Report Inappropriate Comments

Dave, to cut to the chase, in other words, may last comment was not out of bounds. You've admitted that the LTFPC did not do any analysis on what the educational impact, or any other impact, would be on the students. It was a costs only analysis. You stated that "none of the high schools can physically hold that many students" it response to my raising the possibility of combining the junior and senior high schools. I mentioned Lockwood because I keep hearing how old Gorton and Aldrich are and they are not worth keeping up with repairs because they are so old; but the is nonsense, since as you concede "they are incredibly well built." They could easily stay open and bring in the sixth grade. I heard the superintendent; he stated that the question was not whether to consolidate but which school will be closed. Neither WPS or the LTFPC went into this with an open mind. Consolidation was plan no matter whether is was warranted or not. What further hurt the credibility of the LTFPC was that not only was it predetermined a plan to consolidate but it then went an picked Vets even though Vets had far superior athletic facilities compared with Pilgrim both on location and in the vacinity of the school, which would be unused by a super junior high school that does not offer sports. The pretext was the it picked Vets because it was set up more like a junior high. In addition, Vets had superior parking. However, unlike what is being portrayed in the press and talk radio, in the two meeting nights the opponents did not focus on "Why Vets?" but did focus on "why the consolidation?" because they were aware that there was not adequate justification for the consolidation no matter what high school was picked to be closed.

While I an not accusing you of this, the comments of those the write in support of you over the last several months appear to be Tea Party-type arguments to cut government costs and don't worry about the consequence because those that receive any type of government service are just leaching off the taxpayers. Is the right "patlentman" (whoever that is)? Those that opposed the consolidation were not selfish. Their arguments were in the best interest of the City, as well as the best interest of themselves or their children. If Warwick does not have stable schools, the housing value for everyone will decline. Threatening to close schools year after year, decade after decade, does not create stability, especially not when there is no justification for it. Having high schools between 900 to 1,000 per high school is a good size; leave them alone. Brag to the rest of the state that Warwick has moderate size high schools, as does Barrington and East Greenwich, and stop bashing Warwick and it schools. Warwick is a nice place to live and we should try to provide the best schools for our children, which includes trying to get then to about 600 to 900 student each. We should try to minimize the distributive influence of Tea Party type voters whose goal is to degrade all government services as a waste of money. They are not only a threat to Warwick but to municipalities all over the United States and to everyone property values. Dave, it appears that you do not hold these views, but many of your followers do and that it not healthy group of voters to base another run for political office.

From: Plan should focus on children’s education, not money saved

Please explain the inappropriate content below.