Wednesday, June 22, 2011
What's the same and what has changed?
Mt. Lebanon School District has prepared a High School Project Update and was presented at the Architect's Update by Dr. Steinhauer. This 22 page update includes changes made to Buildings B, G, and the Athletic Building. Next steps include reviewing potential changes with the Municipality. Does this mean the Zoning Hearing Board and Planning Board again? And what about the Shared Parking Agreement? I hope these reviews come before January, if the biggest proponent of the high school project gets elected in Ward 3. http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09041/948123-100.stm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Some 15 years ago, a $1.5MM fund was set up for asbestos abatement.
A retired teacher complained building C was a sick building.
Why wasn't that money used to remove the remaining asbestos from building C?
Keeping building C is the best way to reduce renovation costs and keep the bids low. At Monday's meeting, Dale Ostergaard expressed his concern that removing a floor from building G won't allow room if enrollment increases. Dan Remely said future school district consolidation and vouchers may increase enrollment. Yet Josephine Posti insisted we tear down building C because it has too much space. Folks, the board is divided while scrambling to get the project out to bid again. Lebowitz said he researched keeping building C, but the fact is I attended more meetings than he has. Why is the school board hell-bent on tearing down building C, even if keeping building C could allow the project to move forward?
Remember the groundbreaking ceremony that was postponed indefinitely?
This scheme to demolish the high school's largest addition is C-GATE.
David Huston
Mr. Houston:
Listen very closely to Ms. Posti's explanation on your tape recording as to why we can't keep building C!
It has nothing to do with the fact that it might be the most cost-effective, or expedient solution to the HS project.
Her explanation was that we would tick off Mr. Celli, who would have no interest in doing a simple "multi-million dollar" renovation and would most likely walk off with the $6 million the board squandered on a flawed design.
Gotta save that bridge!
- Giffen Good
Giffen Good,
I have not listened to the entire update. I don't doubt that what you are saying is true, but I do have a problem with the logic behind eliminating Building C. Please tell me you heard incorrectly. We don't want to upset the architect?
Elaine
I viewed her comments that it wouldn't be prudent to revisit C because... #1. Celli wouldn't be interested in doing a "basic" renovation and #2. the board would have to pay out his contract and start over with a new architect to design a renovation!
If I misunderstood Ms. Posti's comments on open to hear someone else's view.
- Giffen Good
I was under the impression that CFB got paid for their work. I didn't realize there was any more to the contract. Second, I thought CFB was designing what we asked for. Right now, we're trying to get the bids to come in under the referendum. The residents were hoping to get it down to $90-95 million as promised by the DAD team. The SB majority is shooting for $113 million. By not keeping Building C, we are keeping Tom Celli happy. I get it now. My question is what does it take to keep Building C?
My best attempt at explaining why the project's supporters seem determined to stay the course, even when doing so seems likely to cause serious problems, is the “sunk cost fallacy”. In short, it's that idea that once you pay a high enough price to head down a chosen path, you form an emotional resistance to changing direction because it would make you feel like you've wasted what you've paid so far. As a result, you become increasingly committed to your original path, even when staying on it dooms you to a poor outcome.
(It's called the "sunk cost fallacy" because the belief that changing directions wastes anything previously paid is false: those costs are already fully realized ("sunk"); nothing you do now can change that.)
C-GATE is one of the best questions asked yet. Why won't Posti and Cappucci and Lebowitz revisit C-Gate?
I don't believe Posti's answer.
Was it because a retired teacher called Building C a cancerous building? Is it somehow tied to the teachers' union?
John Ewing
John, why are the other six board members allowing this to happen? Celli & Cappucci chopped C & criticized the CAC. That's C-Gate alright!
Tom, interesting explanation. Thanks, I learned something. I hope it isn't the case though. The Board should cut their losses. Or maybe they just don't want to admit they were wrong. It is not too late for the Board to understand that the thousands of people who were against this plan had good reason. It could be the first step to mending this community.
Elaine, my thought is only some of the board members, and administrators, know the real reason for C-GATE; the rest are just going along to preserving their power and position on the board by agreeing to an overpriced building. Eliminating building C will lead to a "SKUNK FACILITY COST."
John Ewing
Post a Comment