Can we revisit the CSISD Bond Discussion (signs are up, voting day approaches)

52,357 Views | 460 Replies | Last: 27 days ago by Stupe
Stupe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Orlando Ayala Cant Read said:

I'm generally against raising taxes for that kinda stuff but I'm not sure many people realize exactly how bad Consol is in these areas.
Either that or they don't care.

We have no kids at Consol and voted yes for all four.

It's disappointing that the kids that actually do something are the kids that don't get improvements.
Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stupe said:


The people voting against those propositions weren't CSHS parents. It was people that don't have kids in school or had kids that weren't involved in school activities.


I agree with this 100%

Plus the athletic Facilties at CSHS are not that great either

Fieldhouse is much better than consol's but the football and baseball/ softball fields are still low level Facilties compared to most other 5a-6A schools
Stupe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
The constant negative attitude of people like TAMU1990 towards CSHS really makes me not want to do that again.

However, I would vote yes to another bond if it meant improvements for Consol. I try not to get blinded by spite.
MiMi
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Stupe said:

Of course there is a difference. One is a brand new school and one is decades old.
Newer things are usually going to be more nice. But that was recognized and it's why there was a push by the CSHS booster club to get people to vote yes on the propositions.

The people voting against those propositions weren't CSHS parents. It was people that don't have kids in school or had kids that weren't involved in school activities.

I had 2 children attend CSHS, but have lived in CS over 30 years and have driven by the same AMCHS facilities for way too long (and learned about their poor condition on TexAgs). My husband and I voted yes to all 4 propositions. I'm disappointed in overall voter turnout and that C and D didn't pass.
Stupe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Quote:

Fieldhouse is much better than consol's but the football and baseball/ softball fields are still low level Facilties compared to most other 5a-6A schools
Consol's field house is in dire need of upgrades. It also needs another gym for wrestling and indoor mat drills or another basketball gym so they can use the small gym for wrestling / mat drills.

A lot of kids put a lot of time and energy into representing their school and deserve better.
TAMU1990
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stupe said:

TAMU1990 said:

Orlando Ayala Cant Read said:

I'm generally against raising taxes for that kinda stuff but I'm not sure many people realize exactly how bad Consol is in these areas.
It's time to open up Consol for tours. Consol got left out and CSHS gets what they want.
That is a pile of bull manure.

CSHS parents had signs in their yards and were actively pushing for those to pass because everyone knows that Consol needs improvement.

And it was the same thing during the last bond push to improve the athletic facilities at Consol.



CSHS was built as an expensive HS per sq foot at the time (2012). The only two things CSHS complained about over the years was needing a hitting barn and a 3rd gym. It was a major mistake not immediately renovating Consol after CSHS opened.

Someone said it perfectly - all tonight did was bring Consol up to TEA standards. Shameful. Consol parents are frustrated. It took an old lady falling through the rotted boards in the baseball stands in 2018 (and ending up hospitalized) to get new stands. These are the extremes that have to happen at Consol before anything is done. I don't care about your pity. Half the kids in this district have to go to Consol and their parents pay taxes too.
wasntme
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I voted FOR all four.
I agree both schools need upgrading in their athletic facilities.
However, it is night and day between CSHS and Consol. I feel that if a larger percentage of the funds were dedicated to Consol, the athletic bonds would have passed.
your dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
31.4 million (82%) of the 38.4 million in Prop C was for Consol.

What would have been an acceptable percentage?
your dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Some people are blinded by their own prejudices and ignorance. All you have to do is go watch previous school board meetings when TAMU1990 speaks during the public comment section to see what you are dealing with here.

She consistently uses half-truths and made-up theories to try to make people think there's some conspiracy theory against Consol.

Prop D didn't pass in 2021 because of people like TAMU1990 who were more concerned about advancing their narrative of how the superintendent was trying to screw over Consol, instead of rallying together as a community. It caused many people in the "maroon track" (as TAMU1990 calls it) to vote against it because there was an unfounded lack of trust in district administration.

Because some knew they screwed up in 2021, they doubled down and blamed prop D not passing on the lack of publicity by the CSISD administration and the people in the "purple track" not voting for it.

Voting precinct data shows that was not the case. The two largest votings precincts supported prop d in 2021, but barely. Pebble creek (zoned to Consol) only had 54% vote for prop d, while castlegate (zoned for the "purple palace") had 52% vote for prop d. Only six precincts out of the 21 with more than 100 votes cast supported prop d at 50% or greater.

Unless you can explain to me how 17 of 21 precincts supported the natatorium (prop c) and the not prop d, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

To be clear, I voted for all four and am extremely disappointed prop c didn't pass. My kids are zoned to CSHS and I put in a lot of personal effort to try to get all four bonds passed, while folks like TAMU1990 continually drive wedges between different segments of the community.

[Please do not use that phrase on this forum. -Staff]
George Costanza
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"It was a major mistake not immediately renovating Consol after CSHS opened."

If you go look at past bonds, at least $40million in bond money alone (maybe more?) has been put into Consol since CSHS was built and this bond package does and would have done even more. The whole no one cares about Consol narrative isn't true. Apparently the general populace who actually bothers to vote is just voting against athletics bonds.
Stupe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Quote:

I don't care about your pity. Half the kids in this district have to go to Consol and their parents pay taxes too.
Wow.

TAMU quoted a post that was nothing but support for Consol getting improvements. I even noted that CSHS parents were pushing for the previous bond that only had improvements for Consol and none for CSHS.

And what does TAMU take from that? "We don't need pity and we pay taxes, too".

Are you really THAT jaded that you can't tell the difference between supporting something just because it benefits hard working students and pity? Seriously?

The people that you are bad mouthing also pay taxes and were willing to pass a bond for facilities that their kids would never use on a regular basis.
If you don't want that "pity", maybe you don't want those votes the next time something that will improve Consol comes up in an election.

And six other people gave a blue star to that post.

Just stunning.
claydeezy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yesterday's result is one of those sobering life reminders that some people are just plain ignoramuses. This community and our children deserve better - both purple and maroon!
doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If CoCS can build Taj Mahals then why not CSISD?
Tumble Weed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The pervasive ideology of big government spending is alive and well in College Station. Most Texans are oblivious to the number of progressives that reside in the Brazos Valley.
Mister Mystery Guest
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've been saying for a while that Brazos County will be the next densely populated county in Texas to turn blue, thanks to all the liberals our beloved university brings to town.
befitter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stupe said:



The people voting against those propositions weren't CSHS parents. It was people that don't have kids in school or had kids that weren't involved in school activities.
Not necessarily so. I voted for all 4 and no longer have kids in CSISD. Both my kids played sports and band so I voted for all 4 despite not desiring a raise in property taxes. I know many who did not vote for it however, and think the huge number the 4 props added up to put many people off.
SARATOGA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I voted for all 4. But I don't like the way the propositions were divided up. I maintain my mantra (kids first) which means I would be (am) in favor of field house renovations/additions and locker room additions renovations, and training room additions/renovations.....cause all of these things benefit the kids directly.

But I don't care at all about the stands/seats/press box. Half the games are livestreamed by the high school AV clubs these days. We don't need fancy pressboxes or stands. That is a waste of money.

I do wonder where the "land acquisition" money is headed - hopefully SOUTH where the people are (building and expanding)
AggiePhil
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I voted "yes" to all four and obviously do not know why everyone who voted "no" to the last two did so. BUT, I will say that several people in my circle who voted "no" said they did so because they'd rather have their money go toward teacher salaries than improved athletic facilities. And I can't really argue with that. The district needs to address teacher pay above all else (except security, which I think is also woefully underfunded).
Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Mister Mystery Guest said:

I've been saying for a while that Brazos County will be the next densely populated county in Texas to turn blue, thanks to all the liberals our beloved university brings to town.


Unfortunately that is 100% accurate
Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AggiePhil said:

The district needs to address teacher pay above all else (except security, which I think is also woefully underfunded).


Teacher salary in CSISD is joke.
There are teachers with 10-20 years experience making less than 1st year teachers at other districts less than an hour from CS.

SARATOGA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm not red or blue per se. But in terms of the national perspective A&M has lost its way.....there is no longer any "Lead by Example" despite what they say their 4 pillars are.....it is quite clearly "Follow like Sheep" the things promoted by the Federal government (because there is a billion dollars in research funding at stake) if they don't fall in line.
Tumble Weed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SARATOGA said:

I'm not red or blue per se. But in terms of the national perspective A&M has lost its way.....there is no longer any "Lead by Example" despite what they say their 4 pillars are.....it is quite clearly "Follow like Sheep" the things promoted by the Federal government (because there is a billion dollars in research funding at stake) if they don't fall in line.

You voted for all 4. That is a tax increase. You are team blue.
GoodOleBryanBoy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This was not a smart move by some College Station residents to vote down the athletic aspects of this bond. Take it from a Bryan guy who has seen a decline in athletics over the last couple of decades affect the growth of Bryan.

I know it's not popular to say athletics matter, but they do matter. I'm old enough to have witnessed A&M Consolidated's and College Station High Schools' success in sports over the last 30-plus years and how that success contributed to the growth of College Station.

I'm sure Bryan ISD will put forth an athletic bond at some point in the near future, and I hope that Bryan won't make the same mistake College Station did.
thebaldone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I voted yes to all four. The district must find a way to better parity for all facilities.

For those that I know voting no to any of the bond proposals I heard a common theme - the district needs to first find a way to streamline operations at the central office. The perception is that central office headcount continues to balloon - at the expense of spending money on teachers in the classroom. I hear this from teachers (I am not).

Once that is addressed I think some voters will begin to support other investments in our school system.
Stupe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Tumble Weed said:

The pervasive ideology of big government spending is alive and well in College Station. Most Texans are oblivious to the number of progressives that reside in the Brazos Valley.
Are you saying that everyone that voted for those propositions is a Progressive or Liberal?

If so....that is one of the dumbest statements that I've ever seen on this board.

Ever.

If not...don't pay attention to my previous statement.
Captn_Ag05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggie said:

AggiePhil said:

The district needs to address teacher pay above all else (except security, which I think is also woefully underfunded).


Teacher salary in CSISD is joke.
There are teachers with 10-20 years experience making less than 1st year teachers at other districts less than an hour from CS.


Hopefully all those people realize that by law bond money cannot be used to pay teacher salaries. Voting against bond money to repair athletic facilities because you think teachers should be paid more makes zero sense. Failure to pass these bonds will result in higher maintenance costs of old, dilapidated facilities. Those maintenance costs will come out of operating budget, which is also the budget that salaries come out of. Failing to pass bonds will likely cut down on the funds available to pay teachers. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
cypress-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As a new resident of College Station, I voted for all 4 bonds and I'm normally against most of them. I came from Cy Fair ISD. Way too much money in that district is used for the administration and support staffs and not the teachers or students. I don't have children in school any longer but have seen the facilities and infrastructure and its sad that people don't see the value in investing in the community at large. Not sure why there is such disdain for athletic facilities as I don't think they are shooting to build a college level complex for AMC just make it something that is reflective of the community. AMC facilities resemble something in Hempstead or Calvert and that is sad.
claydeezy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Preach!
George Costanza
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"II will say that several people in my circle who voted "no" said they did so because they'd rather have their money go toward teacher salaries than improved athletic facilities. And I can't really argue with that."

That's the problem. School districts can't legally use bond fund to pay salaries and legally they can't increase maintenance and operations revenue more than 2.5% per year.
George Costanza
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"For those that I know voting no to any of the bond proposals I heard a common theme - the district needs to first find a way to streamline operations at the central office."

I actually took the time several months ago to check into this and CSISD actually has a much smaller central administration than most comparatively sized districts.
AggiePhil
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
George Costanza said:

"II will say that several people in my circle who voted "no" said they did so because they'd rather have their money go toward teacher salaries than improved athletic facilities. And I can't really argue with that."

That's the problem. School districts can't legally use bond fund to pay salaries and legally they can't increase maintenance and operations revenue more than 2.5% per year.
I realize this, and would hope they do too. I think it's more of a "feeling" type thing. People FEEL that the priorities are misplaced and are choosing to "make their voice heard." Again, I voted yes to all four. But I think there is a large section of the public that has grown weary of athletic spending (right or wrong). It probably doesn't help that we have a perfect example (albeit, not a very comparable one) in our backyard of runaway spending on athletic facilities that results in [arguably] very little objective improvement.
birdman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I voted NO across the board.

Trin the fat. Sharpen your pencils and get back to me.
George Costanza
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Trin the fat."

Can you give a specific example of what you would trim?
chickencoupe16
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AggiePhil said:

BUT, I will say that several people in my circle who voted "no" said they did so because they'd rather have their money go toward teacher salaries than improved athletic facilities. And I can't really argue with that.


Bonds can't be used to pay salaries. Theoretically, a bond frees up money to put towards salaries but school finance doesn't necessarily work like that and many schools would prefer to spend the money on tangible items (toys) instead.
AggiePhil
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chickencoupe16 said:

AggiePhil said:

BUT, I will say that several people in my circle who voted "no" said they did so because they'd rather have their money go toward teacher salaries than improved athletic facilities. And I can't really argue with that.


Bonds can't be used to pay salaries. Theoretically, a bond frees up money to put towards salaries but school finance doesn't necessarily work like that and many schools would prefer to spend the money on tangible items (toys) instead.
I realize this, and would hope they do too. I think it's more of a "feeling" type thing. People FEEL that the priorities are misplaced and are choosing to "make their voice heard." Again, I voted yes to all four. But I think there is a large section of the public that has grown weary of athletic spending (right or wrong). It probably doesn't help that we have a perfect example (albeit, not a very comparable one) in our backyard of runaway spending on athletic facilities that results in [arguably] very little objective improvement.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.