Plenty To Talk About After Muskego School Referendum

I think I can summarize the two sides on the school referendum issue, some 70-plus comments later. (Thanks for your engagement, by the way!)

I voted no because:  my taxes are already too high, the future is uncertain, and my home value has plummeted. I don't hate children and I don't hate teachers, but I feel they can still learn and do their job with what they have, and there is too much spent already. Now is not the time.

I voted yes because: taxes are tied into property values, and I feel improving our schools will help everyone's property values while attracting more people to move to the city.  I am passionate about our kids and want to improve the aging structures they are learning in as technology demands it. I feel the age of the buildings limits what can be done, and as they become harder to maintain, and costs are going up. Now is the time.

While I side with the yes votes, I agree that it's not pleasant to see taxes go up. We are all experiencing a tough economy.  However, one commenter pointed out the increase equates to the cost of a pizza from Domino's once a month, if your home is worth $291,000.

The future is indeed uncertain - it always has been if you think about it - but it is possible to take charge of it a little by broadcasting that Muskego is THE place to move, to work, to recreate, by spending the money on new facilities.  It tells businesses who might consider coming here and bringing their employees along that this is a place that is positioning itself for the future. It can bring in businesses and other home buyers to help shoulder the tax burden.

I also can't ignore the reports from maintenance that many of the parts needed to repair boilers simply aren't made any more, and that retrofitting and customizing is far more expensive than replacing and renovating. If it seems expensive now, it's not going to get any cheaper.

Facilities may not necessarily make the curriculum better, unless they are so out of date they are ineffective and overcrowded. People may not like the "90 years old" argument, but when buildings are built in the 1920's, that's how old they are in 2011.

Things will need to be fixed, and they will cost money. This referendum wasn't about building an aquatics center or something else completely expendible. What I hope to find out in the next few weeks is what happens from here. Gary Rosploch is the supervisor of building and grounds with the district, and I hope he can share what would make his 'top ten list' and how much that will cost. 

Someone opposed to the referendum commented that homeowners have to 'make do' and that's what I'm hoping to find out from the district.  What is 'making do' and what will it take to cover it?

My hope is that should those necessities still require a referendum, people aren't so anti-spending that their reaction is to vote no regardless. 'No' doesn't end the issue, it just delays the inevitable.