I thought I heard Mr. Littmann say there is little to no correlation between money a school district invests in new facilities and rising home values? I realize proponents of the yes vote wish this weren't so...but a respected economist says differently. So let's get off the vote yes and your valuations will rise kick .....it is misleading especially to seniors.

Linda, as surrounding communities with new facilities continue to catch up to our educational offerings, we need to show potential buyers, especially ones with school age children, that we value our schools. Otherwise, they WILL start going to other districts and yes, our home values will decrease. There are SO many reasons I believe this bond is necessary for our community but let's be blunt here: when I drive by the majority of homes and neighborhoods in BH and then drive by and visit the high schools, the message I get is that the residents here will buy "shiny and new" for themselves, but not for the schools. We have a lot going for us here, but if we can't offer our kids what almost EVERY other district is offering, in facilities and technology, we are going to be in trouble. And it is not misleading to seniors. What is misleading is telling seniors and others to vote no to keep our two small schools. We can't keep saying no just to say no. The district has listened to our wants and needs and has come up with a plan that everyone can get behind. Vote YES!

G.S....I totally agree. And let's not forget the comments from local real estate professionals that directly tie the overall quality of schools...including up to date facilities...to attracting new families to our district. I believe we will see improved property values if the proposal passes. But for me, that is an added bonus. The most important thing the proposal brings to our district is an updated, appropriate and cost saving facility where high quality education and programming will take place.

Please vote YES on May 8. It's the right thing to do for our students and our community.

"Lindas":

Littman is known for his antitax agenda. It's his view and he's not alone in it. However, the realtors who would certainly be negatively impacted if the property tax from the bond issue made property values go down have said otherwise. The realtor groups usually give a disproportionate share of their PAC donations to Republican candidates, they can't be accused of a liberal bias. I know Littman was on the school board a generation ago when schools were funded by property taxes and the state didn't control the school funding--things are a lot different now. I would argue that the realtors are much more in tune with current realities than Littman. Both have a point of view--the realtors' view is much more likely to be in tune with property value realities in our community.

The financial impact of this bond to taxpayers is grossly understated......would you sign a mortgage on your home without understanding the total cost of interest...I think not that is what the BHSD iis not revealing...the 30year cost of this bond...the unlimited taxing authority to pay it back. Others districts are consolidating services or outsourcing ...our district doesn't so anything like that.....just more and more money and no serious effort to save....THE END VOTE NO.

Linda, most of these are retread issues that have been argued and countered over the past few weeks. If you don't want to acknowledge the facts when they are presented to you, that is your problem, not mine.
On the outsourcing question, yesterday Rob Glass and I exchanged e-mails on this very topic and the plans of the district to do RFP's over the next few months.
If you would stop being so angry and work with me to address the problems confronting the district, together we can move the district forward.
I have sat down with Chris and we now understand each other a little better. John Roach & I have worked together on a number of projects. Eric and I have gotten to know each other well and see eye to eye on many things. I am open to meet with you anytime. If you don't want to take me up on my offer, then again, that is your problem, not mine.

Linda: Your post is flat out incorrect and deceptive. When the bonds are sold the interest rate and total interest is set for the duration--I know you know this. Other statements are just fear mongering. The dollar amount of the bonds is set--what can change would be a millage if property values go up (don't think we've got much more chance of downward movement--Case Schiller shows Detroit Metro to have increased over the last year) the actual millage rate could go down (or up if values went down-truthful disclosure).

As to the cost, BHSD has published figures based on a 5.5% interest rate even though the likely (FIXED) rate will be less. Your statement is not correct, the district has done full, truthful, disclosure.

Outsourcing is another issue and not germane to the bond issue. There may well be some merit there but at this point it's just a distraction which is really all we're seeing from B2020--they have no good argument this time.

Cost savings is a distraction? And of course we should dismiss the economic facts of a professional economist and accept the "build it and they will come " nonsense.

(part 1 of 2)

Linda--If you were at Mr. Littmann's presentation, that means that you must have heard my very first question. If you didn't, I'll restate it here:

I grew up in Bloomfield Hills, attended Lahser (class of '88) with Littmann's son, Danny. His daughter Ruth even did a great write-up about me for an old business venture 18 years ago. So believe me when I say that I know the Littmanns and have deep roots in Bloomfield Township. My wife and I moved back here 3 years ago SPECIFICALLY so my son could have the same great education that I did when I was growing up.

We knew that there was some sort of controversy about the high school situation, but assumed that it would be resolved by either fixing up the existing ones or merging them into a new one; honestly, we didn't care which as long as it was done properly. HOWEVER, if we had known just how ugly the high school situation was, and how resistant the residents were to ponying up some extra cash to fixing the problem, we would have been VERY reluctant to move back here.

Having said that, in 2010 we, too, voted against the prior bond issue--NOT because we had a problem with a millage or the general concept of merging Andover and Lahser into a new building, but because that PARTICULAR plan was too vague and sloppily done.

(continued)

(part 2 of 2)

HOWEVER, if THIS plan, which is VASTLY SUPERIOR in every way fails, we will strongly consider moving out...just a few years after moving in.

And while I can't speak for anyone else, I'm certain that this is the same attitude that MANY young families considering moving here (or already living here) have. If the locals don't care about their schools, there's no reason to live here.

My question for Mr. Littmann, considering all of the above, was what impact he thinks this would have on property values.

His response was to basically acknowledge that yes, families avoiding Bloomfield Hills due to the bond failing *would* probably hurt property values, but that there are "other economic factors" that would make up for it. The thing is, those "other factors" would still be there if the bond passes as well.

In fact, the *only* "negative" factor that would be there if it passes is that our total millage rate would "only" drop by 20% instead of by 70%...except that it's already the 3rd lowest in the county as it is, so that's hardly a major consideration. Plus, we'd have to raid the existing funds to cover the $35 million in patch-up repairs that both buildings would need--and that's just to make them *somewhat* usable for another few years.

It's no contest. Vote YES on May 8th.

Part 1:

Mr. Littman also stated that our community was cocooned in its belief that we would not be immune to economic forces, at which he then cited global, national and regional economic conditions. I actually agree with this perspective, but it would have been much more informative had he taken the time to research this district's specific proposal and given us a clearer picture of the local conditions as well, because I believe our tendency to cocoon is even more true when looking locally. Unfortunately he didn't take the time, which he readily admitted in the question and answer period.

Our community's brand is education. We have been one of the top districts in the state for at least 50 years. Not only do we have exceptional public schools, we have exceptional private and parochial schools which solidifies the brand. This distinction was, I believe, more pronounced in the 60s & 70s. However, there is no denying that levels of education and achievement have risen in communities all around us, to the north, south, east, and west of us and in other parts of the state as well.

Part 2:

Those growing areas attracted a similar demographic that Bloomfield had when it was a growing community and thus demanded excellence too. The recent presentation by Kurt Metzger of Data Driven Detroit indicated that over the years, the metro Detroit pie has increased greatly when looking at acreage, but stayed the same when looking at the same pie by population. So the pie is physically bigger, but the filling has stayed the same. That is one of the many local demographic and economic forces our community faces.

Part 3:

We need to take a long hard look at ourselves and our community from the perspective of those moving into the Detroit metro region for the first time. I personally think some of us find it difficult to understand why a person moving into our metro area would choose Troy, Novi or Clarkston over our community because we have such fine schools. The cocooning or insular answers are maybe that those people don’t value our exceptional educational brand or maybe those people don’t see our community the same way we see it. Haven’t we all had a favorite sweater that looked so good when bought and every time we put it on we see it in our heads like it was the day it was purchased, not the way it looks after years of wear, not the way someone else may see it? We need to get out of our cocoon and view ourselves as that person seeing our community and our education brand for the first time. Maybe they will see past the old sweater but I think they are more likely to see comparable education elsewhere in much better and more efficient facilities. I know that isn’t what Mr. Littmann had in mind when he made his statement, but it was my takeaway.

As someone who has just moved to Bloomfield (mine was a local move) I very much second Mr. Gaba's point. While we are no longer a particularly "young" family, I can agree that families with children move here very often for the quality of the schools and the values of the community. Our home buying process, like many these days, involved a fairly long process. I can't say that the change in administration and community efforts to stabilize the discussion about the high school was the single factor that kept us from walking away to other options, but it was a significant factor. We were encouraged by the efforts of Rob Glass, the school board, and a broad based discussion to stick with Bloomfield. I will certainly be voting YES on May 8th. But even if you aren't voting YES it would be prudent to heed Elizabeth's point about the kind of community you are creating and the image you project. Bloomfield has enormous financial and cultural capital to draw on to attract buyers -- but that capital is not limitless. Times change, even here.

Charles Gaba - I echo your comments - when we moved into the district in 2006, I had a kindergartener and preschooler, and there was talk of building new high school facilites. We too, assumed that it would get resolved and the district would have brand new facilities by the time my kids were in high school. That was a big draw for us in coming here. Had we known it would turn into this mess all these years later, we would have probably moved into Birmingham or Troy. My husband and I want a new high school facilities for this community, and we are willing to pay more in taxes to get them. If it does not happen, we will seriously be looking at catholic high schools.

One more point on Elizabeth's response:We all live in the wake of Proposition A. There was a time (1960s and 1970s and even into the 1980s) when Bloomfield simply could outpace competitors in terms of education. Bloomfield quite literally could afford better schools, better teachers, better staff that surrounding areas. They also, of course, had high performing students with highly successul motivated parents. The game, as Elizabeth suggests, has changed rather dramatically.

It seems pretty clear that common ground is not sustainable between staunch yes and no positions....not surprising. The value of more public debate on patch between the same people who post over and over with unchanging positions and personal attacks is valueless. Time to shut it down.

Despite your digs, Linda, I wish you well. Be good.

Linda, I find it interesting that you think the public debate should be shut down now. Immediately preceding your comment are numerous posts that logically explain why voting yes will protect property values by attracting young families. They also refer to what will happen if the bond fails. Young families will stop considering Bloomfield and many current residents will leave. The natural conclusion is you realize the power of these arguments and are afraid they will work.

I think there is some common ground, remarkably so. Those who have voted no in the past have saved the district from making bad decisions. They have forced, to their credit, the district to take a long hard look at the situation and come up with a reasonable plan in difficult times. I don't always appreciate the mode of argument who wish to vote no this time around, but I can certainly appreciate the history. Finding common ground takes time. Vote YES on May 8th

Thanks Emily. I would like to credit for this point but it was Joe Judge's fine essay on Patch that made this clear to me as I was thinking through various arguments. I think it wonderful reading for anyone interested in the democratic process at work in a local context.