sb "...the creation of the committee..."

Garry, get with the program, YOU are the problem as the rubes at the Lay Finance Committee tolerate no dissent in their groupthink. To question their "expertise" (actually there lack of) puts them and the BOE in an uncomfortable position. Note how the "cost" which will finish off what is left of the middle class property owner through higher taxes that will devalue and make their homes unsaleable only to be turned into section 8 hovels, is conveniently and most likely purposely being put on the back burner or not mentioned at all. But hey, Cleveland Heights libs get what they deserve, a diverse, unsafe, section 8 dominated community with low ranking schools. and worthless homes!

My extensive personal experiences support what you posted, right until you started that unfortunate screed.

Unfortunate or not, the facts are the facts. No one can deny what has happened to the Heights in the last 20 years or so. There is nothing racist or controversial about it.
Crime has exploded, the schools are ranked in the bottom 5% in whole state, and home values have plummeted. Those are facts. A $205 million levy is a very far cry from a 3 year renewal levy. Passage of this will absolutely be the proverbial straw that brakes the camels back. This is not an alarmist point of view, it is what has happened to East Cleveland and as the PD pointed out a few weeks ago what is currently taking place in Garfield Heights. This Lay finance committee has shown no interest in stewardship of the community or schools, just a reckless ignoring of costs. And what about the $40 million in defered maintenance right now with the schools? Just silence.But to question this would be deemed to be racist or insensitive by the libs. What they have forgotten about is that the taxpayers are tapped out,and there is no one left to piggyback on anymore.

I've pointed out all the facts you mentioned on numerous occasions. You may have gotten some of them from me.

I prefer seeing data separated from opinions and conjecture.

What you're doing is the same as the LFC is doing, hiding the data in a haystack.

But neither your's or the LFC's is a haystack of merely *irrelevant* data to sift through. They are haystacks of opinions, conjecture, a little bit of meaningful data, and a lot of BS.

Try reading one of Eric Silverman's *lengthy* manifestos some time.

Michael, while you may feel that rebuilding or renovating schools is a fiscal task the community cannot take on right now, I would counter that keeping open 7 elementary schools for a community that doesn't need 7 elementary schools is also not fiscally sound.

Regardless of the outcome of a bond issue for new buildings or capital improvements, the school board will move to close a school. And they maybe should.

Cleveland Heights is experiencing an influx of young professionals- who generally don't have children. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/01/clevelands_urban_scene_gets_a.html

These young professionals buy houses and rent apartments at market rates, which is good for CH, but it also means a drop in the K-12 population (if only temporary). CHUH needs to adjust to deal with these changing numbers. Consolidation of schools would be suggested.

John H: I am on record that they should start with ONE school rebuild and see how that goes. It is the prudent way. It means a reasonable levy request, and if the BOE does not screw it up, they can reasonbly be trusted to move forward on other buildings. What you have now is an extremely reckless, irresponsible, and shortsighted situation being led by unqualified folks ( the lay committee) and the end result may just be a popularity contest as to which schools stay open/closed/rebuilt. This is a certain recipe for disaster. High taxes and poor performaning schools are no way to attact and keep the yuppies you suggest are coming. I see no evidence of anything out of the ordinary right now and that is a continued influx of section 8 renters that are turning once stable neighborhoods into ghettos.

"Yuppies"? Interesting. They aren't "coming", they already live here. In Coventry and Cedarmount neighborhoods, most notably. I have a friend -a young professional at the Clinic -who is living in East Cleveland, because she is struggling to find a Coventry property she likes -or can afford. And if you examine the data, that is a growing population of Cleveland Heights. Perhaps that's not the neighborhood you live in.

Which building do you prefer the Board start with? The High school?

John H: Here is what I would like to see but will never happen. Close Roxboro Elem. as it is on the border and not centrally located and the immediate neighborhood all use privates so it would be no great loss. Reopen Coventry El. by tearing down exisiting building and replacing. That is how they should start but will never do as the Board as Garry has pointed out has a Roxboro infatuation. Instead, we have a chaotic total rebuilding program that will do nothing to attract the "yuppie" who will certainly move out if and when they are ready to buy as the poor performance of the schools and high taxes have and will continue to chase out the very people the city needs.

I never mentioned Roxboro, but Mr. Silverman frequently shares that he attended Monticello.

Which is the only school besides the HS included in all six scenarios.

Go figure.

Here is the issue with closing Roxboro:
Schools should be closed or left open based on some criteria. Either 1) They should stay open because they are near to the students who need them. 2) THey should stay open because they are better performing than the other schools or 3) They should stay open because the building is in better condition and/or easier to maintain.

In the case of Roxboro vs Coventy -Roxboro wins 2 out of 3. Coventry might be more centrally located to the students, but Roxboro's building is in better shape, and easier to maintain. Coventry is that ugly 1970's design that was never good and, quite frankly, was a mistake to begin with. Roxboro's classic early 1900's structure was built right the first time -and it's in better shape. Also, Roxboro Elementary is the best Elementary school in the District. The test scores there are just as good, if not better than elementary schools in Beachwood, Solon, Mayfield or Orange (Excellent with Distinction rating by the State). CHUH would be a fool to fix what ain't broke.

In addition, Coventry's property is more valuable as something else. Right now, it's an office building -an income property for CHUH. And Roxboro is probably kept because it's easier to juggle grades if need be with nearby Rox Middle School.

I think if they are going to start with one school, it should be the construction of one large school on Gearity's massive 12 acres to replace Gearity/Wiley/Cantabury. Or the High school.

Still don't agree. If indeed Roxboro is the best performing school, just transfer those kids to the new Coventry as I suggest above. It is centrally located and might actually draw some families in. Hardly anyone in Roxboro neighborhood uses the school and that will never change. Those few students using public schools will transfer easily to a new Coventry. They need think outside the box and keeping Roxboro open does nothing to change that. And BTW, what is the Board trying to do by being a landlord at Coventry, I am sure that is not their job. Their job is to educate kids, and quite frankly the evidence is that they are in the botom 5% in the whole state according to Patch.

I'd rather see the underlying data and analysis that supports their decision.

It's becoming apparent that the whole LFC thing with all that "community engagement" was just smoke and mirrors to decide to keep a school in UH, and save face for whomever.

Which might be the right decision, but a horsehit way of going about it.

I thought they really wanted to give careful analysis and thought to what the next decade of construction would include, by getting input from a well educated and concerned community.

I was fooled. Again.