My responses to the neighbors of Rockridge School who are concernd about the now vacant school’s future use:
Thank you for sending me your questions.
First let me make a general observation. The School District is currently treading water financially. I suspect most decisions will be made between gasps of breath over the next few years. Making iron clad promises under such circumstances is dangerous and accepting that an iron clad promise won’t rust is dangerous as well.
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Rockridge Neighbors wrote:
As a representative of FORockridge-Friend of Rockridge, ( www.FORockridge.weebly.com), I would like to ask you a few questions regarding city zoning and the reuse of existing school land.
1. Â What are your beliefs regarding neighborhood involvement in the rezoning of existing parcels of land owned by the school district?
It should be a major, if not the major, consideration.
2. Â Land use, being hypothetical in nature, requires one to evaluate an area not only on it physical characteristics but also on its fit into the demographics of the surrounding neighborhood. Â What are your perspectives on requiring any rezoning to fit into the established character of a neighborhood?
I noticed during the work on the Red Plan that the final arbitor of such decisons, the City Counil, was often quite flexible and accomodating to the School District’s requests for variances. I think you can expect me to hope for similar flexibility in trying to rescue the School District from unintended Red Plan fall out.
Having said that I’d like to note that before I was elected to the School Board in 1995 Rockridge had been leased to a church. It became a school again and now lies vacant. I would hope a very similar non commercial use for the building could be found.
3. Directly related to the Rockridge School site, would you stand with the majority of surrounding neighbors to maintain the Traditional Residential (R-1) designation for this site?Â
I think so.