It is difficult to imagine that selecting a legal date for elections is a 'dirty trick.' It may not be the preferred election date for some, but it certainly isn't what the blogger is making it out to be.

There is confusion on my part whether Jenny wants two high schools or one, a renovated high school or new, and two or three years of construction. First she is criticizing one high school on the Andover site and its hybrid (new/renovated) design. Then she questions why the district didn't propose an entirely new high school because the taxpayers have never been offered that option. Hold on……isn’t that what was voted down in November 2010? OK, maybe she meant she wanted two new high schools, isn’t that what the voters turned down in 2007? One reason she states wants new is because it takes less time to construct. This brings us back to why we are deciding this in May. A May approval means there will be two years of construction which will reduce costs and impact to the students. If the same bond were approved in November there would be three years of construction.

The single high school on the Andover site, with its hybrid of new and renovated spaces is the best plan for this district to maintain the level of comprehensive high school education this community has come to expect. Deciding in May reduces the construction time by one year, saving costs and impact on the students. This is the right plan, the right time and the right decision is Yes.

It is one matter to rant in public and in writing about a plan you dislike; that is your prerogative. It is quite another matter to describe a legitimate, well publicized, and entirely reasonable ballot initiative as a "dirty trick" -- the phrase suggests Nixonian unethical and illegal conduct. And that is simply, demonstrably, not true. I would urge you to apologize to the BH board and administration. Let me take the opportunity to express my deepest gratitude to the board and BH administration for their diligent work.

Many states including Michigan, have congressional bills in the works now to outlaw May elections for school issues of any kind. There are also plans to stop school districts such as Bloomfield Hills, from putting large tax bonds on the ballot every two years or less. Most lawmakers and taxpayers prefer November of even numbered years for ballots of any kind. The majority of Bloomfield taxpayers turned down large, new construction tax bonds (with interest over 30 years) a few times, and approved sinking funds to the tune of $80 million in less than 10 years. Why, with all of that money earmarked for maintenance and renovation of K-12 buildings, did the Board let our high schools get into the shape they are in? My daughter had rainwater dripping on her head in Chemistry class at Lahser. It is simply mismanagement of our tax funds. I won't give them a penny more until they try spending sinking funds to renovate the two high schools and use both of them because 1,650 kids in one school is horrific. I've experienced those large schools in Troy. Talk about impersonal, out of control and very possible for more kids to fall through the cracks or get into trouble, in the building. The maintenance and personnel costs are not being estimated for the plans the district has. The parking and traffic will be dangerous. Vote No on May 8 and let's do what the majority wanted - use both high schools.

I am on the complete other end of the spectrum from Jenny and Ms. McAllister. The community spoke and the board and superintendent listened. A fiscally responsible hybrid facility that blends renovated space with partial new construction is a win-win. A MUCH lower bond request for the project. Retention of curriculum offerings and programs that the BHSD is known for. Annual operational savings of $2.4 million. The list goes on. The public will be duely informed about the upcoming May election and by holding the election then, if the bond is passed, the district will be able to begin construction sooner, which cuts down on the length of time to complete the project. Our district is moving to a consolidated high school future. Our students will be the new Bloomfield Hills Black Hawks. They are excited as are many in the community. Please visit the district website for information about the plan and for factual answers to any questions you may have www.bloomfield.org.

Our community must move forward in a positive, united way. Please vote YES on May 8 for a reasonable and responsible plan for our high school facility.

As I stated in the last article about the decision by the board to schedule the May 8th vote--and which, I should note, no one bothered to refute:

In what way is a May election "sneaky"? Most school-related ballot issues have been held in May until recently. I could just as easily argue that putting it on the *November* election would be "sneaky" since it could easily be lost amidst the dozens of other races on the ballot. In addition, a November election would mean that the literature, TV/radio ads etc would also be lost in the cacophony of other federal, state and local elections.

By having this as the *only* issue presented to voters on May 8 and distancing it from all the other stuff, it makes it easier for voters to focus on the merits of this proposal and this proposal alone.

As I said at the meeting on Thursday, I went to Lahser and I moved back to Bloomfield Hills *specifically* for the great schools. Crappy schools = a LOT of parents with young kids like myself choosing NOT to move here. I voted AGAINST the last proposal because it was too difficult to learn much about the plan, and what little I did learn, frankly, pretty much stank.

THE NEW PLAN IS A BREATH OF FRESH AIR. The cost is reasonable, the plan makes sense, the new board and new superintendent has been as forthright, transparent and inclusive as possible, while the old buildings continue to rot away. It's a good plan at a good price. It's time to vote YES and move forward.

As for Ms. Greenwell's other claims:

--She first claims that the new plan is "unreasonable" because it "concentrates" the students at "ONE SITE" (emphasis hers). Later, however, she states that she has "NO IDEA why they did not seek to build a single NEW high school."

So which is it, Ms. Greenwell? Do you want a single new high school or not? That's exactly what this plan calls for. OK, technically it's only *mostly* new (about 2/3 new, 1/3 renovated), but that's because the whole point was to keep the costs down as much as possible by retaining as much of the old building as possible, which is also known as being "fiscally responsible".

--She then claims, falsely, that "Taxpayers have NEVER been offered that option."

Actually, the previous bond request was for exactly that (a single, brand-new building). I agree that it was a poorly thought-out plan (which is why I voted against it), but it *was* offered.

--She claims that "Worst, the "hybrid" plan takes too long to complete. Three years is a long time-line for high school chaos, and it is not necessary."

You're correct about that--3 years *is* a too long, and *isn't* necessary--which is EXACTLY why the proposal is being put on the MAY ballot, which will keep the construction time down to TWO years, not three.

--She states that "A new high school would take 18 months to complete."

Again, I'm not sure if you're trying to distinguish a 100% brand-new building from the hybrid 2/3-new, 1/3 renovated plan on the Andover lot or not by saying "a new high school". You might or might not be correct about this, but hasn't provided any source, reputable or not, for this claim. Besides, even if the timeline could be squeezed down from 24 months to 18, that would still require disrupting the high schools for 2 full years, unless you plan on having the entire student body *and* faculty *and* administration *and* all of the equipment moved from one location to another halfway through the school year?

The bottom line is this: Like many other "No" voters, I voted against the previous high school plan because:

--It wasn't well thought-out
--The previous school board didn't communicate their plans well
--The previous superintendent ignored the voice of the voters
--The community wasn't consulted
--The cost was too high

We now have a new superintendent, a (mostly) new board and a brand new plan, and guess what?

--It's very well thought-out
--Every aspect of the plan has been communicated thoroughly
--The voters have been included at every step of the way
--The cost is much, MUCH more reasonable

Everything that prior boards/superintendents may have done wrong is being done RIGHT this time. It's a good plan at a reasonable price. I strongly recommend voting YES on May 8th.

Jenny,
Enough misleading headlines and invented "facts." Writing words in CAPITAL
letters does not turn false statements into truths. Our school community is finally united and stands behind the May 8 bond proposal. Enough Jenny. Enough B2020. Step back and and let our school board and administration move forward with the right plan for our school community.

Linda P...the community spoke at the ballot box that they did not want the previous plan. The community also spoke that they wanted to do something, that they wanted a less expensive plan and that they wanted more communication and inclusion of public input along the way. And voilà, the community driven plan that will be on the May 8 ballot. Part renovation, part new construction, much less expensive.

I believe this board and administration are driven to maintain and enhance the educational opportunities of all our students. I believe this board and administration are committed to bring the most value conscious plan before the voters. I believe this board and administration has bent over backwards to encourage EVERY community member to have a voice in the process. It is the right plan, the right cost at the right time. Please vote yes on May 8.

BHSD taxpayers/voters have NEVER been offered a proposal for a single high school.
The 2010 proposal included a NEW Central Administration building connected to the school by a Sky Bridge. The CA and skybridge were not "optional."
The BHSD board needs to put a reasonable plan to upgrade our school infrastructure on a November ballot. The current plan does NOT "right size" our schools, as it leaves at least THREE vacant or under-utilized schools on the books.