More SD 15 Stuff

As some of my regular readers may know, I live in an area that has seen an unfortunate level of discord between different segments of the community over the local School District. On this Monday, August 7, there is a referendum vote on the sale of an empty district school building, where the community decides whether to accept the highest bid of $27 million from a developer who has plans to build a condominium development.

$27 million being as high a figure as it is, one would think that any district would jump at the chance to accept the offer. But as the old saw goes, two Jews, three opinions. Last week, I picked up the local Jewish paper, the 5 Towns Jewish Times, and I was suprised to see a prominently placed front-page article titled "Schools Yes, Condos No!". In this piece, a local community member makes his best case that every community member should vote "no" on Monday so that a local Yeshiva can get a chance at purchasing the property. This week, I was surprised again by another front-page article pushing for the same outcome, though this article didn't make any case at all - except for the use of scare tactics that somehow allowing condominium development on the site will turn this community into a haven for drug dealers and the like. (Seriously. Read the whole deranged piece).

Now, I certainly do not argue that ideally, it would be wonderful if the building were to be used as a school, as opposed to being razed - especially with the large population of school-aged children in the district. As the article points out, there are quite a few Yeshivas in need of a building in which to house their rapidly growing student bodies. However, the decision is not quite so simple.

In the first article, the author points out that taking a lower bid from a Yeshiva would be negligible in the face of the benefits a school could bring to the community. He also cites the negative effects he feels condominium development could bring, such as congestion and sewer capacity problems.

I won't debate the merits of whether his points are valid. I'm sure many people would love to see a former school building being used once again by students. I am equally sure that there are many people who fear that a condominium development will only add congestion and traffic to our community.

Be that as it may, the article neglects to take into account one very salient point: The School Board is obligated by law to put the highest bid up for a vote. The leading case on the issue states as follows:

[T]he Education Law contemplate[s] that the electors may exercise their judgment and discretion in good faith concerning what is the best price at which a schoolhouse can be sold, but where a higher offer from a responsible bidder is already in their hands, there is not room for the exercise of discretion concerning it. The higher offer must be accepted if it is for a use that may be conducted pursuant to law.

Which means that if this bid of $27 million is voted down, either the rejected bidder will use the courts to force the district to go forward with the sale or the next-highest bid will be the one accepted. Either way, it is nearly inconceivable that a Yeshiva will get the building and the risk is that the district will end up with less money.

But legal issues aside, I think the high bid of $27 million must be voted in on Monday in the interests of fiscal responsibility. As much as the thought of a
school returning to that spot, with the classrooms being reclaimed as places of learning truly warms the heart, in my opinion, it is a pipe dream. I have used the battle cry of fiscal responsibility since I started covering this topic - and I won't drop it now.

Vote "Yes" on Monday. It's the fiscally responsible move.