Faulkton voters will have their say on whether their school district should spend millions of dollars to build a new building and renovate some existing school space. AAN’s Shannon Marvel reports the Faulkton school board doesn’t have a full blueprint or price tag for the project yet, but at their Monday meeting, they committed to putting whatever plan they come up with to a public vote.
The Aberdeen American News has not had a chance to opine on putting that project to a vote in Faulkton, but my local editorial board gave both barrels Sunday to the effort to put Aberdeen’s new library project to a vote. Among their beefs is the cost of the election and potential delay of the project:
A special election could cost around $15,000.
If the ordinance is struck down, the city council would then have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new way to fund the library. And that solution may not be as cost-effective as the bond.
If there is no plan and the project is not shovel-ready by July 1, 2016, the city of Aberdeen will be required to pay back $350,000 — plus interest — to the Alexander Mitchell Library Foundation.
If the council decides to abandon the project, the money spent on architects, land purchases and other incidentals is not refundable. That money is wasted. Gone forever.
That is about $1.7 million.
Are petitioners telling you that before you sign on? [editorial, “Build This Library,” Aberdeen American News, editorial, 2015.10.11]
$15,000—that’s less than a buck a voter. That seems a small price tag for the opportunity to once and for all stamp the people’s imprimatur on Aberdeen’s library project.
As for the much more significant costs of delaying the project, library backers should hold that fire for the vote, not the petition drive. The city doesn’t lose one cent invested in the project upon the submission of the referendum petitions (due next week!). The city faces possible losses only if library backers don’t mobilize a majority at the polls. Given the resources available for such a campaign (the library foundation has taken out a full-page, well-designed ad in the paper to promote the project; library opponents take out little two column text boxes to vent their nebulous frustrations), library backers should be able to win a public vote. On the off chance they don’t, the city’s sunk costs don’t suddenly vaporize. The city can modify its plan, whip out a new resolution, and challenge opponents to another electoral duel well before July 1, 2016.
Proponents of the library need not be opponents of a popular vote. Like the Faulkton school board, they should embrace the chance to show that opponents of public investment and progress are in the minority.
Aberdeen’s long resistance to progress has it on a gradual trend slope to become the State’s fifth or sixth most populous town.
John2, resistance? Aberdeen has a fair number of nice public investments (Wylie Park, YMCA, bike trail, new high school in approx 2003)—and seemingly active community cultural activities. I get the sense that the new library would pass if brought to a vote. Can you give me examples of the resistance to progress that are holding Aberdeen back?
State laws need changing so that they require citizen votes on any building project of consequence. Boards become ego-driven with intelligence, rationality, and data being ignored.
Citizen votes are only meaningful when there is a large and representative turnout, and when voters have enough information and understanding to make informed decisions. How likely is that?
Douglas, with the communication tools we have, I’d love to move toward more uses of direct democracy. What threshold would we set for requiring public votes? What constitutes a “project of consequence”? If we require public votes on buildings of consequence, why not on ordinances and laws of consequence?
Mike, are citizen votes with low and/or unrepresentative turnout any less meaningful than the votes of legislators or school board members who are elected by low and/or unrepresentative turnouts?
Well, find another term for “building of consequence”. Right now, the mandatory vote threshold is 1.5 percent of taxable property. In our district, that has climbed to something like $8 Million. This percentage is far too high. It should be zero. In our district, $8 million is something like $2000 per voter and possibly more like $4000 per property tax payer. Walk up and ask somebody for that kind of money for something like a completely unnecessary gymnasium and see what kind of a response you get.
Fair enough, Doug! The Legislature requires a 2/3 vote for any tax increase; it wouldn’t be hard to craft a similar rule for local districts to require a public vote for any building project of a certain value (dollar figure or percentage of budget).