I hope the board will remove this ridiculous ban on these buildings! I, for one, am for charter schools so I think it is insane they would go this far to keep them out. Don’t they realize how much lost money that could be if they are to sit empty? What about the surrounding communities? Why should they have to be school-less and suffer? Afraid of a little competition?
I also have heard from opponents of charter schools, they agree this is not a good idea. That is right…those people who dislike charter schools also feel these restrictions are a bad idea! Why should the city lose money because of opinions of some? It is just bad economics, selfish, and poor judgment.

There are only so many children in the city to educate, and that number is a lot less than it was when all these buildings were being used as school. If new schools open in buildings that were closed because they are unfit for the purpose and/or there are not enough children to populate them, then all that happens is that another school closes, another neighborhood loses. The pain gets passed around. Schools that open with tax dollars when there are not enough children to keep them viable mean nothing but a huge waste of tax dollars, because they’ll have to close when they can’t afford to stay open. It’s not a pro or anti charter position, it’s a common sense position and being a responsible steward of tax dollars. Thanks SAB, for not caving in to special interests.

With so many failing schools in St. Louis, I think more choices would be better for everyone; not restricting better options. Why should we give into mediocrity and keep out the potential of excellence?
If there is no need or demand for a school there, then the children will not attend the school. People opening the charter schools will not open one where there if not a need. By lifting this restriction, it does not mean every empty school will now become a charter school; it simply means there is that option. I know so many parents who would LOVE that choice for their kids.
Why should the SAB have the power to tell us, the taxpayers, what these buildings can and cannot be used for. We paid for them, and I would prefer schools in them.
What happens in bad neighborhoods when the buildings sit empty and slowly become venues for drug deals? What happens to the children in very bad areas who once attended those schools and now have to walk through rival gang territories?
The pain will be passed around?! What about the pain now of the parents who are watching their kids transfer to bad areas or watching them attend failing schools…or the pain of the economy?!
Lifting the ban is a common sense position!

Ms. Wessling,

The people of this city are not so stupid or helpless that they need the school boards to protect them. As “responsible steward[s] of tax dollars”, the elected and/or appointed school boards’ job is to make sure those empty buildings are quickly sold to the highest bidder so the district can channel that money into the buildings that will remain open. Let the city officials worry about making sure that the next occupant makes them safe for their new use. And if a charter or private school buys one of those buildings, let THEM worry about whether they will succeed instead of denying them the opportunity to do the job that the school district currently isn’t getting done.

While you are correct that “there are only so many children in the city to educate,” the city’s population has leveled off in the past decade, while the number of kids attending SLPS has continued to plummet. There are still plenty of school-age children out there - but many of their parents would rather not send their kids to the public schools. When my wife and I purchased our house, the first thing our neighbors told us was that no one sent their kids to the city schools if they could help it. The school district would be far better served to expend its energy in improving its product and giving parents incentive to CHOOSE SLPS, rather than trying to cut them off from alternatives.

Well, Pelagius, we just had an election and three people were elected to the School Board who all support the deed restrictions. The “people of this city” spoke and that’s what they told us.

I hope you can understand that I cannot take the comments of people who post on blogs anonymously as being more relevant or indicative of city resident feelings on this issue than the comments I get from constituents who talk to me and email me directly without hiding their identity. And those people don’t want the deed restriction lifted. If any of my constituents would like to contact me with an opposing view I would be more than happy to hear from them.

Ms. Wessling:

Since when are the parents and children of the community “special interests?” The best thing about this video is that it began by going out into a northside community to get reaction to the policy.

The only people I have heard support these restrictions are the education establishment types. The people with vacant buildings next to their homes, who’s children are now going great distances to get to school, are the ones pleading for these restrictions to be lifted.

Parents and children are not ”special interests.” I am a parent of children in SLPS. And other parents of children in SLPS tell me they approve of my position. The information given to those parents in this video was obviously framed to get that reaction, I can see by watching it. I don’t like seeing my constituents exploited that way. The Elected Board supports many smaller neighborhood schools. We can’t do that if all the buildings get sold. And isn’t that what these parents want too?

Ms. Wessling,

I apologize for not completing the thought in the first sentence of my prior comment. It should have read as follows:

“The people of this city are not so stupid or helpless that they need the school boards to protect them from the menace of educational alternatives.”

To the best of my knowledge, none of the elected board’s members (including the newly-elected Ms. Rogers) campaigned on the issue of deed restrictions. An elected official can hardly claim a mandate on a issue that either didn’t arise until after they assumed office or on which they did not campaign.

That having been said, it is entirely possible that the only feedback you are hearing from those you are certain are your constituents is in support of the deed restrictions. Perhaps you could encourage those confirmed constituents to join in the debate in these comments so we can all get a better understanding of their reasoning.

Thank you Pelagius, I am actually in the process of encouraging those voices to be heard. I just left a meeting at my child’s school where a parent (white, southside, solidly middle-class, college educated) asked me to “thank Mr. Sinquefield for taking money away from our kids for his stupid lawsuit.” I am going to do what I can to deliver that message to him.

Any of the candidates while campaigning would have stated their position, if asked. If this issue is of as much concern to the city residents as outstate legislators would have us believe, it seems someone would have asked them and made it a campaign issue.

Three members were elected last week, not just Ms. Rogers. Chad Beffa and Emile Bradford-Taylor were also just elected. If that wasn’t clear, I hope you will contact the Board of Elections so they can make the ballot language clearer.

As I have said elsewhere, I agree with you on the latest Sinquefield lawsuit. To be sure, I do think that the deed restrictions are unconstitutional, but the case would have to be brought by one of the groups actually interested in using one of those buildings for a charter or private school. Mr. Sinquefield and Mr. Schock have no standing to bring the suit. It’s doomed to failure and yes, it will cause the school district to needlessly spend money on lawyers.