Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What about the $650M bond issue in 1999 that was defeated?
It was a one-time quirk. For that matter, a bond issue in 1968 to expand the then-meager RDU also went down. Over ten years passed before the RDU Airport Authority recovered, but the airport underwent major expansions in the 1980s - and thankfully so, in retrospect.
I'm voting "Yes," for common sense, good financial planning, and to provide adequate schools for kids.
^ This.
I can appreciate some people may want to vote no, but please try to provide a coherent counterpoint with reasons why and offer alternative (viable) solutions.
Saying "growth needs to stop" is unrealistic and childish. We need real world solutions. Not sound bites and gibberish.
I can appreciate some people may want to vote no, but please try to provide a coherent counterpoint with reasons why and offer alternative (viable) solutions.
Saying "growth needs to stop" is unrealistic and childish. We need real world solutions. Not sound bites and gibberish.
His point is that growth should pay for itself. If new residents and the corresponding houses means a need for new schools they should pay for it. Not some retiree house paid for years ago etc. let the source of the demand foot the bill. Pretty simple really.
Vote NO!
By the way, growth in Wake County needs to stop, and the lack of schools might discourage more migration.
Your plan to slow growth is to penalize students and provide sub-standard education in a hope that other folks will stop matriculating? I've heard other half-baked plans to reduce growth that harm those who live here, from not building/maintaining roads to charging impact fees, but this one takes that to a whole new level.
His point is that growth should pay for itself. If new residents and the corresponding houses means a need for new schools they should pay for it. Not some retiree house paid for years ago etc. let the source of the demand foot the bill. Pretty simple really.
Way more complicated actually. Society demands good schools and society (as in all of us) is responsible for the bill. Trying to push it off to "the next guy" is how we got in this mess in the first place.
As I recall from 1999, one reason that bond issue went down to defeat was a sense that the School Board had loaded up the bond issue with what some viewed as unnecessary and irresponsible expenditures. Is there any talk that this bond issue includes "extras" that might generate some debate?
As I recall from 1999, one reason that bond issue went down to defeat was a sense that the School Board had loaded up the bond issue with what some viewed as unnecessary and irresponsible expenditures. Is there any talk that this bond issue includes "extras" that might generate some debate?
Well.....
There is that trailer about "...and other items."
"The construction plan includes 11 new elementary schools, three new middle schools, two new high schools, six major renovations, land acquisition for future projects, upgrades to technology and security, equipment replacement and other items. "
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
