Readers appear split on Oshkosh Area School District's $197.8M facilities referendum

OSHKOSH – For the most part, the community doesn't appear to be in favor of the school district's referendum.
Several Northwestern readers are diametrically opposed to the Oshkosh Area School District seeking $197.8 million to fund the second phase of a four-phase facilities plan that includes the construction of a new middle school at the Jacob Shapiro Elementary School site.
Those against the referendum cite the district's mishandling of the South Park situation and a fear of increased property taxes, even though Superintendent Bryan Davis has continually uttered the words 'zero-dollar tax increase.'
There are some referendum supporters who contend that facilities like South Park Middle School are no longer ADA compliant and the diverse needs of students are no longer being met at aging buildings.
What we do know for certain is that if this reader callout is anything to go by, then Oshkosh is in for one interesting election April 1.
Here's what our readers had to say:
I understand why people are upset about this referendum and the circumstances surrounding its planning. But if you are thinking of voting 'No' as a protest vote, I urge you to think beyond Election Day.
First, the referendum is not at fault. Second, the reasons for the referendum are valid and necessary. Third, at some point in time, this school will need to be built, and every year of delay will just cost us more money.
A 'No' vote will only hurt us.
I will be voting against this.
At 71 years old, with the recent huge increases in property taxes, water and sewer bills, wheel tax, etc., in addition to the enormous cost of living increases due to inflation the past four years I simply cannot afford to pay for anything more.
So, I will be voting "No"!
I don't like it at all!!!
It's a waste of taxpayers' money.
My four kids NEVER went to Oshkosh public schools because of what is taught in the government schools. Until that changes, I'm TOTALLY against this outrageous cost to taxpayers.
I think the schools are reaching the point of no return. South Park is not set up for today's standards or the needs of the future. Being ADA compliant is a huge deal since OASD has a diversity of students.
Having all of 3K and 4K in one building would be helpful. Ending contacts with out-of-district buildings and making it easier for the staff to keep track of all of the students. Teachers having more resources at hand in one building as well.
Traeger needs a kindergarten wing. It was an oversight not to have one in the first place. Two classrooms on one side while one classroom is on the other side of the building. Plus, it needs more bathroom space.
A/C is important in all schools. The days get hot, and the kids get crabby.
More news: Baksteen Valken, Oshkosh's LEGO team, is headed back to the American Robotics Competition
I am very much against it. The citizens of Oshkosh just funded two new schools in the past few years.
It is like the OASD think they have a blank check now, so they are tossing every imaginable item in a referendum hoping something will stick. I don't buy it.
Prices have not receded since the super high inflation, and Oshkosh just increased the property taxes on a number of residents and businesses.
Now, OASD thinks the time is right for asking more from the people of the city. The timing is bad. I will vote against it.
I am in support of the referendum if the school board keeps its promise that it will not raise property taxes. Property taxes this year were absolutely out of control.
Oh, hell no!!! They screwed up and bought properties without getting zoning checked and now want us to pay for their screw up ... NO, NO, NO.
I must vote "No" to any school referendum being pushed through without due diligence regarding the Shapiro site and methane concerns.
They have already wasted $1.2 million on the last plan because, although they should have, they didn't have the necessary information about the zoning.
I believe they rushed this new plan just to get it on the ballot. Telling voters not to worry about the methane concern is not an acceptable response. So "No" for me.
More news: Oshkosh raises storm and sewer water utility rates; residents to face $3-$5 bill increases
I am all for the referendum as an unfortunate necessity.
The Republican Legislature of this state needs to do their job and release the budget surplus to PUBLIC schools and other needs for the people! End the public funding of private charter schools and spend public tax dollars on public programs and needs!
I have kids in the OASD and I see firsthand the degraded facilities and safety hazards present. How can kids learn in a dilapidated and uncomfortable environment? No AC, musty classrooms, non-accessible classrooms, and open-concept classrooms are all barriers for our young learners.
If public schools were funded properly, maybe there wouldn't be such an influx of needed referendums in our state.
Using public tax money for funding private and unregulated schools should be nonexistent. If someone wants to send their child to a private and/or religious school, I am all for it, but not at the cost of even a single cent of taxpayer money.
Unfortunately for the citizens of Oshkosh, the school board is composed of people who have a pie-in-the-sky want list. There is no regard for the amount of taxes or the burden that is placed upon homeowners.
There are many people who own homes and live on a meager income, which is often only Social Security. What are they to do about this outlandish want list?
More people are taking advantage of the availability to switch to private schools and taking their tax dollars with them. The citizens of Oshkosh just got hit with a very hefty home tax averaging about $600.
As a lifelong citizen of Oshkosh, I feel this referendum is not affordable. Vote "No" on this referendum.
First, I think all monetary considerations by any city/county board should be held in November when a larger group of people vote and a better idea of their wishes would be determined.
Half the monies used to build the new middle school would have been enough to renovate Merrill School. Merrill was built with quality craftsmanship and could have been saved. Oshkosh doesn't seem to have a vision of saving our history.
And, I also think that this particular vote is going to put a lot of Oshkosh citizens in a financial bind. This economy has been hard on people and the school board seems to think we all have deep pockets.
We've all had to "tighten our belts" and the board should take this into consideration. They may be responsible for giving Oshkosh good schools, but they are also responsible for giving the Oshkosh community what it can afford.
Contact Justin Marville at jmarville@gannett.com.
This article originally appeared on Oshkosh Northwestern: Oshkosh schools facilities referendum gets split response from readers

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

3 hours ago

• Yahoo

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasts 'narrow-minded' judging on SCOTUS: ANALYSIS

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson unloaded on her Supreme Court colleagues Friday in a series of sharp dissents, castigating what she called a "pure textualism" approach to interpreting laws, which she said had become a pretext for securing their desired outcomes, and implying the conservative justices have strayed from their oath by showing favoritism to "moneyed interests." The attack on the court's conservative majority by the junior justice and member of the liberal wing is notably pointed and aggressive but stopped short of getting personal. It laid bare the stark divisions on the court and pent-up frustration in the minority over what Jackson described as inconsistent and unfair application of precedent by those in power. Jackson took particular aim at Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority opinion in a case brought by a retired Florida firefighter with Parkinson's disease who had tried to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act after her former employer, the City of Sanford, canceled extended health insurance coverage for retirees who left the force before serving 25 years because of a disability. MORE: Supreme Court upholds a state law banning some gender-affirming care for transgenders kids Gorsuch wrote that the landmark law only protects "qualified individuals" and that retirees don't count. The ADA defines the qualified class as those who "can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires." "This court has long recognized that the textual limitations upon a law's scope must be understood as no less a part of its purpose than its substantive authorizations," Gorsuch concluded in his opinion in Stanley v. City of Sanford. It was joined by all the court's conservatives and liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Jackson fired back, accusing her colleagues of reaching a "stingy outcome" and willfully ignoring the "clear design of the ADA to render a ruling that plainly counteracts what Congress meant to -- and did -- accomplish" with the law. She said they had "run in a series of textualist circles" and that the majority "closes its eyes to context, enactment history and the legislature's goals." "I cannot abide that narrow-minded approach," she wrote. MORE: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says 'whole truth' about Black history must be taught Gorsuch retorted that Jackson was simply complaining textualism didn't get her the outcome she wanted, prompting Jackson to take the rare step of using a lengthy footnote to accuse her colleague of the same. Saying the majority has a "unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role," Jackson said her colleagues' "refusal" to consider Congress' intent behind the ADA "turns the interpretative task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences." "By 'finding' answers in ambiguous text," she wrote, "and not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined parts of Jackson's dissent, explicitly did not sign-on to the footnote. Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the liberal wing, joined the conservative majority in all three cases in which Jackson dissented, but she did not explain her views. In 2015, Kagan famously said, "we're all textualists now" of the court, but years later disavowed that approach over alleged abuse by conservative jurists. MORE: Supreme Court allows Trump to begin removing 500,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela In two other cases decided Friday, Jackson accused her colleagues of distorting the law to benefit major American businesses and in so doing "erode the public trust." She dissented from Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion siding with major tobacco manufacturer, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., that gives retailers the ability to sue the Food and Drug Administration over the denial of new product applications for e-cigarettes. Barrett concluded that a federal law meant to regulate the manufacture and distribution of new tobacco products also allows retailers who would sell the products to seek judicial review of an adverse FDA decision. Jackson blasted the conclusion as "illogical" again taking her colleagues to task for not sufficiently considering Congress' intent or longstanding precedent. "Every available indictor reveals that Congress intended to permit manufacturers -- not retailers -- to challenge the denial," she wrote. MORE: Justice Stephen Breyer's blunt message to Supreme Court conservatives: 'Slow down' Of the court's 7-2 decision by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, giving gasoline producers the right to sue California over limits on emission-producing cars, Jackson said her colleagues were favoring the fuel industry over "less powerful plaintiffs." "This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens," she wrote. Jackson argued that the case should have been mooted, since the Trump administration withdrew EPA approval for California's emissions standards thereby eliminating any alleged harm to the auto and fuel industry. MORE: Supreme Court limits environmental impact studies, expediting infrastructure projects "Those of us who are privileged to work inside the Court must not lose sight of this institution's unique mission and responsibility: to rule without fear or favor," she wrote, admonishing her colleagues. The court is next scheduled to convene Thursday, June 26, to release another round of opinions in cases argued this term. Decisions are expected in a dispute over online age verification for adult websites, parental opt-out rights for kids in public schools exposed to LGBTQ themes, and, the scope of nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump's second-term policies.

10 hours ago

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasts 'narrow-minded' judging on Supreme Court: ANALYSIS

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson unloaded on her Supreme Court colleagues Friday in a series of sharp dissents, castigating what she called a "pure textualism" approach to interpreting laws, which she said had become a pretext for securing their desired outcomes, and implying the conservative justices have strayed from their oath by showing favoritism to "moneyed interests." The attack on the court's conservative majority by the junior justice and member of the liberal wing is notably pointed and aggressive but stopped short of getting personal. It laid bare the stark divisions on the court and pent-up frustration in the minority over what Jackson described as inconsistent and unfair application of precedent by those in power. Jackson took particular aim at Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority opinion in a case brought by a retired Florida firefighter with Parkinson's disease who had tried to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act after her former employer, the City of Sanford, canceled extended health insurance coverage for retirees who left the force before serving 25 years because of a disability. Gorsuch wrote that the landmark law only protects "qualified individuals" and that retirees don't count. The ADA defines the qualified class as those who "can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires." "This court has long recognized that the textual limitations upon a law's scope must be understood as no less a part of its purpose than its substantive authorizations," Gorsuch concluded in his opinion in Stanley v. City of Sanford. It was joined by all the court's conservatives and liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Jackson fired back, accusing her colleagues of reaching a "stingy outcome" and willfully ignoring the "clear design of the ADA to render a ruling that plainly counteracts what Congress meant to -- and did -- accomplish" with the law. She said they had "run in a series of textualist circles" and that the majority "closes its eyes to context, enactment history and the legislature's goals." "I cannot abide that narrow-minded approach," she wrote. Gorsuch retorted that Jackson was simply complaining textualism didn't get her the outcome she wanted, prompting Jackson to take the rare step of using a lengthy footnote to accuse her colleague of the same. Saying the majority has a "unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role," Jackson said her colleagues' "refusal" to consider Congress' intent behind the ADA "turns the interpretative task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences." "By 'finding' answers in ambiguous text," she wrote, "and not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined parts of Jackson's dissent, explicitly did not sign-on to the footnote. Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the liberal wing, joined the conservative majority in all three cases in which Jackson dissented, but she did not explain her views. In 2015, Kagan famously said, "we're all textualists now" of the court, but years later disavowed that approach over alleged abuse by conservative jurists. In two other cases decided Friday, Jackson accused her colleagues of distorting the law to benefit major American businesses and in so doing "erode the public trust." She dissented from Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion siding with major tobacco manufacturer, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., that gives retailers the ability to sue the Food and Drug Administration over the denial of new product applications for e-cigarettes. Barrett concluded that a federal law meant to regulate the manufacture and distribution of new tobacco products also allows retailers who would sell the products to seek judicial review of an adverse FDA decision. Jackson blasted the conclusion as "illogical" again taking her colleagues to task for not sufficiently considering Congress' intent or longstanding precedent. "Every available indictor reveals that Congress intended to permit manufacturers -- not retailers -- to challenge the denial," she wrote. Of the court's 7-2 decision by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, giving gasoline producers the right to sue California over limits on emission-producing cars, Jackson said her colleagues were favoring the fuel industry over "less powerful plaintiffs." "This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens," she wrote. Jackson argued that the case should have been mooted, since the Trump administration withdrew EPA approval for California's emissions standards thereby eliminating any alleged harm to the auto and fuel industry. "Those of us who are privileged to work inside the Court must not lose sight of this institution's unique mission and responsibility: to rule without fear or favor," she wrote, admonishing her colleagues. The court is next scheduled to convene Thursday, June 26, to release another round of opinions in cases argued this term. Decisions are expected in a dispute over online age verification for adult websites, parental opt-out rights for kids in public schools exposed to LGBTQ themes, and, the scope of nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump's second-term policies.

Boston Globe

12 hours ago

• Boston Globe

Supreme Court finds retired firefighter cannot sue for disability discrimination

Advertisement In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined, in part, by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the justices had abandoned protections for vulnerable retirees. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Disabled Americans who have retired from the work force simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination,' Jackson wrote, adding that Congress had 'plainly protected their right to do so' when it drafted the federal disability rights law. Sotomayor, in a separate writing, argued that a majority of the justices appeared in agreement that retirees may be able to bring disability discrimination claims for actions that occurred while they were still employed. Stanley might have been able to argue that this would apply in her case, too, Sotomayor wrote, but the court had not been asked to weigh in on that question. Advertisement Stanley worked as a firefighter in Sanford, Florida, a city of about 65,000 people northeast of Orlando. When she started her job in 1999, the city offered health insurance until age 65 for two categories of retirees -- those with 25 years of service and those who retired early because of disability. In 2003, the city changed its policy, limiting health insurance to those who retired because of disability to just 24 months of coverage. After nearly two decades, Stanley retired in 2018 at age 47 after she was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. She expected that the city would continue to pay for most of her health insurance until she turned 65, but it refused, citing its changed policy. Stanley sued, claiming that the city had violated the ADA by providing different benefits to 25-year employees versus those who retired because of a disability. She argued that the city's policy amounted to impermissible discrimination based on disability. A federal trial judge dismissed her claim under the ADA, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed. In asking the justices to hear the case, lawyers for Stanley said it could affect millions of disabled Americans who rely on retirement benefits that they earned while employed. One section of the ADA specifies that it is illegal to discriminate in compensation because of a disability. The justices wrestled with whether the section included retirees. Deepak Gupta, a lawyer for Stanley, said in an emailed statement that the decision had created 'a troubling loophole that allows employers to discriminate against retirees simply because they can no longer work due to their disabilities.' Advertisement In her dissent, Jackson wrote that she hoped Congress might step in and provide a 'legislative intervention' to shield other disabled retirees. This article originally appeared in