New Spartanburg High School Proposal

[Sparkleman]

White Oak wants the land to expand.

Yeah having Booker & White on the payroll is ridiculous. I had White when he was a 9th grade science teacher and he was uninspiring although he did let us watch the ACC tournament on tourney weekend rather than teach. How he made it to the big time is beyond me.

[mainonmain]

Is it just me or has the school district been largely MIA on this? They've done nothing to generate support for this, save for a few early public info sessions. None of the school board members are talking about it, there's been absolutely no outreach to voters or parents that I know of, and in general it seems like the approach has been one of sitting back and taking it for granted that voters are going to see the wisdom of voting a tax increase on themselves just because the superintendent has said it's a good idea.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this thing go down in flames.

[FlopShotter]

14 hours ago, mainonmain said:

Is it just me or has the school district been largely MIA on this? They've done nothing to generate support for this, save for a few early public info sessions. None of the school board members are talking about it, there's been absolutely no outreach to voters or parents that I know of, and in general it seems like the approach has been one of sitting back and taking it for granted that voters are going to see the wisdom of voting a tax increase on themselves just because the superintendent has said it's a good idea.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this thing go down in flames.

This thing better go down in flames.  It has all the makings of a dumpster fire, so let's get it on it's merry way out!

[Sparkleman]

I believe Booker & Company think they have it in the bag and that it can't possibly fail like the one with Byrnes and District 5 did several years ago. They are making next to no effort to inform the public about it other than what they truly have to do. They don't want folks to know how badly they are going to get ripped off.

[hub-city]

I don't know how the percentages of the taxes for other property, but $40.00 per $100,000 for a house doesn't sound too unreasonable for a new campus.  District 7 needs something to energize the perception of an inner city district and if I resided in that district then I would be glad to pay the increase. By the way, I live in District 1 which built 2 new high schools so I know the financial impact of a milage increase....

[drexel]

I lived here 12 years and still cannot believe we have 7 school districts. About three makes much more sense to me. We would still have relatively small districts (compared to Greenville) with local control. A lot of money should be saved. Not just from administrative cost, but also from resource sharing. Such as activity buses, school psychologists, special needs teachers, athletic facilities, performing arts venues, etc. School attendance lines would also be more flexible. It would be hard for me to vote myself a tax hike until the county has fewer school districts.

 

District seven has not been very good stewards of our tax dollars. Why spend millions of dollars on Spartanburg High and several years later build a new school. The athletic fields, tennis courts and gymnasium have been redone. Space was added and refurbished for the Freshman Academy. Not to mention paying multiple administrators big bucks like Russell Booker and Thomas White.     

 

Instead of building a new school what about building an auditorium in front of SHS on the horseshoe land. Remodel the classrooms on the D (oldest) wing. Where the current administration building is located use the land for future expansion needs. Build a football stadium and baseball park at another location to be shared by Broome H.S. or/and other schools. Plus it makes no sense to just get rid of McCracken and move those kids to a school with more room and amenities than they need. (tennis courts, large gym, undersized lacrosse field, multiple parking lots, etc.)      

 

[FlopShotter]

A PAC has formed to oppose this proposal:

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20160222/ARTICLES/160229892/0/FRONTPAGE

I've already sent them some financial support.  I hope they can get the word out to vote this ridiculous proposal down.  I also echo drexel's sentiments - how much money is wasted on 7 superintendents (each making in excess of $100,000 and actually much more) and 7 administrative staffs?

[roads-scholar]

I am not a District 7 resident but am having a hard time trying to justify a new campus for SHS.  The last time i looked D7 enrollment was trending down and the current campus, while originally constructed in 1959, has been continuously updated and is more than adequate.

I also feel the site of the proposed campus could be put to better use (residential, retail, office, etc.) than a school.

Finally, I've always agreed that seven school districts is ridiculous!

[Sparkleman]

http://www.district7vote.com/

https://www.facebook.com/district7vote

Please share these sites on your facebook/twitter accounts if you have them.

 

[Sparkleman]

Even higher property tax rates for new SHS than previously suggested.

This is all about trying to keep up with the high schools in the county that are growing vs SHS which is dropping in size.

Referendum_Fianancial_Facts.pdf

[FlopShotter]

There will be a town-hall style meeting on Monday, March 7 at the downtown SCC campus from 6:30 to 8:00 pm.  I'm amazed they are actually holding it at a time that people can actually make it as opposed to starting it at 5 pm to keep attendance low!

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20160301/ARTICLES/160309991/1083/ARTICLES?Title=Herald-Journal-to-host-town-hall-on-Spartanburg-District-7-referendum

 

[Sparkleman]

From the head of the PAC:

You might be wondering why the only formally declared opposition group, Citizens For the Children’s Future, declined to participate on the panel of the recently announced public forum to discuss the upcoming vote on the $185,000,000 plus interest tax hike in Spartanburg School District 7.

 

The committee received a call inviting participation on the panel, and was originally told that the members of the panel would include Dr. Booker, someone from our committee, a representative of the City of Spartanburg to discuss the city resident’s concerns, and a representative of the business community who would discuss the pros and cons of applying a tax hike to local businesses. The panel was assembled by Jason Spencer, an assistant editor for the Spartanburg Herald Journal.

 

Sounds very informative, right? So, at first, we agreed to participate.

 

At the time, I was a little concerned about bias, because when I spoke with Mr. Spencer on the phone and asked him where it would be held, he gave me an address downtown, and the conversation went something like this:

 

Me: “Wait a minute, it’s in a SCHOOL?”

Him: “Yes, actually the community college, not a current District 7 school.”

Me: “This is a forum about a SCHOOL BOND and you have it in a SCHOOL?”

Him: “It’s the old Evans building, it’s not one of the buildings in the plan.”

Me: “It’s a SCHOOL. You don’t think that will affect things?”

Him: “I don’t see how.”

 

That’s not word for word, but pretty close, as I remember it. That lack of obliviousness to the effect of environment on the HJ employee’s part kind of concerned me.

 

Then, the formal invitation arrived, with the names to be on the panel. They are:

 

Dr. Russell Booker, Hon. Harold Mitchell, Mr. Allen Smith from the Spartanburg Area Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Bert Barre from the Converse Heights Neighborhood Association.

 

Hold up, some of those names look familiar. Remember, this is Spartanburg, not Los Angeles, so I knew it wouldn’t take long to find out where they stand on the issues. It would take you ten seconds to find Dr. Booker and Hon. Mitchell’s political stance on this matter, and they are both clearly proponents. Mr. Allen Smith from the COC is not someone I’ve met personally, but again, we’re in Spartanburg, so I contacted three business owners I know (well, I reached two business owners and one wife of a business owner) and they all confirmed with a resounding “yes”, he is very clearly a proponent, has not been shy about it, the COC is in favor of this, and Mr. Smith has personally been definitely for it. I’ve never met Mr. Barre, but I used to live in Converse Heights, so again just a couple of quick contacts and I found out again that yes, this man is clearly a strong proponent as well. It’s easy to see, just check his Facebook page where he has VOTE YES prominently featured, and Mr. Allen Smith “like” that post, not to mention current school board member Meg Clayton, and once you start clicking on the “likes” and “friends” you can see these people are all intertwined with each other and their mutual admiration society is so beyond obvious, it’s undeniable.

 

Anyone with access to Facebook and thirty seconds reveals the agenda.

 

At that point, I realized this was a stacked deck, and that we did not belong on that panel. We’d be better off in the audience, asking questions.

 

This is a meeting to “discuss” a school bond in a school, with a panel full of proponents, THREE of the four had been presented as objective and were just there to express concerns and discuss impact, when to those who know them personally, the bias is so obvious I don’t see how anyone can see this as anything other than a proponent rally. If they find someone to stake out the “opponent” position on the panel, it won’t be from our committee, although hopefully they will properly inform this person of the facts they failed to inform me.

 

I’m not going to imply any motivation on the part of the newspaper, it’s possible that they just did not fully vet the participants beforehand, or that they could not find truly objective panel participants. It’s not important to find who’s at fault for this, it is only important to be honest beforehand and explain that you have a panel of four proponents so that everyone attending understands completely the lens through which their statements and answers will be presented. It is perfectly acceptable to have a panel full of proponents, and to make them available for questions from the audience, just as long as there is no implication that they are objective.

 

I spoke with Mike Smith, editor of the Herald Journal, expressed my concerns and explained what I had found, and said our committee would be better off in the audience asking questions. He mentioned that he had left the panel selection to Mr. Spencer, but that he (Mr. Smith) would be moderating and would attempt to keep the politics to a minimum, and that he was hoping for active audience participation. To be fair to him, I believe him, the conversation we had was very respectful and I believed he had every intention of doing the best he could with the (totally biased and not selected by him) panel that is participating, now that he’s aware that none of them are at all personally objective.

 

You can also expect proponents to stock the audience, and likely many of them will bring their children for effect.

 

This is kind of how I envision it going at the end of the rally:

 

Panel Member #1: “I’m for it!”

Panel Member #2: “Me too, I had concerns, but now I’m for it!”

Panel Member #3: “I sure did have concerns, but all things considered, I’m for it!”

Panel Member #4: “That makes four of us! Group hug, everyone! See you on Facebook and let’s all Like and Friend each other!”

 

And then, the next day, the paper will report that many tough questions were asked, lots of audience members had concerns, but in the end, everyone decided this was a good thing and they’re all for it.

 

PROPONENT RALLY.

 

That said, if anyone wants any business cards to pass out at the rally – they’re really simple, they have the date of the vote, our contact information – let me know and I’ll get you stocked. I only have a few bumper stickers left but if anyone wants one before the rally, let me know and I’ll get it to you. Also, if anyone wants to volunteer to wave a big sign outside the rally, I’ll get you signs also.

Beth Hull 864-809-6864

 

[Spartan]

I don't see where holding it at the community college would make a difference. They have meeting space that's more than likely provided at no cost, so who cares about that? Having a stacked panel is a different issue entirely though.

[Sparkleman]

This whole issue is about trying to keep up with Dorman. The problem is that its a numbers game (students) and SHS is losing badly because they cannot increase their number of students because there is no where left to build in District 7. D7 will continue to decline in the number of students no matter how nice the school is.

http://www.district7vote.com/  Video that mentions Dorman

My property taxes will soar if this goes through. Hopefully every citizen against tax increases (Pub or Dem) shows up for the town hall meeting and the election. I sure as hell plan to be there Monday night.

[Spartan]

I forget who said it, but I like the idea of combining districts and adjusting student assignment districts so that the schools can be sized based on their actual capacity. There are some kids in district 7 who live closer to Broome HS than many of the kids in district 3.

[westsider28]

With all precincts reporting, the District 7 Bond Referendum PASSED, 63% (4,524) to 37% (2,667).  Looks like there will be a new Spartanburg High School.  Turnout was 23%, which is pretty good for a local issue (which is a sad commentary on people's political participation).

I haven't been posting much on this thread since I don't live in District 7, so the vote didn't affect me directly.  However, I noticed that referendum support really seemed to build momentum the week or two before the vote.  Saw TONS of "Yes" signs in Converse Heights, Chamber support, H-J support, etc.  Anyway, I hope this will be a big positive for the City.  Oh, and I found this updated SHS site plan on the D7 website:

[FlopShotter]

I've not been able to get a straight answer on this question (among many non-answered or non-addressed questions, but that's another tale for another time):  Do the ball fields on the site plan mean the end of SHS using Duncan Park Stadium?  I hope not.  That would be a sore point for a lot of folks.  It was never mentioned that I've been able to find.

[spartanburgh]

Baseball will still be played at Duncan Park. The fields in the site plan are for softball and practice etc.

[Sparkleman]

Well it passed and a lot of folks and their kids and grand kids will be paying for this after I am long gone. I never really got any concrete answers to questions that I wanted answered no matter the forums or the meetings. It always seemed to me that the land out around 221 and Bryant Rd that the district owned via Chapman Elementary and Whitlock would have made far better sense than the LanYair property. The answer I always heard was that is was too far away. Too far away from what?

One guy on the nextdoor website posted the following and it really makes one think about why it has to be at LanYair (roughly 3 miles from Broome HS).

This was a take I saw earlier today.

  

 

If it looks like a skunk, smells like a skunk, then it is a skunk.

 Pro or Con these are Interesting points to ponder:

 

Planning has been done under the radar for 2 years and tons of money spent without community input or knowledge. Why the perceived secrecy?

 

A lot of money is being requested here . By the time it goes public, exact details should be in place.

 Why have we not been given printed documentation of exact (as close as possible) figures, detailed plans of the use of the money and details of the futures of all properties? There is a lot of shuffling going on with these properties. All we get are partial answers and a lot of stuttering. If any of the properties are sold, is that money going to help with the debt? Of course not. That's free money to waste.

 

Who besides the kids are benefiting from this?

 

Why the choice of a location with train tracks that all kinds of hazardous materials travel daily?

 

Three ponds (according to the map) suitable for drowning on property.

 

High tension power lines running through the property.

 

Heavy traffic in the busiest part of the eastside.

 

Sounds like a real FEEL good location. HUH?

 Oh yea, the location is expensive commercial property.

 

The Chapman/Whitlock (already owned) property along with the purchase of a few more acres (less expensive) would work. Great access and lighter traffic.

 

Was told by superintendent "They" whoever 'they" are said that location was too far out. Too far for whom?

 The eastside communities are being favored. No real stated concerns for the fine citizens of the Southside and Northside . They have always traveled the farthest to the current high school.

 

There is a heavy use of politicians and preachers to sway opinions. Sorry but politician involvement raises flags to most folk.

 

The Chamber of Commerce also seems too interested in this project. Heck they have thrown the businesses in the district under the bus. Those businesses affected do not like this proposal. Some may move, some may close but rest assured their increase will be passed on to us for their goods and services.

 

They are saying property values will go up. Not. If true it would only be those next door. Those on the south and north will not see a benefit.

 

The ultimate part of this perceived deception is this SPECIAL VOTE. More unnecessary tax payer money being spent. Are their back door deals going on? Something is amiss.

 

There are still many in the district who are still uninformed for whatever reason. The Wofford contract is good for a few more years.(actually 2031).They will still play there at least 1 or 2 two more years anyway. NO buildings are in danger of collapse so WHY could this not wait till the regular election? Something in the background is dictating this urgency. They are counting on low voter turnout to ram this thing through at all cost.

 

The slight-of-hand magic trick is being well used. They are waving a shiny new school in the air with one hand . Those in favor get hypnotized and would gladly pay double the cost. They could care less what that other hand is doing. All they see is a new school. NO questions. It is foolish of the voter to blindly trust any governing body with that kind of money without questions. This current plan contains flags and needs to be stopped and reevaluated. New buildings are possible and can be built in a less expensive manner.

 

[westsider28]

Look, there are legitimate questions/concerns about this building plan, but that post reads like a conspiracy theory.  The fact of the matter is, there was no good location for a new high school because D7 is mostly built out.  Also, the special vote "issue" rings hollow when turnout was pretty high (and it keeps the focus on the issue rather than being overshadowed by a presidential election).  Will some businesses close and some people move out?  Yes.  But will others see the new school and decide to move in?  Also, yes.  Like I said, I don't think it's a perfect plan; it's a lot of money and there are some unanswered questions.  However, I think it will benefit the City in the long run, and I think the intent is good (don't think anyone's trying to "pull one over" on people).

[Spartan]

Anyone who is against a project can come up with a conspiracy theory like that. New schools are needed from time to time, and it's hard to argue that SHS is in good condition. Bonds are typically the way that schools are paid for, and they have to be voted on. Regardless of whether or not people knew about the details, 63% supported building a new school. It's hard to argue against that.

[djh1963]

I voted no simply because I disagree with this location for the new school. Has any one thought about the traffic nightmare this will bring. Friday night football traffic and Friday night Wal-Mart  traffic. It is going to be a mess.

[mainonmain]

I always wonder about people who freak out about "traffic nightmares" in Spartanburg. As in, I wonder if they have ever been to cities that actually have real traffic nightmares.

[roads-scholar]

True, traffic isn't a serious problem here but like the earlier poster, I can just imagine the Friday night bottleneck on East Main!   I can see lots of accidents occurring out there.     

I probably would have voted for the new school but still have some reservations about the site.  Traffic being on of them   

Look, I have lived, worked, and traveled in many big cities all over the world and know all  about traffic.

 

 

[Spartan]

I agree that traffic overall in Spartanburg is hardly a nightmare, but when you only have one road that provides the primary access to two major destinations then traffic does become an issue. The street connectivity in this area is terrible, and because the vast majority of D7 students live west of the school, they will primarily use East Main for access, and Plainview/Zion Hill won't provide that much of a relief. If the City is smart, they will require the school to make a lot of improvements to East Main at the signalized intersections to accommodate the future traffic needs.