73° F
7 The Eanes school board made the right decision Monday in backing off from any immediate plan for a proposed bond package because serious thought should be given to any all-or-nothing plan that includes a covered practice facility (see story on front page).
Current wording in the bond material calls the covered practice field “student activity center,” and voters rejected it as a separate option in the 2006 bond package. Such language is justifiable since it will also serve the band and other groups, but we urge the board to be completely transparent when and if this comes up again. The important thing to remember here is that honesty is the best policy when it comes to presenting items to taxpayers – especially when the total cost of items being considered for a bond package is $140.8 million.
We wrote a cautionary opinion of the covered practice facility prior to the last bond election, but the playing field has changed somewhat since then. There are valid reasons both for and against such a facility, and it is no longer that essential to avoid adding fuel to the fire involving lawmakers’ perception that property-rich school districts like Eanes can easily handle the financial constraints of the state’s “Robin Hood” school finance system. Nevertheless, there are still plenty of good reasons to be careful about approving everything on everyone’s wish list. After all, we are still fighting our way out of a deep recession, jobs aren’t exactly secure and plentiful, and no one wants to feel that they may be taxed off of their property.
The sensible tack for the school board in these uncertain economic times is to break this bond package in segments and give taxpayers options. To present it as an all-or-nothing proposal is setting us up for failure because voters will likely come to the conclusion that the other elements of the package must not be essential, either.
Thank you for this commentary. A covered practice facility turned community center is not the same priority level as necessary improvements to school buildings. The school board also has an obligation to explain why a new administration building is needed and, other than convenience, why a large new elementary school needs to be built in a district with minimal growth projections. “Administrative recommendation” is not enough.
A new elementary school needs to be built so that 500 students do not have to spend an hour and a half on the bus every day. This would also allow the parents of these students the ability to be more involved with their child’s campus.
Double digit millions for a new elementary school in an area that is not and will not (because most developable land has already been built on) can’t be justified by convenience and time savings. Expanding Barton creek, revisiting attendance zones are feasible. A new elementary is not.
Even when you live close to an elementary school, a child can spend an hour on the bus each day. I chose to live close to a school and pay alot for that every year in my property taxes.
If a new elementary is built, Eanes will just allow more out of district kids to fill it and to reap the benefits of an Eanes education without paying their fair share of property taxes to support it. Additionally that would include bond taxes. Enough.
I won’t vote for a new elementary school. Eanes ISD: Stop accepting transfer students and then consolidate the district elementary school students. I also will not vote for a (ridiculous!) indoor football field. Enough is enough.
Over an hour of travel on busy main roadways is not good for our kids, or everyone else who is trying to use these roads. The distance to an elementary campus only seems to affect the Cuernevaca area. A better solution for the these families would benefit everyone in the Westlake area by less traffic on our roadways.
Take the bus.