The deferred maintenance issue being blamed on current tax incentives is ridiculous. The major problem for the KCPSD is two-fold.kboish wrote:I just recently starting hearing how the school district has $X million dollars in deferred maintenance. And so incentives are bad and caused this and any concerned parent needs to rise up against incentives... huh? So you're saying if none of these incentives had been used the school district wouldn't have any deferred maintenance? or are they saying if incentives are stopped then they would be able to start addressing this deferred maintenance? Is that even how deferred maintenance (major rehab construction projects) are paid for? Wouldn't they need to issue bonds to do that? Does that mean if incentives are capped the school district is promising not to ask for any money (tax increases) in the future for capital needs because they were able to stop all incentives?
They simply have/had too many buildings to maintain for their diminished enrollment. It's a district that used to serve more than 70,000 students than now has less than 18,000 students. They held on to too many school buildings for too long, and couldn't afford to maintain them. The district still has inefficiencies. For example, in the Old Northeast neighborhood, there are probably too many elementary school buildings for this neighborhood. There are James, Garfield, Gladstone, Woodland, Whittier, and charter schools Della Lamb, Scoula Vita Nouva, and Alta Vista Academia de Ninos. You have five elementary school buildings to maintain under KCPSD control, in a relatively small area, for a much smaller student population. The district could probably get by with one or two buildings to serve this area. The school district is even talking about tearing down James Elementary, and rebuilding it, because it's an old school with no air-conditioning. The more cost-effective long-term solution would probably be to close down all five of the current schools, and build one new elementary school building to serve the entire area. Then there would only be one elementary school to maintain, not five.
Keep in mind, the charter schools also get money from the District, so you have to also maintain those buildings.
https://www.google.com/maps/search/elem ... a=!3m1!1e3
The second issue is that most of the school district sits in a part of the city that has become depopulated and property assessments devalued. There are thousands of vacant lots, abandoned houses, and buildings where the property value is nill, and produce no tax revenue for the school district. Many vacant houses are owned by the City and County, and thus produce no revenue--even in their diminished state. The remaining houses, that are still occupied, have very low tax assessments on them. A well-maintained 1200 sq. foot house east of Troost is worth half to a third as much as the same house west of Troost. Within the KCPSD, the area of KCMO east of Troost is much larger than the area of KCMO west of Troost. So most of the school district's tax base exists in a blighted area. Houses west of Troost provide at least twice as much tax revenue for the school district on average.
Downtown KC provides 25 percent of the tax revenues for the City, and I'm assuming for the school district as well. Downtown is the rich uncle in the family, and that is why people living in the KCPSD focus so much on tax incentives being given downtown. The rich uncle can't buy candy for his nieces and nephews right now, and they are pissed. They don't understand that if rich uncle doesn't reinvest in his business, there will be even less candy in the future.
The perception of crime on the East Side is a much bigger long-term enemy to the KCPSD district than incentives being given downtown. We are talking about literally millions of dollars lost due to low property values on the East Side.
