Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Final Thoughts on the EPISD Bond

The biggest argument for the bond by supporters is actually one of the problems with the bond. The argument is that its behemoth size (2/3 of a ba-ba-ba-billion dollars) is that there is tremendous need in the district in terms of infrastructure improvements.

The problem is this bond doesn't distribute the funds equally. An editorial cartoon broke it down nicely by showing that a huge chunk of the money is divided into two schools, one on the westside (shocker right?) and Burgess. The remaining amount of money is split among nearly 80 schools.

As I've mentioned, the district is contracting.

Next door in YISD, a bond was passed in which the lion's share of the bond money goest to Eastwood High School. In fact the bond had to be revamped to account for the extra students in Eastwood High School.

Where are the students coming from? You guessed it, EPISD.

Burgess is actually closer to Eastwood High School than it is to Jefferson High School which is the next closest EPISD school. I know, I didn't realize Burgess was kind out there on its own either until a friend and Burgess alum pointed it out.

Burgess as you probably know, is in a pretty affluent area of the eastside. EPISD knows that students there have the means to attend another high school and YISD loves to poach kids from EPISD. Its all a numbers game with attendance and funding.

So yes there is need district-wide in school improvements but funny how you don't see the big investment in places like Irvin, Austin, or Andress like you do at the school that borders YISD huh?

And that is what frustrates people about the bond...

--------------------------------------
Show Me the Money

Sure are a lot of rich fat cats dumping big loads of cash into the bond race isn't there?

--------------------------------------
Speaking of Money

I don't think the opposition has realized that at some point most of them are going to have to file campaign finance reports because they are spending money against the bond as well. Certainly not nearly as much as the pro-bond folks, but certainly enough that you can easily see expenditures above the reporting threshold that would trigger the filing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for their opposition to the bond and I think some of their sponsored ads are pretty exceptional, but they are indicative of the fact that they has been money and resources invested in that cause that need to be reported as well.

I'm looking at you Facebook James No Bond guy...

1 comment:

The Lion Star said...

Thanks for contacting me and giving that feedback. It's appreciated.

If you are a graphic designer I think you'd have to report it as an in-kind donation and the amount the graphic would normally cost a client. That's why I thought you might be over the $600 threshold, coupled with the videos.