Lansing Says No to School Improvements

Lansing school officials were disappointed Tuesday when the proposed capital project was voted down by a narrow margin.  The main proposition that included repairs and renovations to all schools with renovations and new classrooms in the high school was defeated by only 16 votes with 635 voting for it and 651 against.  A second proposition that would have included a new band room, a technology classroom, and renovations to the existing band and chorus rooms was also defeated with 607 yes votes and 669 against.  "I am disappointed," said Superintendent Mark Lewis.

The two propositions would have cost $20.8 million with state aid picking up 60% of the tab and Lansing taxpayers paying 40%.  That would have amounted to $98 per year over a 16 year period for a house valued at $100,000.  That was only half the cost of a project developed a year ago that was withdrawn by the Board of Education before putting it up for a vote.  But apparently it was not enough of a cut to satisfy voters.



Lewis attributed the defeat to a growing backlash against high taxes in Lansing.  "I will be the first to agree that the property tax system in New York is oppressive, especially to those on fixed incomes, and it needs to be corrected," he says.  "I have enough faith the Lansing community to understand that they based their decision to vote yes or no on the propositions on sound rationale, not someone's propaganda."

School administrators hoped the project would pass, because the community had been involved in its development from the beginning of the process early last year.  Largely due to Lewis's initiative, community members were solicited to participate, and the committee's work was facilitated by Marc Stammer, a community member.

Lewis said that the focus will now be on the 2007-2008 budget, and that it is up to the Board of Education whether to pursue another version of a capital project.  He hopes that an open policy of inclusion will make the budget palatable to the community.  "In the process of developing the 2006-07 budget, those who harbored concerns about the school budget did not attend the meetings during which the budget was developed," Lewis says.  "Consequently, the only voices that were heard by the board were those who endorsed certain budget increases, despite the tax impact."


"I hope that there is a broader cross-section of perspective apparent during this year's budget process," he continues.  "The board needs to be afforded an accurate cross-section of thought regarding what the public feels is an appropriate spending plan for 2007-08.  The only way this will happen is if the entire spectrum of attitude regarding school budget, taxation, and the school program is represented at the board meetings in March and April."

----
v3i6