Getting Larry Lewis’ attention with the bond countdown on — my editorial, his last town hall

NOTE: For local readers, the caveat in my sidebar applies in spades. These are just my personal observations, even as they impact my professional work

The following are some notes, observations, comment and analysis on Lewis’ town hall meeting Oct. 19, and on some of his concerns about my Oct. 19 editorial.

Comment: Before anything else, if you talk to any teachers in the district, ask them if they’re being forced to either do a neighborhood get-out-the-vote walk or else man get-out-the-vote phone banks. Ask if there were any implied less-than-pleasant alternatives should neither of the two above options be found desirable.

OK, first, my meeting with

First, Lewis rejected the idea of a housing slowdown. I didn’t cite sources by name in the editorial, being as it came from another local media source, but the slowdown in existing, and in new, home sales, were on the front page of the Oct. 9 and Oct. 10 online Business section of The Dallas Morning News, respectively.

In the second story, a Metroplex real estate analyst, Ted Wilson of Residential Strategies, has in the past month pointed to declining sales in both new and existing homes. On new home sales, he specifically mentioned declines in Lancaster, citing cancellation of new home sales at rates as high as 70 percent in lower-priced homes in a price range common in Lancaster. (Wilson has been a source for the News for several years on real estate analysis.)

Information about a 30 percent increase in foreclosures, across Dallas County, was in an August issue of the News. Yahoo Real Estate, which lets you look for free rather than a paid database, listed 313 homes under foreclosure in Lancaster Oct. 19.

Lewis also complained about the paper not having information about the district’s superior rating from the Texas Education Agency’s Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas.

First, I mentioned nothing about the district’s ability to finance the bond in my editorial. So, getting the FIRST information in the paper had no relevance one way or the other to my editorial, no pun intended.

Otherwise, as people reading our paper in recent weeks have surely noticed, we have had a lot of local news. I have been holding many stories at least one week after they were written; a fair amount of them more than that.

We had three issues that went to press after the Oct. 2 Lancaster School Board meeting when the FIRST rating was announced. And, if we ran nothing but school news, time after time, article after article, people would get tired. This past week? I ran the story about you speaking to the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and ran it the first week it was up. That gave you a fair forum to talk about the district. I had the Baby Moses program story on hold for two weeks. I still have other information from the Oct. 2 board meeting on hold as another story.

Oh, yes, we print letters to the editor from people like Jeff Melcher. If he or somebody else had something slanderous, we would have removed it, or not run the letter. BUT, we also run letters to the editor from Ellen Clark. Beyond Ellen, other people who served on the bond committee have been free to write their own letters. Don’t blame me if they haven’t.

In the town hall, Lewis largely talked again about how the district had managed the 2004 bond issue, and done so well. I've never argued with that. In fact, I've defended Gallagher Construction Management Services and how they handled inflationary price increases on steel and concrete. So, we won’t cover that further.

Let’s get to what was new.

Lewis claimed 5,380 new seats, the total the new bond will fund if passed, will carry the district to 2010. Given that’s almost as big as last year’s entire enrollment, and as big as or bigger than that of 2004-05, that should be well, well more than enough. Even if the district grew at 650 students per year, more than it has in the past, that would still leave it shy of the 5,380 mark by 2015, not 2010.

He later said, “Small schools cost more money,” of not wanting 400-500 student elementary schools. Doesn’t that same logic apply to the high school, and not building a second one? Again, if residents of the district and city are OK with a second one, that’s fine by me, but it hasn't even been discussed yet. Yes, I know the Nov. 7 bond only talks about buying land for a second high school, but I doubt Lewis plans to sit on such land for too long if bought.

Lewis also said there were different definitions of what “fully funded” meant on new high school programs, in response to a question from district employee Ms. Wade. I’m sure high school teachers might have a different definition.

Lewis finished with “nobody knows what you’re going to get,” with a bond issue. True. Isn’t that more reason to give a three-part bond issue the most careful examination?

Lewis also said that Dallas Superintendent Michael Hinojosa is making noise about wanting Lancaster to take some former Wilmer-Hutchins students. Wonderful. Will Larry take them? Yes, it's noble, but noble and sensical aren’t always the same word