Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Progress 2016 | Customer Service | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Supporting school bond

October 27, 2013

Orlin W. Backes, Minot One of the most important priorities for a proud, progressive and great community is for its citizens to provide a good education system....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Nov-05-13 12:29 PM

Legend... what is your solution for right now? We have 475 kids in portables, which does not include the system of portables at the Auditorium. The 24 portables are throughout 8 elementary schools and Jim Hill that educate 475 students. There's a projected 1000 students coming into the district in the next 5 years. What do you propose the district should do until we "possibly" get state funding? Voting no fixes nothing and we can't afford that right now. Answer my question... what do we do? where do we put 1000 more kids if 475 are already in portables? Add 30 more portables? Redistrict every year? I want to know what your solution is. Vote no, but come up a solution to fix the problem that we have RIGHT NOW. By the way, the district will continue to pursue state funds once the legislature is back in session in 2015. The money received from the state will be used to pay down the bond, it WILL NOT be used in addition to the bond.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-04-13 10:38 PM

Vote no and we could start to earn a new nickname--instead of little chicago we could be something nice like Havasu City North.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-04-13 4:59 PM

nd40: where is the pride in a community that taxes low and fixed income people out of their well being? a no vote means the state should, can easily and probably will pay for the school upgrades. while they are at it they should raise our teacher pay. Many of our politicians said they would but did not add enough to keep up with inflation. Vote NO and let's get back on the right track.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-03-13 9:46 AM

Yet another argument to vote yes.. Let's be proactive rather than reactive.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-02-13 8:59 PM

And about moving do we do this when we're being reactive instead of proactive all of the time? I am tired of saying something about this I said the vote of the people will tell in time....

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-02-13 8:57 PM

My future of my community at stake...hmmm........I am sorry we are already going to have to pay a lot of money out of our pockets before the school bond and you now want me to pay double? Hmmmm.......oh well....the vote of the people will decide.....

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-02-13 4:59 PM

Concerned... you do remember this bond issue is for Minot Public Schools, right? That's currently 7,400 students and tens of thousands more to go through the system. What are talking about saying "no to the good ole boys club"? This is the future of YOUR community at stake. Whatever laundry list people have about past decisions and past leaders needs to be aside. Let's think and move forward.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-02-13 4:29 PM

ND Girl 40...I have experienced no water, no plumbing, so there you go....not in a school situation but defending freedoms.....and Mr. Backes could have done something back in the day but he chose to look the other way just like everybody's time to say no and take our community back from these good ole boys and the next generation of them......

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-02-13 10:21 AM

i'm wondering if we'll again see obamanomics on the local level. spend and build no matter what the voters say. i'll work on my own home sometime (maybe) in the future.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-01-13 10:47 PM

Matt Rothchild-- will you be able to vote on December 10th from your home in Minnesota? Thank you for imposing your two cents. Also, security is a very vaild fear. Although the probability might be small, all it takes is one time and I'm not willing to risk it. I bet the Columbine and Sandy Hook parents appreciate inappropriate and insensitive opinions like yours.

Here's what a "no" vote means... further overcrowding of schools, redistricting (possibly every year and also has potential to have kids in the same family at different schools), and telling 7000+ kids that their education isn't worth the investment.

There are currently 450 students in portables that are not plumbed. Legend, Muleskinner, and concerned-- how would you like hang out in trailers with no plumbing all day? This is 2013, not 1930.

0 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-01-13 12:33 AM

You know Mr. Backes who I really feel sorry for are those students at Ramstad having to go to the Auditorium for 2 years outside for lunch and no structure...but we're getting a new building for them...they stuck it out...I am sorry when they put the first portable on the properties, that's when they should have blinked an eye......

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-31-13 9:58 AM

If school officials and the school board had an ounce of compassion for those who have struggled the past 2 years or so due to losses from flood damages, they would just cancel the vote and forget about it.

But they are jonesin' to get that money and the easiest mark is the homeowner.

They really should be ashamed of themselves for wanting to have this kind of vote and not pursue other methods of funding.

But, go ahead, have the vote. If you win, good for you. If you lose, the people of Minot can breathe a sigh of relief.

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-30-13 12:57 PM

interetting that the right in minot and nd show little concern or action on our higher taxes and cost of living; while nationally they can't say enough bad about increased costs for some in Obamacare. any increase in cost for some in the ACA will give them better ins. coverage and may keep them from bankruptcy caused by a need for catastrophic medical care. the higher cost of living in minot gives us nothing. the only say i have that might matter is my NO vote. ND Dems. would give us true tax relief and pay for oil impacts with oil taxes. we who are not in oil should not pay such a high price for oil to be here.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-29-13 9:03 PM

I know the baby pack didn't cause the whole reason to the need of schools. I am just saying there was a baby pack that the schools chose to ignore. I am going to vote no for the simple reason why should we have to when like I said before there should be relief from all of these homes, commercial buildings and such should be bringing in more revenue for the community.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-29-13 5:02 PM

concerned: the baby pack did not cause all of the new home construction in our western cities nor the population explosion in those same cities. it is not an issue of blame. oil tax money should pay the excess costs cities are encountering because of growth and demands from the oil business. a hold up in this process is that Fargo is eyeballing the money for flood control. if that happens it means minot homeowners would pay an extra $2,000 per year because of oil impacts, for the benefit of fargo flood control. a no vote is critical in my opinion. instead of starting to dig a floodway; we hear talk of a new event center, Maysa ice, downtown facelift--we will flood again if the floodway is not the priority.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-28-13 3:53 PM

The baby pack is something we chose to look the other way just like prostitutes being in Minot all of these years and not one dang thing done about them we ignore the part of the problem and blame it all on the oil....nope not oil.....

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-28-13 3:51 PM

NoDakBoy I think bottomline the Minot Daily News needs to interview the Ward County Tax office where they know what the prices of property taxes are going to be before the vote, and the News should do a better job of describing somebody's increase in taxes. We will be paying almost a $1,000 more a year before the bond and I am sorry I can't vote for something that isn't the whole truth nor should we have to pay both taxes when there is so much growth here in Minot especially Commercial properties where the taxes should be increased and relief for the consumers. It's not...And as for this baby I need to spell it out for you do your research...many high school girls 5 years ago had kids.....

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-28-13 9:11 AM

"These firms, many of which are “too-big-to-fail” and whose executives had no problem taking our bailout money to pay themselves bonuses, don’t do this for free. In fact, they stand to make profits that would take most bond proponents many years to accumulate. Do not be deceived; there are many among us who, under the guise of any number of benefits, will sell us out in a heartbeat to the 1 percent. Is someone else’s profit and bottom line really something for which to raise your taxes and go into debt? Aren’t you taxed enough already? Send a message when voting Nov. 5."

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-28-13 9:10 AM

More people who have no idea how one of these municipal bond things this that I wrote about a different school bond issue...

"Safety and security.” This is the new theme used by supporters of the proposed $10 million bond issue for Cambridge-Isanti School District #911. Building on the public’s imagination and fear over mass shooting attacks always sells well, after all, despite the probability of such an event being in the same league as being attacked by a shark or being struck by lightning. But there is also a body of evidence that shows mass shooting attackers handily defeating the security measures meant to keep them at bay. Maybe going into debt by $10 million isn’t such a great idea after all. But even more insidious than $10 million more of debt for security measures of questionable effectiveness is the fact that, this being a bond issue, Wall Street investment banks will get involved underwriting and distributing the bond."

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-27-13 9:09 PM

NDB: minot has a 60 year history of ignoring the vote. the auditorium, all seasons arena, golf course and schools to name some. they get what they want and either slip the maintenance under the park board or just give them grants.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-27-13 9:04 PM

tommy7--right on m. skinner: the question is how was it invested. our state retirement fund lost 50% in 2008 and last i looked recovery is not in sight. i was only able to retire because i was not in the market in 08. never trusted it and was proven right.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-27-13 8:58 PM

it is $700 per year or $1000 per year with maintenance. of course the need is there. the need aws caused by oil and we already pay about $2000 per homeowner for increased taxes and services because of oil. why should our taxes go up with an influx of people? it is as though the new is not paying it's fair share. the state has billions from oil tax and sales tax. it is for them to pay the bill and not hold it to pay for fargo flood control. there is enough state money for both. vote no

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-27-13 7:21 PM

I can barely afford to make improvements to my own home and the gov't wants to hit me again to build a new school. I am all in favor of good education for kids but this initiative needs to be paid for in some other way. It is so irritating when the possibility of some tax relief is brought up that the city has to find a way to try and take it away to line their pockets or give some tax concessions to developers and business moving in to the area. I will be voting no on the bond issue.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-27-13 3:55 PM

Legend, your vote is NOT ignored. I don't see any NEW schools in Minot that were not supported by FEMA. The current Washington Elementary was a "used" building remodeled to function as a school. It initially had numerous empty classrooms but within two years it was full and now contains 9 or 10 portable classrooms and a classroom in the building next to it. The need was there. As a long time resident in Minot, I don't see any options for more "used" buildings to "flip" into schools. New is the only option. The NEED IS THERE. I also notice that you quote different dollar amounts each time you post. I am not going to change your vote but please vote informed. Go to *********** and get the factual implications.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-27-13 2:18 PM

If the Magic Fund operated like the School Lands Trust Fund and distributed only interest monies and the total of the principal is allowed to grow and increase, the Magic Fund would have hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank and other investments.

The interest from the Magic Fund would be able to fund the school improvements or school building space needs; the logic says a school bond issue would not be necessary.

Something is wrong with the picture.

The Magic Fund has had many millions of dollars in revenue through city sales tax proceeds, the method of funding, and much of it has been spent for community development, and yet, the school lands trust fund has 2.5 billion in its accounts and only a fraction is used for funding education.

It is all in dire need for some change that will help North Dakotans, especially the children, and not somebody's bank account on Wall Street.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 36 comments Show More Comments


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web