Thanks to the reader who pointed out the reference given to NewsOverCoffee and one of its comments in Joe Owen's Steaming Cup of Joe Blog on the Express-Times web site (read it here).
Joe appears to see this as a keeping up with the Parkland's purchase, but I don't see it that way.
I see it more as the NASD's desire to "impose its will" on the community. (Thanks Coach Tomlin for providing the appropriate phraseology and congrats!).
The NASD should not be involved in historic preservation or in a bail-out of a religious based historic society.
Further, let's consider the initial sale of the two properties.
First, the district was going to reject the offer by Gary Asteak and accept a lower one because they wanted the property to be residential. Then they sold to the Society at a lower than assessed value, but riddled the sale with use restrictions.
I don't know, but I am guessing one of the terms was right of first refusal if the Society was going to sell. I say this because I don't recall the property being put up for public sale. Who is to say they couldn't have earned more money?
The Kern house is no mansion, not by modern standards at any rate. I'm guessing office space is most likely practical use, but maybe we should make it the President's House, like most universities have. Then, we can offer the Superintendent free-housing in exchange for a reduced salary.
3 comments:
Ross the Kern House has had a for sale sign in the window for months
at the board meeting dr. lesky provided the options for its use and board voted on it with the idea that one of those options would be exercised...also said there was an appraisal and that the district was purchasing it under market value
You had me there until the part about the "President's House".
They might just put a house in the superintendent's contract someday, but there would never, ever be a reduction in salary. For proof, all you need to do is look at teacher salaries and benefits. Benefits and time off for public employees were always better than the private sector, as a way to offset the comparatively lower salaries. The salaries are now at least as good and, in some cases, better than those in the private sector. The benefits however, continue to dwarf those of the public that funds them.
It would be the perfect place for a papier mache museum. A tax payer funded papier mache museum.
Post a Comment