When it comes to state policies that affect everybody in Rhode Island, there are perhaps no two greater examples than the parameters set for reimbursing municipalities that seek to construct or renovate school buildings, and the policies guiding the creation of much-needed new housing throughout the state.

We feel it is prudent to question whether the state realizes a key area of apparent contradiction in their carrying out of these two separate, but very much connected, policy areas.

We can look to Johnston for a current example of what we’re positing.

Johnston, in need of a new high school, is going through the process of submitting their plans to the state, which includes a building that will be capable of housing fewer students than are currently enrolled at the existing school. Part of the reason for this design is the increased incentives offered by the state’s reimbursement guidelines.

On its surface, this makes sense, considering projections for student enrollment are declining as they are in communities across Rhode Island.

However, those projections may not be accounting for the state’s recent push to boost the production of affordable housing; a goal that everyone can agree is paramount to enabling more people to move to the state and start lives, careers, and most important to this situation, families, in Rhode Island.

If the state succeeds in boosting housing production and the number of people able to live here — particularly in places like Johnston where, unlike other local communities, land capable of being developed into housing is in good supply — does this not create a potentially catastrophic situation where a brand-new school building will be insufficient to handle the influx of new families and students that will be living in the area 10 or 20 years down the line?

It is an admittedly theoretical conundrum based on assumptions and speculation, but when the potential outcome of those assumptions is having a brand-new, multi-hundred-million dollar school building that ultimately winds up being unsuitable for the community that pays for it, is that not worth a bit more consideration?

Is this a calculated risk, or simply the result of different state agencies charged with “different” goals not realizing they have a blind spot where their goals actually intersect with one another?

Regardless of that answer, this argument should be considered by those making decisions on the ultimate size and capacity of a new school building, not only in the short term, but in the long term as well.