City High parent Mary Anne Berg writes in support of the Hoover closure in today’s Press-Citizen. It’s the first and only opinion piece in favor of the closure that I’ve seen. See how persuasive you think the argument is.
Berg mentions that necessary renovations to Hoover would cost five million dollars, but she conspicuously fails to mention that tearing the school down and rebuilding its capacity elsewhere will cost fifteen million dollars. Berg then argues that “As an additional benefit, the City High campus will have room to expand to better meet needs.” Like every other closure supporter that I have heard, including the school board members who approved the plan, Berg will not say how the Hoover property will be used to benefit City High. Instead, Berg concludes that “I am confident that the district will use the Hoover property in a way that respects its neighbors and that helps meet the needs of City.” She’s confident, so don’t worry. But please don’t ask what that use will be.
.
2 comments:
A significant portion of the "5 million" dollar renovations will be done in before Hoover is torn down (according to Murley). That includes AC and necessary electric renovations, and then you have demolition costs on top of that.
Thanks, Michael. That's my understanding also. When I read arguments like Berg's, I can't help but think that some people aren't on board for those renovations. (One school board candidate, Brian Kirschling, told me that he did not think it made sense to air-condition Hoover if it will eventually close.)
Under the board's plan, Hoover will continue as an elementary school for at least another four years. If it doesn't get some form of air conditioning during that time, count on four more years (at a minimum) of district-wide early closings like we've had all this week.
Post a Comment