Private Property Puchase

Today's Journal....

Middletown school board moves to purchase property
1.3-acre site will be incorporated into middle school, high school campus

MIDDLETOWN —
The Middletown school district is expanding the size of its high school campus with a recent pending purchase approved by the board of education.

A sale is set to close July 31 for the school district to purchase a 1,700-square-foot home at 4500 Manchester Road, said George Long, business manager. The property came on the market in June and the district worked with a real estate agent to secure a purchase price of $175,000 — under the asking price of $190,000.

ANYONE KNOW ABOUT THIS PRIVATE PROPERTY PURCHASE? WAS THIS TALKED ABOUT IN PUBLIC CIRCLES UNTIL NOW?

I LIKE THIS REASONING.....

“Although we’re not sure how the exact use of it will be … the key is it gives us more flexibility as we design the new middle school and high school,” Long said. “We can’t control when properties maybe come on the market so we made a move to secure this property because we feel it will be in the best long-term advantage of the district.”

OK, THE REASON FOR PURCHASE, EVEN THOUGH THEY AREN"T SURE WHY THEY'RE BUYING THE PROPERTY, IS THAT THEY "CAN'T CONTROL WHEN PROPERTIES MAY BE ON THE MARKET SO THEY MADE THE MOVE TO SECURE THE PROPERTY" WHAT DID HE SAY?

Long said the district is using leftover funds from the last bond issue to purchase the home on Manchester Road, which sits on a 1.3-acre site on the northeast side of the high school property near the Manchester building

BUT MR. LONG, THE PUBLIC, WHO APPROVED THOSE BOND LEVIES, WEREN'T TOLD THIS PURCHASE WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE PLAN. THIS IS AN EXTRA THROWN ON THE PILE WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL.

“The district has for many years said that if any of these properties become available they would like to own them, because it does give us the ability to expand the high school site and better work through our facilitation of that site,” Long said

SO, LIKE THE CITY, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASING PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR.......WHAT REASON AGAIN??? "ABILITY TO EXPAND THE HIGH SCHOOL SITE AND BETTER WORK THROUGH OUR FACILITATION OF THAT SITE". WHAT? THIS IS JIBBERISH. EXPANDING THE SCHOOL CAMPUS BY PURCHASING ADJACENT PRIVATE PROPERTIES.....AND THIS WILL DO WHAT FOR THE CAMPUSES?

Long said the use of a temporary construction office inside the property is permitted. Long said during the impending middle school and high school construction, a construction manager would have typically spent money to mobilize construction trailers and portable restrooms.

“This house can be used for that temporary use for a savings of $50,000 across three years to offset the cost of this house,” Long said. “It gives us more flexibility and more of an opportunity to better use this site.”

SHOULDN'T YOU REQUIRE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INCUR THE COST OF HOUSING IN THE CONTRACT DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE? WHY IS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT (TAXPAYER) INCURING THE COST THAT THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY NORMALLY IS REPONSIBLE FOR?

If its the house I'm thinking it is, its a nice little piece of property. I would have guessed in the $150,000 range myself....

what else would schools do with leftovers, $175,000  laying around ?? other than shoot it !! and wish for more..

The interest of the school district in purchasing this property, as well as the other 4 houses that jut into the high school site, has been discussed in public before, more than once. This particular purchase was not discussed in public until the property was under contract, for obvious reasons. The house was put on the market for 189,900. The district opened with a very low offer. $175,000 was the negotiated price and is within fair market value given the condition of the home and the sizeable acreage.

I find it outrageous, indeed unconscionable, for the school district to give consideration for building the school buildings now. Middletown is a wasteland. most streets have not been paved in greater than 22-25 years, and yet....here again, the school district builds. Enrollment is down. When this happens, the market in Middletown just gets worse. What an unfair scenario to the homeowner, who cannot sell property, and now faces the higher taxes. All that will remain in Middletown will be the public employees that support one another; school district employees supporting higher taxes; city employees supporting higher building schools. A land of public sector, nothing else. Tax payers will be fools to pass this. But, that's why the school district moved in the city building; avoid "sunshine" and plot for taxes.In Scottsdale, Az a $650,000 home yields 1800 annual taxes. In Middletown, a 140,000 home yields about 3700. in taxes. You are killing the city. Taxes never work, and brick and mortal doesn't bring kids in.  

With the declining enrollment If the district would just wait another 5-7 years the high school could fit 7th through 12th in one building.

Acclaro....I don't know what paving streets has to do with building a new middle school and re-habbing the high school.  City government and the school system are two different entities and can not combine money.  I also don't know how comparing property taxes in a different state to Middletown yields any insight into how high, or low Middletown's taxes are.  Also I think you're off a bit on the numbers.  I know that a house appraised for $155,000 in Middletown yields $3,000/yr in property taxes.  I also know that a house appraised for $700,000 in the Lakota School district pays over $12,500 per year.  We can all move to Mississippi and pay $800 per year on a $200,000 house but also then pay to have your kids educated in private school.

“Although we’re not sure how the exact use of it will be … the key is it gives us more flexibility as we design the new middle school and high school,” Long said. “We can’t control when properties maybe come on the market so we made a move to secure this property because we feel it will be in the best long-term advantage of the district.”

chmoore1 wrote: I just want to know what we're going to do about the 6-out-of-26 indicators that I've heard so much about...chmoore

Darn good question Moore. Want to start the discussion since you brought it up?

come on acclaro--plenty of rational thinkers around here

Vet: no discussion necessary---I was just using my July "6 indicators" phrase to get it out of the way.  Now we have to wait til August to bring it up again....chmoore

chmoore1 wrote: Acclaro: rationally explain what your plan is for the old middle school, which is 90 years old this year---in ten more years it will be---surprise!---100 years old, since you won't let us build a new one.  RATIONALLY, please, without going off on a tangent about all the other ills in our town and society.    chmoore    Vet: I forgot to mention that "purchase" has an "R" in it.

Thank you for the correction Moore. Unlike you, I may make a mistake now and then. Most people do. Also, unlike you, I don't buy the crap the school people are shoveling. Never have. You connected with the school in some way bud? Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

chmoore1 wrote: Vet: no discussion necessary---I was just using my July "6 indicators" phrase to get it out of the way.  Now we have to wait til August to bring it up again....chmoore

Yep, and the subject of indicators will be consistently brought up until school supporter people like you stop the lip service and start changing the numbers in a positive direction by actually addressing the problems. You support 'em. You help 'em solve their dilemma. Some of us are tired of the same old crap for over two decades now and wasting money paying for a white elephant of a school system.