Justifying my letter to the editor

Before Chuck Frederick would publish my letter he wanted me to give him some background.

From: Frederick, Chuck
To: Harry Welty
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 2:29 PM
Subject: RE: Letter to the editor

Thanks, Harry. Two things: When did an editorial claim taxes would increase by cutting $100 million out of the red plan? Are you talking about the tax-impact comparison? If so, do you disagree with that comparison? That was accepted by both sides as fact when Plan B was presented.I’ve never heard it disputed that I recall. Also, is Mr. Stauber’s comment a direct quote? If so, when and where did he say it and where is he quoted? I’m not finding it in our archives. Of course I realize the DNT and Budgeteer are but two sources, albeit the largest sources in town. Thanks for the clarifications.

Chuck Frederick

Here’s what I emailed him.

From: Harry Welty [mailto:harrywelty@charter.net]
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:51 PM
To: Frederick, Chuck
Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

That tax impact comparison you have relied on is phony Chuck. The District fiddled with the numbers to eliminate evidence of the savings available in the alternative plan. You may call this an “impact” comparison but that impact assumes 1. reduced energy savings that will never come to pass. 2. Savings from staff cuts resulting from new efficiencies (no more teachers traveling between buildings so that we pay them for their commute time) that are grossly overstated. Most of the staff cuts (savings) have nothing to do with Red Plan staffing efficiencies. The School Board just terminated teachers. They are blaming this all on state funding but while its true the state has been stingy the state only shorts School District’s inflationary increases. Finally, your impact assumes that everything in both phases of Plan B will be done. The fact is the second phase of the plan has always been treated as optional by our side. If its not exercised we’ll not spend nearly as much..

When we realized that it would be possible to divide the work up into a repair first phase and then an optional rebuilding second phase the District Administration had a heart attack. Ever since we came up with it they’ve been fighting with us to kill the two plan phase. When they couldn’t kill it they had to misrepresent it. Ironically they had to let us proceed with a Plan B plan to prove that they hadn’t really been stalling us. But when ATS&R got serious and helped us put an attractive alternative together they had to kill us a second time. They did so by presuming that both phases would be built so that they could make a fuss out of showing that our plan would cost more and do less. Its pretty darned impressive how successful they’ve been at preventing a referendum for two years.

If you got the impression that both sides accepted the figures of the impact you were wrong. Art Johnston did not realize how this was about to be propagandized by the Red Planners but Gary Glass and I sure did. Gary has tried to explain this to you but you keep reporting that the “impact” will force us to pay more for less. We spend $100 million less but that poor sucker with the $125,000 house will end up paying two bits more per month for twenty years.

Besides this nonsense there are a number of other aspects of the District’s financing that will make the Red Plan more costly to property owners. For one thing from the beginning the Red Plan was set to keep increasing by 5% a year. This allowed the District to lowball the initial cost of the Red Plan. At first this is not a big deal but over twenty years it’ll be hell on fixed incomes. The Red Plan’s costs also fail to take into consideration the habit of property to get itself revalued upwards annually. You had a story a couple months ago that said that St. Louis County homeowners could expect annual valuation increases of 3.7% for the next ten years. We bought our house for $48,000 twenty-two years ago. Its valued at three times that now. Up until now our income grew with those valuations. Not any more. My wife retires in two weeks.

You have reported that our alternative plan (and frankly I’ve always hated the damn plan for a number of reasons) will cost property owners more despite doing less to improve buildings. This would be an incredibly stupid thing to do but its what you keep telling your reading public. That must mean we’re all a bunch of dimwitted fools in the opposition camp.

So, yup, I disagree with your analysis.

As for Jim I’ve not quoted him. I just have followed him well enough to know he’s appalled at the price tag of the Red Plan and its implementation sans referendum.

Harry