Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Kenmare voters reject school bond issue

November 21, 2013

Kenmare voters narrowly defeated a $14 million bond issue election Tuesday that would have paid for construction of a new classroom addition and a secondary gymnasium....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(16)

Cutperfect

Nov-22-13 12:37 AM

When it comes to school taxes of major districts, Minot is nowhere near the top. Minot hasn't built a school from the ground up since Magic City Campus in the mid 70s. I would believe a new building would be far more energy efficient then a 75 year old building. Additional staffing would be offset by per pupil payments from the state. Have any of the people screaming vote no attended any of the informational meetings? I sat and listened to someone being upset that the school district was putting out facts. Really? An educated voter is a bad thing? Feel free to vote however you want, but at least have all of the information and be informed. People keep complaining about the legislator, but yet people keep voting for the same people. If you want to win an election or pass anything in this state either make a no vote mean yes or just have an R after your name on the ballot.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

chadk66

Nov-21-13 8:16 PM

Williston has been begging for new schools, etc. But those in authority felt we needed a 75 million dollar rec. center. Yea that's right 75 million. Would have built a heck of a nice bunch of schools. Good to see where the priorities lie over here.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

chadk66

Nov-21-13 8:16 PM

Williston has been begging for new schools, etc. But those in authority felt we needed a 75 million dollar rec. center. Yea that's right 75 million. Would have built a heck of a nice bunch of schools. Good to see where the priorities lie over here.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

chadk66

Nov-21-13 8:14 PM

When I was living in the Minot area eight years ago it was growing leaps and bounds. Of course oil has caused it to increase but it was going up long before the oil boom started. And Minot was the last city to start to see the increase of the people from the boom. It started in Williston and expended every direction.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ndgirl40

Nov-21-13 5:41 PM

Wakpa1-- you are absolutely right and I believe the majority of people DO care about the foundation of our community-- public education. I know this is old news, but the state isn't paying for this. Bottom line is that voting NO keeps 475 kids in portables and who knows how many more in storage closets, under stages, in basements and locker rooms. We've got an estimated 1000 more kids coming into the district in the next 5 years that will also have no where to go. Perhaps we should put up a "tent city" like they do for criminals in Phoenix?? Come on, folks. We can do better than this. It's a proud YES vote for me.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Nov-21-13 2:47 PM

Minot lost many non-oil pepple from the flood. Those were replaced by oil and the business boom from oil. To suggest the Minot boom is not from oil is ridiculous. What do you think caused our boom?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Nov-21-13 2:40 PM

Oil revenues belong in western nd, including minot. our added school needs are from oil. A big reason for voting no is the history of spending in minot and ward county. just last night at the state fair meeting, they talked about the new event center which takes tax money and removes the historical society from the fairgrounds. do they sound like they care about school needs. They have a handful of projects just like the event center. it is our history and voting no when we can is also our history. minot inched along from 30,000 people in 1960 to about 35,000 b4 oil--then we boomed with housing, traffic, retail and school kids. that was 95% plus from oil. each homeowner already pays about $2,000 per year because of oil. There is no reason we should more. oil impact taxes are there and the correct answer to our school needs. Vote No because it is the right thing to do and may stop the reckless corporate spending in minot. Enough is Enough!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

chadk66

Nov-21-13 1:04 PM

In cities out west where all the new students are a direct result of oil activity then those schools should be aided by the oil money. Minot is a mixed bag. There are more students from non oil activity than from oil activity. Williston has a nasty situation. They school board wants to build all these new facilities but don't want to pay teachers more money even though rent and home prices are through the roof. Not many teachers can afford 3k a month for an apartment. The oil money needs to offset these additional costs.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wakpa1

Nov-21-13 10:34 AM

I keep hearing about how the state should be paying to build schools in Minot. Really?? If Minot needs to build schools, which I believe they do, then don't expect those of us not living there to foot the bill with our tax dollars (and yes...oil revenues are ours too). While there have recently been a few school bond issues to fail in the area, there have been many more that have passed around the state, showing that there are communities who care about the future and don't expect the state to come to the rescue.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Nov-20-13 7:55 PM

ndbh6: The cost of maintenace and operation of the new school should exceed all portable costs. gyms and pools are pricey to heat and cool. Mobile homes are the choice of low income people for a reason. Fact is if the state pays 4 the new school, we will still see troublesome tax hikes for the operation and maintenance of the vehemoth. we not only don't get oil money as alaska did; we are expected to pay for the impacts. No Thanks, i'm votin NO WAY.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ndbowhunter6

Nov-20-13 5:48 PM

Either this bond issue gets passed or it will simply cost more in the future. Students in portables are not the answer...it's a temporary "band-aid" fix to a real problem. The time is now to vote "YES."

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MattRothchild

Nov-20-13 11:39 AM

Must not have wanted to sell themselves out and go into debt for the sake of Wall Street investment bank profits.

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

InterestedParty

Nov-20-13 11:34 AM

Minot needs to scale back their grandiose plans and be realistic with genuine needs. Also, tell us what the real costs of these new schools would be including new staff. I suspect the 125 million is low balled and the school board will hit taxpayers with higher assessments even above the bond issue.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

InterestedParty

Nov-20-13 11:33 AM

Minot needs to scale back their grandiose plans and be realistic with genuine needs. Also, tell us what the real costs of these new schools would be including new staff. I suspect the 125 million is low balled and the school board will hit taxpayers with higher assessments even above the bond issue.

8 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

disgusted

Nov-20-13 11:15 AM

This is not breaking news. It was reported last evening on the 10 p.m. news. Plus, the citizens of Kenmare realize that kids under more than one roof is not detrimental to the student's education.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

takkak

Nov-20-13 11:10 AM

Please let Minot be the next to vote no.

10 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 16 of 16 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web