.

12th High School Proposal Inferred an Attempt to Hold Alpine Hostage

Priscilla Schreiber: “Nothing in (the resolution) would have changed the hearts and minds of a community that has been dismissed, by this district, time and time again.”

To the editor:

Will the Grossmont Union High School District finally build a long-sought high school in Alpine?

At the request of new trustee Jim Stieringer, the school board discussed the path to construction at its meeting Feb. 13.

Unfortunately, the resolution was merely a conditional resolution and not a path to construction.  The resolution was conditioned on the Alpine community abandoning its unification efforts and then, and only then, would the board consider resubmitting a modified version of the existing building plans to the Division of the State Architect.  

It did nothing to remove the barriers to awarding construction contracts upon DSA approval, and moving the process forward.  It simply stated, upon abandoning unification efforts, that then we will put your plans back into DSA.

On July 2011, the board had directed the submittal of a building design package to DSA, which was finally submitted in April 2012.  But in June 2012, unbeknownst to the board, the plans were pulled.  

This action was prior to any murmur of unification coming out of Alpine.  Why were the plans pulled, without a vote of the board, since it was a 5-0 vote on a resolution to submit them? On whose authority were they pulled?  

They even got the CBOC to approve the process to circumvent the board's authority.  Precedent setting?  Amazing!

Mr. Stieringer’s efforts are appreciated, but the language, from my perspective, inferred an attempt to hold Alpine hostage under another veiled promise to build the school. He and other board members may have a different take on why the resolution failed, but this is why I voted against it.

The conversation on how to handle those plans, once approved by DSA (a 6-9 month process) was to let them sit on the shelf for three years and then request another year extension before any consideration to award construction contracts. Grading the site was removed from the current projects list.  

All this was to align the moon and the stars with all the other board-imposed hurdles to build the school.  So under the failed resolution, there was nothing in it that I believe would have changed the hearts and minds of a community that has been dismissed, by this district, time and time again. 

The purchase of the land is still a land asset to the district.  Nothing further has been done to put a business plan into place to build the school, work with the community on transitional costs or joint-use ventures, or even to grade the land for community use—some kind of realized investment in their community with their tax dollars. But nothing.  

The only thing the community was involved in was the program and building design and then that would have been modified by virtue of a successful resolution last night.  

Then there is the issue of funding. With all the front-loading of projects, down the hill, and exhausting the current cash flow—and then pushing funding for the new school into the last bond issuance, proposed for 2017—what is the real intention for building the school? What would that last bond issuance cost the taxpayers?  

The state has no more matching funds unless another Statewide Facilities Bond is passed in 2014.  

There is an interesting timeline on the Alpine High School Citizens Committee website that will show which came first—the chicken or the egg? It will show the pattern of board actions that added intended obstacles in the path to building the school. It will show the 11th-hour amendment to Prop. U that was designed to essentially kill the school and push it way into the future.   

The need for the high school was originally based on a need for a community high school, safety reasons and to relieve overcrowding at Granite Hills.  It was meant to serve the Alpine/Blossom Valley area.  That need still exists.

As it stands today and into the foreseeable future, Alpine will only benefit from the bond by driving (at risk) long distances to attend other community high schools in the district.  

They will have a tax burden and nothing in their community to show for it.

They will not have the benefit that other communities in the Grossmont district have with a neighborhood high school. They will not realize improved property values. They will not benefit from new families moving into the community. And, in fact, because Grossmont has not delivered and pushed it way into the future, they are seeing families move out of the community.  

What is that saying, in reverse—if you don’t build it, they won’t come?  

At a time when Grossmont is trying to find ways to attract students into our district and then to totally disregard the potential for new students to a new high school in Alpine tells me that any road to gaining students is fine as long as it doesn’t go through Alpine.  Hmm?

Priscilla Schreiber
Grossmont Union High School District board trustee

Alpine Blossom Valley High February 15, 2013 at 10:12 PM
Yes, they've (CBOC) been manipulated, A headlined bond project... A "Must Do", top priority project in the 2003 Long Range Facilities Master Plan, the basis the value sought for Prop H... Yes, they (CBOC) certainly have been manipulated, because Prop U, was to finish what Prop H could not?? LOL, exception to the rule... the12th HS... being the #1 project in Prop H... the beginning.
Alpine Blossom Valley High February 16, 2013 at 12:50 AM
To view a more appropriate "Resolution outline" that the GUHSD should consider follow this link; http://lamesa.patch.com/articles/be-it-resolved-commence-guhsd-work-on-12th-high-school-in-alpine-asap
Alpine Blossom Valley High February 16, 2013 at 04:58 PM
Wow, 48 comments, all negative outlooks on Mr. Kelly, Hmmm... what inferred meaning do we derive? One more question to ponder.... Mr. Kelly, please answer this; A 12th HS campus, with modern classroom and 21st Century curriculum offerings is good logic, to benefit all of the GUHSD, and attracts new students and new ADA revenues. It would prevent 600 + Alpine area students from Unifying out of the GUHSD (600 x $6,000 ADA per student = a loss of $3.6 million) which just might save the GUHSD from financial disaster which it is flirting with! Also, the GUHSD lost 336 student from Alpine when Steele Canyon HS bailed out of the GUHSD. They could regain all of these students if the 12th HS was built. 336 x $6,000 = $2.02 million + 3.6 M, totals $5.62 million ( ++ $5,000,620.00 WOW, could this be true, YES) that building the 12th HS could save or regain to strengthen the GUHSD bottom fiscal line... A no brainer Mr. Kelly!
Alpine Blossom Valley High February 16, 2013 at 05:00 PM
48 comments re: http://lamesa.patch.com/articles/grossmont-school-board-rift-explodes-board-member-kelly-attacks-schreiber#comments_list
aaaa March 09, 2013 at 01:47 AM
http://www.coachoutletonlineusa2013.com/ Coach Outlet USA Coach Outlet Online http://www.monstervbeats.net/ Beats By Dre Pro Moster Headphones Outlet http://www.guccishoesuk.net/ Gucci Shoes UK Gucci Outlet Online http://www.new-michaelkors.com/ Michael Kors Outlet Michael Kors Handbags http://www.mk-michaellkorsoutlet.net/ Michael Kors Outlet Online http://www.northfacejacketsoutletonline.net/ North Face Jackets North Face Clearance

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »