Spokane7
65°
September 13, 2011 in City
School’s neighbors sue over move plan
As promised, a group of South Hill neighbors filed a lawsuit in an attempt to prevent Spokane Public Schools from using bond money to rebuild Jefferson Elementary School on the west side of its property.
The suit argues that language for the bond on the 2009 ballot, which included Jefferson, stated that the district would “modernize” the elementary school, would not move it and would construct a new school.
“If they wanted to relocate and rebuild the school, they should have said that,” said Seattle lawyer David Bricklin. He was hired by the Hart Field Preservation Organization, a group of neighbors who live nearest to the west end of the property where the school would be relocated.
Sally Fullmer, a candidate running for Spokane school board, is a member of the organization.
“The district position on this matter has been and remains that our actions are consistent with the law,” said Mark Anderson, Spokane Public Schools’ associate superintendent. “We will then be moving ahead to finalize the plans and begin construction in June 2012.”
The decision to move the school from its current location at 37th Avenue and Grand Boulevard to 37th and Manito Boulevard did not come lightly. The district spent about a year analyzing traffic and studying the impact on home sales. The school board took hours of testimony on the proposed changes to Jefferson and received hundreds of letters and emails.
Most recently, a specialist determined that building the school at the proposed location would have no significant impact on the environment under the State Environmental Protection Act, Anderson said.
Recent stories by Jody Lawrence-Turner
School districts emphasize science, trades May 26, 2012 4- Students to pay, work for prank May 24, 2012
- Sandpoint High students vandalize school in senior prank May 23, 2012 7
- Spokane schools officials’ pay frozen May 15, 2012 18
- Redinger brings fresh direction, expectations to District 81 May 13, 2012 7
bpackley on September 13 at 7:52 a.m.
Why can’t people just be happy that they are getting a new school instead of some old run-down eyesore that lowers property values? Yes, there will be more traffic of course, duh! But c’mon! We need new schools that our children can be safe in without worrying about asbestos or the building crumbling onto them while they are being educated. Just make sure that the roads are widened to accommodate the new traffic and that students can safely walk and ride their bikes to school, and it should be semi-okay. Just think of it this way, now you will be on a school route. During snow clearing months, you will see plows once per day instead of once per week!!
acbergeman on September 13 at 10:44 a.m.
If I read the lawsuit correctly, it does not say funds cannot be used to rebuild Jefferson School; it says they can “modernize” or “replace”. “Replace” means on the same site not more than a 1/2 mile away. West View Elementary was replaced, “rebuilt on the same site”. I personally don’t have a dog in this fight, however I do believe the School District is not above the law and must follow the language of the bond. The sight that the new Jefferson is intended to be built on is not the “same” site; furthermore the School District intends to continue to use the existing Jefferson building which also violates the bond. This was a city wide school bond voted on by all citizens of Spokane not just voters on the South Hill. I for one “vote” to have my tax dollars used as they were intended when I cast my ballot. I don’t believe the School District should have the discretion to change their mind after the fact. This appears to be yet more of the same while our tax dollars are misused.
Believe me I don’t mind paying taxes or even paying more taxes, however they must be used as intended. Citizens must pay attention to what their government agencies are up to. I applaud the HFPO for the time and effort they are going through in safe guarding our tax dollars.
reservedparking on September 13 at 5:45 p.m.
If Fullmer is elected, she absolutely needs to recuse herself from any school board vote on the Jefferson issue… clearly a conflict of interest.
And they better provide enough parking, too.
Teseract on September 13 at 9:55 p.m.
<facepalm>
Take the money and rebuild another school in an area where the people will appreciate a new school instead of bickering like, well, school children.
I know Franklin Elementary on 17th could use a whole lot of modernization funds. That place is a death trap and much, much older than Jefferson.
lillyhancock on September 17 at 5:37 p.m.
Please read the Editorial Opinion dated Sept. 15, and its comments.
Sally Fullmore’s competition, Deana Brower, should certainly recuse herself from any issues relating to Jefferson! She has a clear conflict of interest with a child in Jefferson’s Montessori program which wants the school moved, even though most of them don’t even live within the Jefferson boundary! Does Ms. Brower live near Jefferson? It is those people who live near Jefferson that should have the most to say about its future location because it is, after all, THEIR neighborhood school!
dicemb on September 20 at 9:20 a.m.
The district will replace the school within a half mile of it’s current location so that shouldn’t be an issue.
WillyPeter on September 21 at 1:50 p.m.
Well, ‘Hello’ some more, dicemb…….see what you’ve instigated!
Taking 6-10 acres out of Hart Field for a ‘new school’ is nonsensical. Lewis & Clark HS fills the field now with activites during the school year. Someone asked, “where will mens’ lacrosse and womens’ field hockey be played?”…..they’re coming you know. Those of us who graduated long ago from LC, then joked that soccer would never be a Spokane HS sport.
A new Jefferson can be built on the present school’s playground, just as has been done for several other Spokane elementary schools, and the original, older, smaller structure could be used still as an annex for “administration.” This would be easy to do.
And the large majority of residents of the Comstock neighborhood (those who vote on school bonds) would be pleased….as would generations of LC graduates and families.
Sooooo, it’s fair to conclude that the District’s reasons for building on Hart Field’s west- end are political. And if I had the time and inclination, I even could tell you what those are……….:-)
RebeccaHeacox on September 21 at 4:01 p.m.
@ WillyPeter…
Or, instead of keeping the old building for “administration,” it could be torn down and used for sports fields, or playgrounds! Just like the other elementary schools that were “rebuilt!”
Oh, and WHY does the district need to keep the old building for administration? Don’t we have enough money going to “administration?” Why don’t we use the money to hire more teachers, instead of giving more to “administration!”
dicemb on September 26 at 11:18 p.m.
I thought the original arguement was that the old Jefferson needed to be saved for historical purposes?
I thought by administration, they meant housing specialists and such who serve the area schools. Also, if they mean moving some of the downtown office up here, perhaps it would be less expensive office space than prime downtown space.
I don’t believe the current Jefferson playground is a 6-10 acre spot. It is my understanding that they would have to put people out of their homes and purchase additional space along Grand.