news-record.com

BLOGS

The Chalkboard

Southeast battle

I’m writing story that will run either Wednesday or Thursday that looks at the Southeast Area Elementary school issue as well as the broader issue of how community advocacy stands to impact school construction.

At the core of the issue is a simple question, should schools be built where it’s fiscally and logistically most responsible or should the desires of the communities those schools will impact carry more weight?

The folks of southeast say they were promised a school that would serve only their community. The school board says building the school where they’ve proposed would serve both the southeast community and some of the eastern Guilford County community which has shown growth needs.

What do you think? Should the school board do as communities desire when building schools, even if it costs the entire county more money in the long run or should the board stand its ground and do what they argue is best for the entire community?

Permalink

Posted by J. Brian Ewing on Monday, July 26, 2010 at 4:25 pm

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

forusa

July 27, 2010 - 11:43 am EDT

A few points:
1 - It is fiscally irresponsible to build excess capacity where it is not needed. We don't have that luxury.
2 - The Commissioners usurped the Board of Education's authority by rejecting the site on the basis of location. They don't have that authority. Their attorney advised them that the vote should only be about the price of the property. Not one Commissioner who voted NO mentioned price as their reason. It was all about location. Can there be a legal challenge to this decision?
3 - It is not factual that the Board of Education misled the people in the Southeast. The BOE has always indicated the site would be near Interstate 40/85, an area that would allow the new school to serve Alamance, Sedalia and possibly McLeansville. They were provided maps during the bond campaign which indicated this location near 40/85.
4 - Is there an underlying socioeconomic issue at play here? Why do some people in the Southeast feel so passionately about getting the new school as far away from the Eastern schools as possible? I know this will be vehemently denied but there must be other reasons people would fight so hard for something that makes no fiscal or logistical sense.
5 - You have to admire the tenacity of the Southeast people. If you could capture that zeal throughout the County we would not have hundreds of mobile classrooms in our district.
6 - This is a good example of how logic and reason take a back seat to special intrest groups. That's politics as usual. Even fiscally conservative Commissioners can be convinced that is is not necessary to be fiscally conservative with taxpayer dollars.

buzzman

July 29, 2010 - 8:45 am EDT

You conveniently omitted the fact that the bonds were advertised with a SOUTHEAST location.

stafford5465

July 28, 2010 - 10:07 am EDT

Where will the growth take place? Some people believe it is in the I-40/85 Corrridor. Others believe it will be in the Hwy 421 Corridor. There is an honest difference of opinion on this matter. The characterization that Southest citizens is not interested in what is in the best interest of the entire County is not true. They care very much.

wiseowl19

August 1, 2010 - 9:38 am EDT

If the people voted for the bond for "Southeast", then it should be "Southeast".
Otherwise your dishonesty is only exceeded by your dishonesty to the people.