Substantive response?

Sorry. Too many glasses of wine to do any kind of sensitivity analysis around bonds/budgets/etc. Happy to look at numbers in the morning.

But you haven’t provided any real #s either around credit rating, etc. So if you’d prefer to provide a more substantial argument yourself — instead of just sharing your fears — we can discuss that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Voters would happily pay for new schools over aquatic centers and $1M bus stops.

Not every voter would rather that money go to schools than the aquatic center. Especially not senior citizens who are more concerned with their own amenities than with schools, and who turn out to vote in far greater numbers than parents of school-aged children. Million dollar bus stops have already been nixed.

Let's give the voters a chance to voice their opinion. Put to a vote, don't make decisions based on perceived fears.

Put what to a vote? Bonds aren’t either/or.

Put up a bond for school projects.

They are doing that. They do it every two years.

But they are not asking for everything we need.

1. They can’t do that without blowing our credit rating out of the water.

2. Because of 1, the county board won’t approve it, and they have ultimate say in how much of a bond will be put up for schools.

3. You think voters wouldn’t react to a half billion dollar school bond referendum? If the bond gets voted down, that means no additional bond money for two years, and every project relying on that money as well as everything planned for after it gets set back two years. That includes Reed, the CC high school, the Ed Center renovation, the Arlington Tech expansion, the middle school expansion, the new elementary school for 2029, and a bunch of MC/MM. That’s a pretty big risk to take just to figure out how far the voters can be pushed.

Lots of fear talking.

Substantive response?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Voters would happily pay for new schools over aquatic centers and $1M bus stops.

Not every voter would rather that money go to schools than the aquatic center. Especially not senior citizens who are more concerned with their own amenities than with schools, and who turn out to vote in far greater numbers than parents of school-aged children. Million dollar bus stops have already been nixed.

Let's give the voters a chance to voice their opinion. Put to a vote, don't make decisions based on perceived fears.

Put what to a vote? Bonds aren’t either/or.

Put up a bond for school projects.

They are doing that. They do it every two years.

But they are not asking for everything we need.

1. They can’t do that without blowing our credit rating out of the water.

2. Because of 1, the county board won’t approve it, and they have ultimate say in how much of a bond will be put up for schools.

3. You think voters wouldn’t react to a half billion dollar school bond referendum? If the bond gets voted down, that means no additional bond money for two years, and every project relying on that money as well as everything planned for after it gets set back two years. That includes Reed, the CC high school, the Ed Center renovation, the Arlington Tech expansion, the middle school expansion, the new elementary school for 2029, and a bunch of MC/MM. That’s a pretty big risk to take just to figure out how far the voters can be pushed.

Lots of fear talking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Voters would happily pay for new schools over aquatic centers and $1M bus stops.

Not every voter would rather that money go to schools than the aquatic center. Especially not senior citizens who are more concerned with their own amenities than with schools, and who turn out to vote in far greater numbers than parents of school-aged children. Million dollar bus stops have already been nixed.

Let's give the voters a chance to voice their opinion. Put to a vote, don't make decisions based on perceived fears.

Put what to a vote? Bonds aren’t either/or.

Put up a bond for school projects.

They are doing that. They do it every two years.

But they are not asking for everything we need.

1. They can’t do that without blowing our credit rating out of the water.

2. Because of 1, the county board won’t approve it, and they have ultimate say in how much of a bond will be put up for schools.

3. You think voters wouldn’t react to a half billion dollar school bond referendum? If the bond gets voted down, that means no additional bond money for two years, and every project relying on that money as well as everything planned for after it gets set back two years. That includes Reed, the CC high school, the Ed Center renovation, the Arlington Tech expansion, the middle school expansion, the new elementary school for 2029, and a bunch of MC/MM. That’s a pretty big risk to take just to figure out how far the voters can be pushed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Voters would happily pay for new schools over aquatic centers and $1M bus stops.

Not every voter would rather that money go to schools than the aquatic center. Especially not senior citizens who are more concerned with their own amenities than with schools, and who turn out to vote in far greater numbers than parents of school-aged children. Million dollar bus stops have already been nixed.

Let's give the voters a chance to voice their opinion. Put to a vote, don't make decisions based on perceived fears.

Put what to a vote? Bonds aren’t either/or.

Put up a bond for school projects.

They are doing that. They do it every two years.

But they are not asking for everything we need.

1. They can’t do that without blowing our credit rating out of the water.

2. Because of 1, the county board won’t approve it, and they have ultimate say in how much of a bond will be put up for schools.

3. You think voters wouldn’t react to a half billion dollar school bond referendum? If the bond gets voted down, that means no additional bond money for two years, and every project relying on that money as well as everything planned for after it gets set back two years. That includes Reed, the CC high school, the Ed Center renovation, the Arlington Tech expansion, the middle school expansion, the new elementary school for 2029, and a bunch of MC/MM. That’s a pretty big risk to take just to figure out how far the voters can be pushed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Voters would happily pay for new schools over aquatic centers and $1M bus stops.

Not every voter would rather that money go to schools than the aquatic center. Especially not senior citizens who are more concerned with their own amenities than with schools, and who turn out to vote in far greater numbers than parents of school-aged children. Million dollar bus stops have already been nixed.

Let's give the voters a chance to voice their opinion. Put to a vote, don't make decisions based on perceived fears.

Put what to a vote? Bonds aren’t either/or.

Put up a bond for school projects.

They are doing that. They do it every two years.

But they are not asking for everything we need.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Voters would happily pay for new schools over aquatic centers and $1M bus stops.

Not every voter would rather that money go to schools than the aquatic center. Especially not senior citizens who are more concerned with their own amenities than with schools, and who turn out to vote in far greater numbers than parents of school-aged children. Million dollar bus stops have already been nixed.

Let's give the voters a chance to voice their opinion. Put to a vote, don't make decisions based on perceived fears.

Put what to a vote? Bonds aren’t either/or.

Put up a bond for school projects.

They are doing that. They do it every two years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Voters would happily pay for new schools over aquatic centers and $1M bus stops.

Not every voter would rather that money go to schools than the aquatic center. Especially not senior citizens who are more concerned with their own amenities than with schools, and who turn out to vote in far greater numbers than parents of school-aged children. Million dollar bus stops have already been nixed.

Let's give the voters a chance to voice their opinion. Put to a vote, don't make decisions based on perceived fears.

Put what to a vote? Bonds aren’t either/or.

Put up a bond for school projects.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Voters would happily pay for new schools over aquatic centers and $1M bus stops.

Not every voter would rather that money go to schools than the aquatic center. Especially not senior citizens who are more concerned with their own amenities than with schools, and who turn out to vote in far greater numbers than parents of school-aged children. Million dollar bus stops have already been nixed.

Let's give the voters a chance to voice their opinion. Put to a vote, don't make decisions based on perceived fears.

Put what to a vote? Bonds aren’t either/or.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Voters would happily pay for new schools over aquatic centers and $1M bus stops.

Not every voter would rather that money go to schools than the aquatic center. Especially not senior citizens who are more concerned with their own amenities than with schools, and who turn out to vote in far greater numbers than parents of school-aged children. Million dollar bus stops have already been nixed.

Let's give the voters a chance to voice their opinion. Put to a vote, don't make decisions based on perceived fears.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Voters would happily pay for new schools over aquatic centers and $1M bus stops.

Not every voter would rather that money go to schools than the aquatic center. Especially not senior citizens who are more concerned with their own amenities than with schools, and who turn out to vote in far greater numbers than parents of school-aged children. Million dollar bus stops have already been nixed.

Anonymous wrote:Voters would happily pay for new schools over aquatic centers and $1M bus stops.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You haven't posted anything inconsistent with what I said. My whole point on the bond thing was that rather than upset voters by pushing for more aggressive growth (which even they theselves couldn't be sure they needed at that point, given the trends), the school board did smaller projects that required smaller bonds that were more likely to be acceptable to voters. That voters approved those bonds is fully consistent with that account.

As for the Yorktown, here are just a few links to articles and letters during that time around the debate, there are many more out there as well:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/group-backs-33-million-school-bond-package?_amp=true
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001287.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060700702.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102500469.html

This article is from 2004, but it details how overenrollment at the high school level was projected to be resolved by the high school expansions; if you look at what actually happened later, it didnt resolve overenrollment at all because the actual growth rate was much higher than anticipated: http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2004/may/11/school-construction-to-cost-229-million/

This all started with this:

Anonymous wrote: Which is really hard to understand. The DMV probably has more demographers than any area of the country, and they couldn't find an accurate estimate of what their capacity needs would be? Or is it that they got the right advice, but simply disregarded it?

You responded by blaming the voters and saying that they resisted the idea of putting too much money into expanding school capacity because history told them enrollment was just going to fall again. While you did say that you think the School Board may not have believed that they needed larger schools, you also say that they were afraid that voters would reject a larger bond. You have presented no evidence to support the second part.

Most of your links don't address voters resistance to larger bonds at all. They do illustrate that the Yorktown "Controversy" was less about the amount of the spending and much more about the North/South divide as the concerns were that the the needs of South Arlington Schools such as Wakefield, Thomas Jefferson Middle School, and the Career Center were being ignored while Yorktown went to the front of the line for funds.

Your last article does show that the enrollment projections were projected to fall, but no one has denied that. The third link also shows that that with this quote "some County Board and School Board members say the school system should slow its building boom, especially since enrollment is projected to decline in the next few years."
But that just shows that the answer to did the demographers get it wrong, was yes. This was a failure to accurately predict student growth, I am unclear why you felt a need to try to blame the voters.

Anonymous wrote:
You haven't posted anything inconsistent with what I said. My whole point on the bond thing was that rather than upset voters by pushing for more aggressive growth (which even they theselves couldn't be sure they needed at that point, given the trends), the school board did smaller projects that required smaller bonds that were more likely to be acceptable to voters. That voters approved those bonds is fully consistent with that account.

As for the Yorktown, here are just a few links to articles and letters during that time around the debate, there are many more out there as well:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/group-backs-33-million-school-bond-package?_amp=true
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001287.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060700702.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102500469.html

This article is from 2004, but it details how overenrollment at the high school level was projected to be resolved by the high school expansions; if you look at what actually happened later, it didnt resolve overenrollment at all because the actual growth rate was much higher than anticipated: http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2004/may/11/school-construction-to-cost-229-million/

Anonymous wrote: Which is really hard to understand. The DMV probably has more demographers than any area of the country, and they couldn't find an accurate estimate of what their capacity needs would be? Or is it that they got the right advice, but simply disregarded it?