So opposition shouldn't come view the current facilities? What sense does that make?
Asking a 3rd time? CSISD School Board Approves A Third Attempt To...
56,525 Views |
524 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by welborn
Which one of those is an ad hominem?tu ag said:
The supporters say:
-It is a need not a want.
-It is the district's fault for making a bad case.
-Oposition needs to come see facilities.
-If people only were educated about things they would vote for them.
-ad hominem against opposition because they don't agree.
The arguments are the same as last time. Bringing this to the ballot a 3rd time actually gets me more likely to vote no now.
The Good Aggieboy19 said:
That would also allow for the city of College Station to host more tournaments which would bring more money into the economy.
I'm all for turf fields but I always see this push to pass a bond for turf baseball/ softball fields and once schools get turf they don't rent out for tournaments ect. Very few ISD's with turf baseball fields rent out their facilities.
TAMU1990 said:No Taj Mahal being presented. You should ask for a tour. The facilities are old, small, and in need of serious repair. The fieldhouse was originally built for a 3A/4A school. .maroon barchetta said:AGro99 said:
I'm curious as to why folks are so adamantly in the "no way" category?
The fieldhouse at Consol is in serious need of expansion. However the current Fieldhouse is not the exact same one that opened in '89.
It was renovated and expanded in the early 2000's. Some of the exterior and interior walls of the original fieldhouse remain. If you look closely at the current structure you can see some of the brick colors don't match 100% so you can see the original bricks vs ones that were added
The original fieldhouse and on campus football stadium(current stadium) opened in the fall of 1989 when Consol was a 4A school. 5A was biggest class then, Consol moved to 5A in 1995 and remained in the UIL biggest classification until a 6A was added in 2014
But yes currently some football players are in the auxiliary fieldhouse (which is the original fieldhouse and same structure from when That campus opened in the mid 70's ) across the street.
"Hard-headedness" and "no clue" come to mind.
Some of us are well-informed and still disagree.
Some of us are well-informed and still disagree.
If you are quoting me with the "no clue" part, I didn't say that voting "no" meant that people weren't informed.
I said that anyone that thinks they are looking for opulent improvements or that it's a facilities race doesn't have a clue about the improvements or repairs.
That's not an ad hominem attack. It's pointing out that there are people that are using throw-around phrases without context.
I said that anyone that thinks they are looking for opulent improvements or that it's a facilities race doesn't have a clue about the improvements or repairs.
That's not an ad hominem attack. It's pointing out that there are people that are using throw-around phrases without context.
Are there issues with these two candidates?
For one thing, I have always been told no means no. Am I wrong?AGro99 said:
I'm curious as to why folks are so adamantly in the "no way" category?
They voted for the bond issue again, when the taxpayers told them no. No means No.gettingitdone said:
Are there issues with these two candidates?
I will always vote yes to things that benefit the schools and youth of our community. Vote yes!
I live in College Station because of the great school district and I know that taxes supporting the schools is part of the deal.
I live in College Station because of the great school district and I know that taxes supporting the schools is part of the deal.
Not all of us.doubledog said:They voted for the bond issue again, when the taxpayers told them no. No means No.gettingitdone said:
Are there issues with these two candidates?
I'll keep voting yes.
Turf fields cost less over the long run in maintenance and allows the players to practice more often. Consol is in dire need of upgrades to weight room and locker room. Athletics is a pivotal part in education and is a huge benefit for some of these kids.
Many are telling us about the great economic boost this would provide due to the tournaments the local school would be able to host. It may be the case that the schools would host tournaments and it may be the case that this would provide a sizeable bump to the local economy BUT there is no way that it will ever come close to paying the bond back so that argument terrible.
As far as why I am against the bonds, the district has proven that they are either incapable of managing a construction project so that a functional product is delivered, they are incapable of maintaining facilities, or both. I refuse to provide a large capital investment that will fix the mistakes of the district just so they can make the same mistakes again only to return crying for more money in 10 years.
As far as why I am against the bonds, the district has proven that they are either incapable of managing a construction project so that a functional product is delivered, they are incapable of maintaining facilities, or both. I refuse to provide a large capital investment that will fix the mistakes of the district just so they can make the same mistakes again only to return crying for more money in 10 years.
Not necessarily discussing tournaments. But things like district track meets and playoff games. The district was unable to host those last year.
As far as the district proving to you that they can manage a construction project.....
If that was the case why won't you give new leadership an opportunity to prove to you that they can handle it?
As far as the district proving to you that they can manage a construction project.....
If that was the case why won't you give new leadership an opportunity to prove to you that they can handle it?
Independence H-D said:
Not necessarily discussing tournaments. But things like district track meets and playoff games. The district was unable to host those last year.
As far as the district proving to you that they can manage a construction project.....
If that was the case why won't you give new leadership an opportunity to prove to you that they can handle it?
Track meets and playoff games will not see a return on investment.
The new management will have a chance to prove themselves as I think 2 bonds were approved. Even if they didn't have new bonds to build with, they can do a good job of maintenance. But even then, a new superintendent does not mean the rest of the management changed.
Edit to add: did not mean to add that emoji
Just want to point out a local contradiction to your argument. Mumford invested in artificial turf and that district indeed rents out their facilities for baseball playoffs every year.LJF78 said:The Good Aggieboy19 said:
That would also allow for the city of College Station to host more tournaments which would bring more money into the economy.
I'm all for turf fields but I always see this push to pass a bond for turf baseball/ softball fields and once schools get turf they don't rent out for tournaments ect. Very few ISD's with turf baseball fields rent out their facilities.
My 2 cents…. Turf fields do save on maintenance costs, but those savings come nowhere near making up for the installation cost. The main benefit is being able to use the fields for many more activities, especially during rainy weather. Voters need to decide if that benefit is worth the high dollar price tags.
As to the economic benefits of hosting more tournaments, someone needs to ask how much the district actually receives from these rentals. In my past experience, the rental rates seemed low. Maybe that has changed. But the main beneficiaries of hosting tournaments were the workers running the events and the city coffers from hotel revenues. As an example heres what neighboring Bryan ISD charges for facility rentals.
https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/2853/BISD/2817204/BISD_Gym_Field_fee_schedule.pdf
IMO it would take a LOT of rentals to offset the installation cost at those rates. As a parent/tax payer, my question would just be, "Is the increased usage of the fields for team practice and games, especially during rainy weather, worth the cost? Also considering that coaches would have more time to coach and district maintenance could be spent in other areas."
As to the economic benefits of hosting more tournaments, someone needs to ask how much the district actually receives from these rentals. In my past experience, the rental rates seemed low. Maybe that has changed. But the main beneficiaries of hosting tournaments were the workers running the events and the city coffers from hotel revenues. As an example heres what neighboring Bryan ISD charges for facility rentals.
https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/2853/BISD/2817204/BISD_Gym_Field_fee_schedule.pdf
IMO it would take a LOT of rentals to offset the installation cost at those rates. As a parent/tax payer, my question would just be, "Is the increased usage of the fields for team practice and games, especially during rainy weather, worth the cost? Also considering that coaches would have more time to coach and district maintenance could be spent in other areas."
Other districts have private donors contribute to upgrades. Is fundraising an option for ISDs in Texas? It's done in other states.
techno-ag said:Just want to point out a local contradiction to your argument. Mumford invested in artificial turf and that district indeed rents out their facilities for baseball playoffs every year.LJF78 said:The Good Aggieboy19 said:
That would also allow for the city of College Station to host more tournaments which would bring more money into the economy.
I'm all for turf fields but I always see this push to pass a bond for turf baseball/ softball fields and once schools get turf they don't rent out for tournaments ect. Very few ISD's with turf baseball fields rent out their facilities.
Summer tournaments and UIL playoffs are 2 different things.
And have since 2010
Also Franklin rents their turf fields out as well
Also Franklin rents their turf fields out as well
Navasota rents their turf fields out as well but even a district that does so will not make up the cost with rentals alone. But turf is actually one thing in the bond I would vote for because of all its benefits: 1) far fewer rainouts for both practices and games 2) rentals from other schools 3) less maintenance (dirt, water, weeding, mowing, seeding, fertilizer)
My biggest problem is one of the arguments CSISD makes for turf at CSHS is the poor state of the field. You know, the field that is only 10 years old. But if CSHS had maintained it better and/or had gone after the contractor/engineer to rectify the supposedly poor design, the field wouldn't need to rebuilt!
My biggest problem is one of the arguments CSISD makes for turf at CSHS is the poor state of the field. You know, the field that is only 10 years old. But if CSHS had maintained it better and/or had gone after the contractor/engineer to rectify the supposedly poor design, the field wouldn't need to rebuilt!
I brought this up more than once before and crickets.aggiesed8r said:
Other districts have private donors contribute to upgrades. Is fundraising an option for ISDs in Texas? It's done in other states.
It can and has been done. Bryan High did this to install all new netting on the baseball fields. I am not sure what the entire process was, but our family donated and it looks great
JP76 said:
And have since 2010
Also Franklin rents their turf fields out as well
Franklin ranch is a complex built with oil money , it is owned by the ISD but that complex was built with the intention of hosting events year round .. baseball, softball, flag football, they have community events there.
Not same as comparing it to a single HS field
Some will vote no regardless, but there are voters who desire clearer information via this forum. As stated in another thread, I don't want to be taxed but will vote yes for this bond for a variety of reasons.
Passing the bond provides financial benefits, athlete development opportunities and athlete and program(s) competitive advantage/excellence. However, the safety/risk management mitigation associated with passing this bond are of primary importance.
Hopefully, CSISD and other proponents of the bond will clearly articulate those benefits to the voters so they are well-informed before election day.
Passing the bond provides financial benefits, athlete development opportunities and athlete and program(s) competitive advantage/excellence. However, the safety/risk management mitigation associated with passing this bond are of primary importance.
Hopefully, CSISD and other proponents of the bond will clearly articulate those benefits to the voters so they are well-informed before election day.
Then continue to vote 'no', that is your prerogative.doubledog said:For one thing, I have always been told no means no. Am I wrong?AGro99 said:
I'm curious as to why folks are so adamantly in the "no way" category?
However, the need for the upgrades are definitely warranted.
Hopefully the school board can educate the citizens, such as yourself, that these needs are warranted and they are not building the "Taj Mahal".
Return on investment is not the primary reason. No district will ever make back money spent on rentals or economic impact. However, it will prevent the district from being in a situation as they were last year when they had to rent facilities from other districts. That cost is significant.
The primary reason for voting yes on this project is the health and welfare of the students and guests that utilize these facilities.
Health and safety is first and foremost. Overcrowded weight rooms, locker rooms, showers, bathrooms and treatment facilities are a real concern and need to be addressed as soon as possible.
The primary reason for voting yes on this project is the health and welfare of the students and guests that utilize these facilities.
Health and safety is first and foremost. Overcrowded weight rooms, locker rooms, showers, bathrooms and treatment facilities are a real concern and need to be addressed as soon as possible.
The link to the power point shows $40mm for press box, entrances, ticket booth, etc. Those don't seem consistent with a lot of the comments about supporting students or qualify as 'needs'. Things like resurfacing the track, or updating the field house for courts and lockers rooms benefit students, but that's not $40mm. Something here doesn't add up between the arguments here and the amount being requested.
You were in the minority last election.Stupe said:Not all of us.doubledog said:They voted for the bond issue again, when the taxpayers told them no. No means No.gettingitdone said:
Are there issues with these two candidates?
I'll keep voting yes.
So that is how we do it now? Keep voting until you are in the majority?
No means no, that is not a hard thing to understand, is it?
Why do we have elections, if the CSISD ignores the results?wasntme said:Then continue to vote 'no', that is your prerogative.doubledog said:For one thing, I have always been told no means no. Am I wrong?AGro99 said:
I'm curious as to why folks are so adamantly in the "no way" category?
However, the need for the upgrades are definitely warranted.
Hopefully the school board can educate the citizens, such as yourself, that these needs are warranted and they are not building the "Taj Mahal".
That is my problem. We cannot keep having elections until someone on the CSISD get what they want. No means no...
I believe that there is a simple reason why the district is persistent....
There is a NEED.
There is a NEED.
Many people, many times, have spoken during the public comments portion of the board meetings in support of improving facilities. I don't recall hearing one person speak against it during public comment. If you have a problem, voice it publicly on the record.
I do not have children who will directly benefit from the improvement of these facilities, but I will be voting yes.
I do not have children who will directly benefit from the improvement of these facilities, but I will be voting yes.
Didn't everybody who voted voice their opinion?
That's not the way it works though. No meant no the last election. The next election may yield a yes. That's America.doubledog said:Why do we have elections, if the CSISD ignores the results?wasntme said:Then continue to vote 'no', that is your prerogative.doubledog said:For one thing, I have always been told no means no. Am I wrong?AGro99 said:
I'm curious as to why folks are so adamantly in the "no way" category?
However, the need for the upgrades are definitely warranted.
Hopefully the school board can educate the citizens, such as yourself, that these needs are warranted and they are not building the "Taj Mahal".
That is my problem. We cannot keep having elections until someone on the CSISD get what they want. No means no...
I admit that I am underinformed on the matter but why are AMCHS and CSHS being lumped together? It seems like AMCHS might be closer to a need and CSHS, which was built fairly recently, might be closer to a want.