Before you go pointing fingers and making accusations, it is a pretty blanket statement to say that voting for a tax increase makes you blue.

There are two elements to the formula, appraised value and rate. I routinely and successfully argue my value with pretty good success so my taxes have routinely gone DOWN at least half of the years. So I have my cake (better things for my kids) and eat it too (lower taxes) at the expense of those too lazy to argue their own appraisal values.

AggiePhil said:

---

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.

---

I agree expect for the analogy at the end as that spending in our backyard is not yours's and my tax monies. I don't have to spend one penny on A&M sports unless I want to.

I think a significant reason why people voted down on Prop C and D is the lack of understanding and explanation of real needs.

If the stands at the football stadiums are not full for most games, does an expansion of the stands warrant the cost now?

If the CSHS press box has water and structural issues, why at its age? What caused it...poor material quality, poor workmanship, or lack of maintenance? Does the Consol press box really need a rebuild or just updating and minor expansion? How many days a year is it used for games? Maybe 25 at most?

The argument that those that voted no on C and D wasn't concerned about our students shows to be incorrect as many voted yes to the academic sides A and B.

If next year come back with a bare bones proposal with in-depth explanation of where the money is to be spent, it might pass.

your dad said:

---

31.4 million (82%) of the 38.4 million in Prop C was for Consol.

What would have been an acceptable percentage?

---

I agree that is an acceptable percentage. I realized that last night after going to the website.
I think that message should have been conveyed a lot better!

First and foremost - I'm very pleased A & B passed because there is a ton of badly needed items in those bonds. So thanks to the voters for that.

I held off posting on this thread because I was and am pretty disappointed that voters did not support bringing the Consol field house and athletic facilities up to par with the CSHS facilities and if I had typed what I was thinking earlier today it probably would not have come across very well. It's just not fair to those kids to not have the same facilities as their friends and neighbors across town.

I will say I just heard the Superintendent interviewed on WTAW and he said, while disappointed, it is now their job to get out in the community and figure out how to put together a package to address these desperately needed maintenance and repairs that is palatable to voters. I certainly hope those of you who chose not to vote for C & D will respond to that outreach and/or reach out yourselves and respectfully let your concerns be known to the board so we can hopefully have a better outcome next time.

Tailgate88 said:

---

I will say I just heard the Superintendent interviewed on WTAW and he said, while disappointed, it is now their job to get out in the community and figure out how to put together a package to address these desperately needed maintenance and repairs that is palatable to voters. I certainly hope those of you who chose not to vote for C & D will respond to that outreach and/or reach out yourselves and respectfully let your concerns be known to the board so we can hopefully have a better outcome next time.

---

I'm also disappointed about the failure of the athletics bonds. They were a drop in the bucket in the overall scheme of things; they probably would have cost us another $25/year if I understood the math correctly. Overall I took the view that the district should do a comprehensive update to the facilities now rather than trying to piecemeal it--similar to building a house you sometimes pay more to do things correctly and in a future-oriented way now in order to avoid more expensive problems later. But I honestly was more convinced about a strong current need for some portions of the athletic bonds (the AMCHS fieldhouse) than others (expanding seating in the stadiums, which seemed more like future-proofing than a glaring current need...but maybe it was justified by expanding student enrollments?). I am guessing we'll be back at it next year; hopefully costs haven't risen too much by then.

AggiePhil said:

---

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.

---

I would guess that most people who live here just don't care about high school sports. When I was growing up, we went to most home and away football games but we lived in a small town. There was a sense of community and that high school team was ours even if us kids weren't yet in high school. A&M takes precedence in sports and in the community role.

So the line of thinking is: why would I pay for unnecessarily expensive athletics facilities that I can't and/or won't use (and would have to pay to do so anyway) for kids that I don't know and which make up only a fraction of the total student population?

Talked to many folks. Here are reasons they voted against the bonds.
1 - home prices, inflation, government spending, hatred of taxes, and a general feeling of "big government" has worn them out and stressed finances.
2 - don't have kids in sports in public schools. Some homeschool, some go to private, and some just don't want that much $ going to sports.
3 - will never vote to give themselves a government spending increase.

All the other things mentioned on here are not what I have heard, but folks applying reasons to others because they are mad.

so take it out on the kids, makes sense.

aggiepaintrain said:

---

so take it out on the kids, makes sense.

---

LOL. I want to pay fewer taxes and that's your take. If you care so much about the kids, then fork over the money and absolutely nobody will care what kind of sports stadium they have.

aggiepaintrain said:

---

so take it out on the kids, makes sense.

---

The relatively few kids that use each facility are not horrifically impacted by the bonds not passing. For example, Consol wants a bigger training room for their athletes but you may be shocked to know that my high school didn't even have a trainer! And most of our students were athletes in at least one sport!

I understand that people like nice things. I also understand that when compared to other ISDs, the athletic facilities are lacking in College Station. I personally have several children. None of them suffered from a lack of having what they have in Frisco or Katy.

tu ag said:

---

I understand that people like nice things. I also understand that when compared to other ISDs, the athletic facilities are lacking in College Station. I personally have several children. None of them suffered from a lack of having what they have in Frisco or Katy.

---

But here's the thing - I would understand if this bond was ONLY for fancy scoreboards or a huge new stadium or even if it was just for stadium expansion - there was some of those things in there. I can see how voters could reject that given the current economy etc.

The reason it bothers me so much that it failed is that currently one of our high schools has unacceptable facilities. Unfortunately the reality is many voters may not have understood the problems that have been documented on this forum - overcrowding, not enough space for all kids to see the trainer, etc. That's just part of it. I mean, the softball "pressbox" looks like a deer stand. Pretty embarassing.

Anyway, hopefully they can repackage the bonds into a few different ones so at the very least we can get these important updates done, for the sake of the student athletes at Consol.

It's about fairness and parity across the district, not about building Taj Mahal's.

Tailgate88 said:

---

tu ag said:

---

I understand that people like nice things. I also understand that when compared to other ISDs, the athletic facilities are lacking in College Station. I personally have several children. None of them suffered from a lack of having what they have in Frisco or Katy.

---

But here's the thing - I would understand if this bond was ONLY for fancy scoreboards or a huge new stadium or even if it was just for stadium expansion - there was some of those things in there. I can see how voters could reject that given the current economy etc.

The reason it bothers me so much that it failed is that currently one of our high schools has unacceptable facilities. Unfortunately the reality is many voters may not have understood the problems that have been documented on this forum - overcrowding, not enough space for all kids to see the trainer, etc. That's just part of it. I mean, the softball "pressbox" looks like a deer stand. Pretty embarassing.

Anyway, hopefully they can repackage the bonds into a few different ones so at the very least we can get these important updates done, for the sake of the student athletes at Consol.

It's about fairness and parity across the district, not about building Taj Mahal's.

---

Why is anything more than a deer stand necessary for a press box? Second, if we're only talking about upgrading past "deer stand", why can't the district fund that without a bond? Why haven't they done so already?

I would be fine with reasonable upgrades, the problem is that upgrades are almost never reasonable. For example, I know of a district that built 6 lighted tennis courts just so they could host the district tournament. This will certainly never pay for itself and is completely unnecessary to serve the needs of the school, but bond money (if it is approved) is free money, so why not be frivolous?

We stand at a point where the caricature of sports facilities lives in the heads of the no voters and the reality of AMCHS's facilities remains unknown to them.

CSISD has done them a disservice by not publicizing the issue and explaining the real need. Until they do that, the issue will remain a cartoon of Kyle in most of the no voting minds.

Additionally, uncouple that bond from anything having to do with CSHS for the time being. I realize that you only get one bite at the apple but these facilities truly need an upgrade.

Cartographer said:

---

We stand at a point where the caricature of sports facilities lives in the heads of the no voters and the reality of AMCHS's facilities remains unknown to them.

CSISD has done them a disservice by not publicizing the issue and explaining the real need. Until they do that, the issue will remain a cartoon of Kyle in most of the no voting minds.

Additionally, uncouple that bond from anything having to do with CSHS for the time being. I realize that you only get one bite at the apple but these facilities truly need an upgrade.

---

That's what needs to happen. A simple bond that addresses only the issues that need to be addressed to bring the Consol facilities up to standard. Right now the condition of many of them is an embarrassment. The district needs to do a video documentary showing the different and the issues at Consol so voters can undersatnd the need.

People have made it pretty clear that they don't give 2 hoots about being the standard bearer as it pertains to HS athletics, and that's a shame because the kids that work their tails off to represent our community deserve better than what they're getting. My kids are zoned to go to the purple school, but the facilities at Consol or woefully inadequate. The "deer stand" is just one small example of what's wrong. Go see it for yourself, and then drive to one of the smaller districts in our area and compare. It's an absolute joke. Don't think for a second that this won't eventually have a negative impact on our community and who wants to move here if the problems persist and the taxpayers keep turning their backs.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

tu ag said:

---

I understand that people like nice things. I also understand that when compared to other ISDs, the athletic facilities are lacking in College Station. I personally have several children. None of them suffered from a lack of having what they have in Frisco or Katy.

---

But here's the thing - I would understand if this bond was ONLY for fancy scoreboards or a huge new stadium or even if it was just for stadium expansion - there was some of those things in there. I can see how voters could reject that given the current economy etc.

The reason it bothers me so much that it failed is that currently one of our high schools has unacceptable facilities. Unfortunately the reality is many voters may not have understood the problems that have been documented on this forum - overcrowding, not enough space for all kids to see the trainer, etc. That's just part of it. I mean, the softball "pressbox" looks like a deer stand. Pretty embarassing.

Anyway, hopefully they can repackage the bonds into a few different ones so at the very least we can get these important updates done, for the sake of the student athletes at Consol.

It's about fairness and parity across the district, not about building Taj Mahal's.

---

Why is anything more than a deer stand necessary for a press box? Second, if we're only talking about upgrading past "deer stand", why can't the district fund that without a bond? Why haven't they done so already?

I would be fine with reasonable upgrades, the problem is that upgrades are almost never reasonable. For example, I know of a district that built 6 lighted tennis courts just so they could host the district tournament. This will certainly never pay for itself and is completely unnecessary to serve the needs of the school, but bond money (if it is approved) is free money, so why not be frivolous?

---

I hear you. At my high school our "press" boxes were folding tables. I wonder how we survived..
Of course our history books stopped at the Korean War so take that with a grain of salt.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

tu ag said:

---

I understand that people like nice things. I also understand that when compared to other ISDs, the athletic facilities are lacking in College Station. I personally have several children. None of them suffered from a lack of having what they have in Frisco or Katy.

---

But here's the thing - I would understand if this bond was ONLY for fancy scoreboards or a huge new stadium or even if it was just for stadium expansion - there was some of those things in there. I can see how voters could reject that given the current economy etc.

The reason it bothers me so much that it failed is that currently one of our high schools has unacceptable facilities. Unfortunately the reality is many voters may not have understood the problems that have been documented on this forum - overcrowding, not enough space for all kids to see the trainer, etc. That's just part of it. I mean, the softball "pressbox" looks like a deer stand. Pretty embarassing.

Anyway, hopefully they can repackage the bonds into a few different ones so at the very least we can get these important updates done, for the sake of the student athletes at Consol.

It's about fairness and parity across the district, not about building Taj Mahal's.

---

Why is anything more than a deer stand necessary for a press box? Second, if we're only talking about upgrading past "deer stand", why can't the district fund that without a bond? Why haven't they done so already?

I would be fine with reasonable upgrades, the problem is that upgrades are almost never reasonable. For example, I know of a district that built 6 lighted tennis courts just so they could host the district tournament. This will certainly never pay for itself and is completely unnecessary to serve the needs of the school, but bond money (if it is approved) is free money, so why not be frivolous?

---

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

claydeezy said:

---

People have made it pretty clear that they don't give 2 hoots about being the standard bearer as it pertains to HS athletics, and that's a shame because the kids that work their tails off to represent our community deserve better than what they're getting. My kids are zoned to go to the purple school, but the facilities at Consol or woefully inadequate. The "deer stand" is just one small example of what's wrong. Go see it for yourself, and then drive to one of the smaller districts in our area and compare. It's an absolute joke. Don't think for a second that this won't eventually have a negative impact on our community and who wants to move here if the problems persist and the taxpayers keep turning their backs.

---

You're damn right I don't want to pay for CSISD to be the standard bearer because the standard is too damn high. As far as smaller districts, I'm aware of how nice some are. Navasota has brand new turf baseball and softball stadiums. Transfer your kids there if it matters so much.

doubledog said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

tu ag said:

---

I understand that people like nice things. I also understand that when compared to other ISDs, the athletic facilities are lacking in College Station. I personally have several children. None of them suffered from a lack of having what they have in Frisco or Katy.

---

But here's the thing - I would understand if this bond was ONLY for fancy scoreboards or a huge new stadium or even if it was just for stadium expansion - there was some of those things in there. I can see how voters could reject that given the current economy etc.

The reason it bothers me so much that it failed is that currently one of our high schools has unacceptable facilities. Unfortunately the reality is many voters may not have understood the problems that have been documented on this forum - overcrowding, not enough space for all kids to see the trainer, etc. That's just part of it. I mean, the softball "pressbox" looks like a deer stand. Pretty embarassing.

Anyway, hopefully they can repackage the bonds into a few different ones so at the very least we can get these important updates done, for the sake of the student athletes at Consol.

It's about fairness and parity across the district, not about building Taj Mahal's.

---

Why is anything more than a deer stand necessary for a press box? Second, if we're only talking about upgrading past "deer stand", why can't the district fund that without a bond? Why haven't they done so already?

I would be fine with reasonable upgrades, the problem is that upgrades are almost never reasonable. For example, I know of a district that built 6 lighted tennis courts just so they could host the district tournament. This will certainly never pay for itself and is completely unnecessary to serve the needs of the school, but bond money (if it is approved) is free money, so why not be frivolous?

---

I hear you. At my high school our "press" boxes were folding tables. I wonder how we survived..
Of course our history books stopped at the Korean War so take that with a grain of salt.

---

Our press box was slightly above a deer stand (it did double as a concession stand) but perhaps if it had been better I would still be playing ball. Instead, I had to stop after high school. If only the press and announcer had better amenities...

Thanks for the kind-hearted recommendation, but no thanks. We love our community and will continue to invest our time, talent and treasure here in the hopes of making it a better place than we found it. Hope you have a great day!

claydeezy said:

---

Thanks for the kind-hearted recommendation, but no thanks. We love our community and will continue to invest our time, talent and treasure here in the hopes of making it a better place than we found it. Hope you have a great day!

---

Respectable. But don't be shocked that people disagree with how to do so and realize that the "think of the children" trope is tired. I'd vote for a turf field because it often makes financial sense and directly benefits students. I won't vote for pretty things because it makes parents and administrators feel good.

Quote:

---

Additionally, uncouple that bond from anything having to do with CSHS for the time being. I realize that you only get one bite at the apple but these facilities truly need an upgrade.

---

Another poster with the Consol vs CSHS line of bull manure.

CSHS parents have been pushing for upgrades and repairs to Consol even when none of the money was going to CSHS.

Quote:

---

You're damn right I don't want to pay for CSISD to be the standard bearer because the standard is too damn high. As far as smaller districts, I'm aware of how nice some are. Navasota has brand new turf baseball and softball stadiums. Transfer your kids there if it matters so much.

---

If it doesn't matter to you, move out of College Station and it won't affect you.

Quote:

---

I would be fine with reasonable upgrades, the problem is that upgrades are almost never reasonable. For example, I know of a district that built 6 lighted tennis courts just so they could host the district tournament. This will certainly never pay for itself and is completely unnecessary to serve the needs of the school, but bond money (if it is approved) is free money, so why not be frivolous?

---

Who gives a rat's butt what another school district did. It doesn't have a single thing to do with this bond.
CSISD was NOT going to do that. Allen and The Woodlands built palaces. CSISD wasn't going to do that. The plan wasn't to get into a facilities race with other districts and build palaces. The plan was to fix the problems and give Consol more reasonable facilities.

Thinking that they were going to do anything more is just being uninformed.

You talk about posters using a trope when you floated this out there?

Quote:

---

The relatively few kids that use each facility are not horrifically impacted by the bonds not passing. For example, Consol wants a bigger training room for their athletes but you may be shocked to know that my high school didn't even have a trainer! And most of our students were athletes in at least one sport!

---

The "it was good enough for me, so it's good enough for them!" trope?

We had a tiny closet for a training room, took salt tablets, and my head coach thought extra water breaks made you weak. That doesn't mean that it's a good idea.

Hey Stupe, that's not the point. The point is we're talking major renovations at one campus and a general expansion at the other.

All anyone hears is expanding the stadiums and tunes out, leaving consol with the same problems.

If the bond read "addressing capacity and safety issues in the AMCHS field houses" I think people would have a better idea of what they are supporting.

It's always important to remember most people don't read more than the blurb when it comes to these bond issues and in turn, the students suffer because "we don't need a bigger stadium".

I put most of this on ineffective marketing of the issues by the district. I'm also one of those CSHS folks who want to see consol improved.

I'd say that's not a very good description of the issues if you only read that line.

Stupe said:

---

Quote:

---

I would be fine with reasonable upgrades, the problem is that upgrades are almost never reasonable. For example, I know of a district that built 6 lighted tennis courts just so they could host the district tournament. This will certainly never pay for itself and is completely unnecessary to serve the needs of the school, but bond money (if it is approved) is free money, so why not be frivolous?

---

Who gives a rat's butt what another school district did. It doesn't have a single thing to do with this bond.
CSISD was NOT going to do that. Allen and The Woodlands built palaces. CSISD wasn't going to do that. The plan wasn't to get into a facilities race with other districts and build palaces. The plan was to fix the problems and give Consol more reasonable facilities.

Thinking that they were going to do anything more is just being uninformed.

---

This.

This wasn't an attempt to match Allen. Prosper etc or even go from F to B+. This was an attempt to go from F to D+ honestly.

Or I could continue to vote no and see these bonds fail because voters seem to agree with me.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Or I could continue to vote no and see these bonds fail because voters seem to agree with me.

---

I'd bet over half those voters would change their mind on the vote if they actually saw the facilities.

Schools continuously spend money frivolously and College Station is not an exception.