Comment 2529

By A reader (anonymous) | Posted December 06, 2006 at 09:00:22

All good points Ryan, BUT...

Actually, the schools up here are full, or at least used to the capacity they were originally built for, and most have portables. The Provincial funding and BFU density (Basic Funding Units, what students were once called to in Min of Ed parlance) formulas are what make then "seem" empty to the bean counters. These schools were never intended to be overcrowded like they are now. Educators knew back then how to build schools that weren't just warehouses.

Then there's the "these schools are run down and need $millions in repairs" BS.

As I recall, the school in Lynden was slated for closure and demolition because of long-overdue repairs. Concerned citizens got together and had local contractors come in and estimate the repairs the board said were needed. If memory serves, the estimates were at least 3/4 less than the inflated claims of the board. The same tactic is being played out at Beasley, with Lisgar likely to follow.

The Lawfield replacement (why they don't just fix the damn gym, they did all the rest!!!) has been scaled back to 600 students, but the original rumours had it as a Templemead size school. My guess is that any "excess" land resulting from a consolidated Lawfield/Templemead/Beasley will be quietly sold off to developers, if not essentially a fait accompli already. If you thought the survey next to Beasley is big, take a look at the huge hunk the developers got with the St. Cecilia property. It was such a little school, but the property was close to 20% of that park/school/rec-center block. Too late now!

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds