Forcing A Referendum By Omission

We had originally begun writing an article detailing the evening meeting held on Thursday, January 24th. Then we attended the Saturday, January 26th meeting at the RJ Bailey school and felt so much had changed that we had to rewrite it all.

With a late start on Saturday, Dr Chase welcomed everyone, and thanked the attendees for coming out and giving up their Saturday mornings. As such, she and fewer presenters were briefer than they had been on Thursday night. Thursday night she introduced many in attendance, which included the school board members, teachers, staff, etc. In fact, many we spoke with that night were convinced the crowd was intentionally filled with pro-bond beneficiaries who work for the district. We also understand that while this may be the case, there are those non-employees that favor this proposal.

To listen to those only in favor of the bond talk about it, you’d expect to find our children sitting in condemned buildings. To be fair, the buildings do need work to put them in better shape. Why are they in such bad shape? Read on.

We find it interesting that the school district leaders have let the maintenance of the buildings degrade when they claim to be doing everything “for the children”. They agree with Dr Chase that there is pride when you can go to work or school in a bright, new building instead of an older one. We agree. However, these buildings only degraded due to the intentional decisions to do so. We asked a Board member if he agreed with Dr Chase’s assumption about the conditions of a school affecting their learning and he did. No surprise there.

When asked then why they would not do the necessary maintenance for all of these years to make the learning environment the best it could be, he said it was a conscious decision to put off maintenance so as to not be forced to lay teachers off. Huh? If you’re doing everything for the students and their environment really does affect their ability to learn, then it appears that they are derelict in their duty to the students, the school district and the taxpayers by making the wrong choices regarding maintenance over the years. Besides, the public has approved every budget they’ve submitted and given them what they've asked for. 

The presentation made on Thursday night seemed to be comprised of about 15 to 20 slides. It was changed for the Saturday morning crowd and reduced to maybe 8 to 10 slides. It was also lacking some of the statistical information that had been there for the Thursday night crowd. Why the change? C’mon, you know why. And should a taxpayer challenge information in the presentation, Dr Chase’s retort was usually, “But imagine how much more we could do if we did this?” Even with a vivid imagination, and a 96% graduation rate or that 90% of graduates go to college, there will always be some portion of the high school community that will not graduate or go on to college. This is our hard earned money, so please, no imagining, just facts.

It was reiterated in Saturday’s presentation about how many transitions a student in Greenburgh must go through as they progress through the school system. Apparently, these kids are somehow traumatized by having to use different schools as they “age up” and move from their one school to the next. Transitions – a part of life – we’re told have a negative effect on a child’s learning ability. And yet, when they finish building everything they want to build, each of the same grade delineations will continue to have transitions: separate office for each of the different grade levels, separate entrances, separate gyms, separate cafeterias – although with a common kitchen and separate playground spaces. Separate, but equal. So really, nothing seems to change for the students.

The Lee F Jackson school is slated under this expansion plan to get 20 new classrooms. With an increase in size of this magnitude, many have raised concerns about the added traffic through the Juniper Hill neighborhood’s limited access. More buses traveling back and forth to the school can only mean more traffic and accidents. In fact, many commented on the already overburdened and sometimes perilous traffic on West Hartsdale Avenue during rush and school hours creating three choke points. Putting all students in one place promises more grief for motorists living in the area and using an already congested set of roadways. The audience was told they didn’t have traffic information and studies would have to be done.

Another stumbling block is that this glossy presentation lacks specific information and an honest presentation of facts. We’re only being given the information the pro-bonders want us to have. It’s claimed in their original proposal that Woodlands High School “needed” repairs. That made the original referendum/bond offering at $166 MILLION. We believe initial pushback and limited negative feedback put the proposal in jeopardy so adjustments were made and the repairs to Woodlands High School were dropped. The new bond number was now $114.6 MILLION. Woodlands High School repairs can now wait until after the sale of Highview and RJ Bailey. So, once again necessary maintenance and repairs can will be kicked down the road in hopes of the bond going through? If it doesn’t pass, the pro-bonders are ready with another one, this time for $79 MILLION. It just never ends.

The public is being told that this $114.6 MILLION bond would cost the taxpayers $14 a month per $100,000 assessed value based on a 30-year average. The yearly figure for most taxpayers will be about $800+ per year based on a home worth $400,000. In fact, Dr Chase referenced the Mamaroneck School District on Saturday as ammunition for her cause, stating Mamaroneck is investing in their kids, schools and community. Yes, they are. But they have a larger tax base to draw from. Mamaroneck has approximately 5,300 students to Greenburgh’s 1900, which dramatically alters the playing field and translates to a much lower impact on taxpayers! And, let's not forget that Greenburgh pays the most money per student out of any of the public schools in Westchester.

Mamaroneck Schools, for all intents and purposes, appears to be doing the same renovations/upgrades/improvements that Dr Chase claims we will be doing should this referendum pass. Those include: fire alarms, mechanical equipment and security systems updates; floors and ceilings would be repaired along with asbestos abatement; repairs would be made to building exteriors, including roofs, window replacement and brick restoration; sidewalks, fences, retaining walls and doors would also be repaired; new air conditioning and ventilation units would be installed in some schools. What they are not doing is tearing down existing buildings and building new ones. If Greenburgh were to just do repairs and renovations, it will “only” cost taxpayers $79 MILLION.

The last disturbing portion of Saturday’s exercise was that they purposely decided not to let people speak. They handed out 3”x5” index cards for taxpayers to submit their questions. Someone stated, “Oh, so they’re using that old ploy to keep us silent.” Told they would discuss the questions on the bus ride to the other schools, that never happened. While Thursday night’s meeting did allow residents to speak, we believe the comments rattled the presenters and brought up too many good points, glaring inaccuracies and some embarrassing actions on behalf of those decision makers who chose to intentionally allow the disrepair of our school systems buildings. 

Dr Chase also reiterated that there is a lot of misinformation “out there” spreading false information. When we started learning about this new referendum and doing a small amount of research, we became quickly dismayed as there was very little information “out there”. We had originally thought more highly of our school district than we do now. The video the school district has been showing to push this project has a few of Mr Feiner’s sycophants in it. While we don’t hold much credence in what they say, having the young student who is in the video saying they can’t go upstairs in the auditorium because it’s dangerous is patronizing. Having that same student speak during the Saturday meeting was wrong and just pandering. 

The meeting was believed to be set up so that taxpayers could learn how this project will affect them. That was shut down on Saturday as the index cards were unanswered, the tour was superfluous and more questions than answers seem to abound. Stop using Mr Feiner’s playbook and tell the truth – tell both sides of the equation. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.