Voters in two local school districts will head to the polls in June to approve or reject significant capital improvement projects that are similar in many ways. But there's a key difference in the propositions being put to the public by the Auburn Enlarged City School District and the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District.
In Auburn, the plan is to ask voters to approve one measure that would make significant infrastructure improvements at school buildings and athletic facilities, including the installation of synthetic turf at Holland Stadium.
In Jordan-Elbridge, voters will weigh in on three propositions that break the improvements down into categories - one for school buildings, one for athletic and marching band improvements, and one for turf installation.
The Jordan-Elbridge approach is the more responsible way of doing these projects.
“We know that there is a segment of the community that may not be athletically inclined, or marching band inclined,” Superintendent Marilyn Dominick said. “We thought this was the most respectful way to do it. ... We made this so community members can vote their choice and vote their heart.”
The Auburn board, by including turf in the larger capital project, is putting needed improvements in academic facilities at risk.
No matter how one feels about the merits of synthetic turf, there's no denying that it carries some controversy. Other school districts in central New York have seen building projects go down recently because turf was part of the project.
Auburn's motivation for lumping projects into one proposal might stem from the public's rejection in 2006 of an athletic facility proposition that included synthetic turf at the high school. The public that year did approve a larger school building improvement referendum that was separate from the turf issue.
Auburn board members and turf supporters point to some significant differences this time.
This project puts the turf and other needed improvements at Holland Stadium, which holds a special place in the hearts of many residents. And the taxpayer share of the turf installation this time is being covered by private donations and grants.
If that's the justification for putting turf in front of voters again, then there's no reason to use other parts of the project as leverage to get it passed.
In Jordan-Elbridge, voters will weigh in on three propositions that break the improvements down into categories - one for school buildings, one for athletic and marching band improvements, and one for turf installation.
The Jordan-Elbridge approach is the more responsible way of doing these projects.
“We know that there is a segment of the community that may not be athletically inclined, or marching band inclined,” Superintendent Marilyn Dominick said. “We thought this was the most respectful way to do it. ... We made this so community members can vote their choice and vote their heart.”
The Auburn board, by including turf in the larger capital project, is putting needed improvements in academic facilities at risk.
No matter how one feels about the merits of synthetic turf, there's no denying that it carries some controversy. Other school districts in central New York have seen building projects go down recently because turf was part of the project.
Auburn's motivation for lumping projects into one proposal might stem from the public's rejection in 2006 of an athletic facility proposition that included synthetic turf at the high school. The public that year did approve a larger school building improvement referendum that was separate from the turf issue.
Auburn board members and turf supporters point to some significant differences this time.
This project puts the turf and other needed improvements at Holland Stadium, which holds a special place in the hearts of many residents. And the taxpayer share of the turf installation this time is being covered by private donations and grants.
If that's the justification for putting turf in front of voters again, then there's no reason to use other parts of the project as leverage to get it passed.
The Citizens' Say
There are 3 comment(s)
james_13021 wrote on May 12, 2008 5:37 AM:
jlmorgansr wrote on May 11, 2008 1:06 PM:
In my humble opinion, this whole proposition is wrong. The budget is wrong, and more importantly, the economy is wrong. This whole issue should be tabled. Especially considering, the teachers contract and the administrators contract has yet to be ratified. This community should send the proposals and the budget back to them to be reworked to be more in line with our local economy.
I am urging this community to vote NO!
No to turf, no to concession stands
NO! to tax increases.
NO! NO! NO! "
Bill Balyszak wrote on May 11, 2008 11:39 AM: