We simply can't afford the increase in taxes. We are forcing people who have lived here all their lives to move out of town and young families cannot afford to move here. When you live here and own a business, you get hit twice.
We are aong those who have paid to build every school in this district. We just can't do it again, especially on this scale.

I was against all the penny taxes, and but this benefitted Johnston and was paid for by Johnston. I guess we buy shelving, cheap, and stack kids and teachers in the hallway of the existing high school.

I agree with Heather on this issue.

On the other hand, I know how packed our schools are getting. I graduated from Johnston in 2007 and am currently a medical student at Des Moines University. My hopes are to eventually practice medicine and raise my family in Johnston. I want my kids to have the same quality education that I had, not a school packed to the brim with students. With this being said, I don't think the bond was the right thing to do at this time.

Another factor that came into play regarding my opinion was the location of the new school. I don't understand why it would be a good idea to build such a large school so far away from the "downtown" of Johnston. The current high school has an extremely large piece of property that it sits on with much of it to the north being unused. With so much land being underutilized, why not build an addition that could incorporate some energy saving technology that would work to keep the costs of running the school low. This would save a tremendous amount of money up front as well as in the long run.

Just my 2 cents...

Heather, I agree that we all don't want more taxes but this is more of an investment in our community than a tax. If you and your family would not go out to eat 2 times a year, that would cover your portion. Johnston has one of the best school systems in the state, which is why people move into our community, including my family, and that is why we need to grow, to be able to handle the growth due to our success. And yes, us business owners do get hit with more taxes but, shouldn't we support the community who has made us successful business owners??

Erik, some of the land that sits empty behind the schools belongs to DuPont. Also, much of the population of Johnston is now in the western half so the new location would be closer for many. Glad that you want to bring your future family to Johnston.

First of all, the Johnston officials apparently chose to waste taxpayer money to hold a secial election just 30 days before a general election. I am guessing it was because they knew that the larger the voter turnout the less likely this thing would have past.

If The school district is growing, with more families and more kids, wouldn't you think that would mean more homes and more new home and new businesses being built that are increasing the taxes being paid? If more people are paying taxes, why do they need those paying to pay more?

Oops, should have said just 60 days from the general election.

School bond issues are rarely ever part of a general election, it's possible that it isn't even legal. The fact is, this isn't just about the high school overcrowding and if you'd gone to any of the meetings, you would know that. I was part of a committee that determined that a renovation of the high school and middle school to accomodate future growth and building a new elementary school (moving Wallace over to the middle school was alleviating having to build a new elementary school so that kids at Horizon and Beaver Creek don't have to learn in modular classrooms outside) was going to cost THE SAME AMOUNT AS THIS PROPOSAL. So understand that by defeating this proposal, we don't have the money to fix the schools and do NOT have enough room for our kids to learn (at every age level). Buying the land on 100th was going to also alleviate the traffic and parking problems the current high school site has. Because Johnston is landlocked, the only land parcel large enough to accomodate a new high school is west--there simply is no other choice since Pioneer owns all the free land in the "middle" of town. The bottom line is, by choosing not to pay $100 extra a year (I agree with Tim above, you can afford it by skipping 2-3 meals out per year), you've chosen not to invest in your own children's future. A brand new high school will attract families and businesses to Johnston which will in turn, reduce your regular (non school) property taxes--please do not be so short-sighted!

Maybe if the district would have done a little negotiating to save costs instead of just saying yes to the Architect and all. First, we don't need this lavish monster that the Architect designed. Architects want awards not function. Look down the street, Pioneer built a huge building that is functional. Do you see all the glass in their building. Put in all the wiring needed to make it a 21st century building but remember the costs associtated with the high ceilings and all that glass. Does anyone remember the Des Moines library. Next, why didn't they negotiate on the land. They figured this was a fly through and paid out the nose. A million dollars more than what the soccer fields were going to cost a few years ago? Commercial property hasn't taken that big a jump with the economy the way it is. The Board needs to remember this is taxpayer money. How about doing it in phases. DC-Grimes just did another phase on their school. All this on top of seeing the district drop $1.4 million so all students could have i-pads. What will the spend next?

I sincerely doubt that it is illegal to have a bond referendum on the same ballot as the general eclection. I do know that in most instances, board members pushing for a bond aproval, like this one, would prefer as small a turnout as possible.

hey, if a new school is needed, great. But, as some have suggested, maybe this was just too much for the taxpayers to swallow at this time.

My guess is, that when they roll this up the flag pole in 6 months, it will pass. As long as the supporters do not try to brow beat or demonize those who at this time did not feel they wanted to rubber stamp this proposal.

Ashlee, you rlink does not take me to the specific code. :-( If you say they cannot have a bond referendem on the same ballot as a general election, I guess I will trust you on that?