Jump to content

Nederland Bond PASSES!!!!


Bigdog

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Coach85 said:

I’ll be shocked if this bond passes with the athletic upgrades in. Nederland needs new schools bad and they haven’t passed a bond yet for new schools with upgrades to the athletic facilities.

Schools are on the bond.  New High School and upgrades to the rest of the schools including security and technology.  The stadium will be a separate proposition from the schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All sports and extra-cirriculars that use the high school stadium.  Football, boys and girls soccer, the band will have a dry place to march after our monsoons, same with Westernaires, twirlers, flags...etc.  The boys and girls basketball gyms have had money put in them, along with the baseball and softball fields.  In a previous bond, NISD built a first class Performing Arts Center at the high school for choir/band/theater... it's time to upgrade the football stadium if any money is going to be spent above the schools that are priority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fox said:

just football upgrades or all sports?  

The upgrades are to the stadium, but as previously stated,  other groups will benefit as well.  I am guessing a new high school will include new gyms and facilities for locker rooms, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full list of the bond proposal:

This is the hidden content, please

After extensive discussion at the February CAC meeting, the committee made the following recommendations to Nederland ISD which was accepted at this week's meeting.

New High School ($82.7M)
Includes but not limited to the following:
     *Built at same location
     *Focus on advancing CTE program needs
     *Designed learning environment based upon program 
      capacity and modern teaching practices to strengthen 
      and expand the academic experience
     *Performing Arts Center will remain in current location

Elementary School New Learning Areas and Improvements ($49.1M)
Includes but not limited to the following:
     *Additional classrooms including flexible learning & 
      teaching spaces
     *5th grade expansion
     *Improved drop off/pick-up and parking
     *Additional & improved restrooms
     *Expanded and improved cafeteria & gym
     *Additional program space for occupational and 
      physical therapy

Middle School Improvements ($11.1M)
Includes but not limited to the following:
     *Improved classrooms including flexible learning & 
      teaching spaces
     *Improved drop off/pick-up and parking
     *Additional & improved restrooms

Technology Initiative ($4.8M)
Includes but not limited to the following:
     *Fiber optics
     *Infrastructure
     *1:1 devices

Safety & Security ($3.4M)
Includes but not limited to the following:
     *District wide improvements limiting physical access to 
      campuses
     *Additional cameras
     *Safety vestibules

Stadium Upgrades ($4.5M) - SEPARATE PROPOSITION
Includes but not limited to the following:
     *Field turf
     *Improved restrooms
     *Improved press-box 
     *Modified seating
     *ADA required updates

Should bond money become available for improvements other than the listed projects, the committee would like the district to consider additional improvements to Bulldog Stadium. To include: field house/dressing rooms and concession stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NDOMAKONG said:

All sports and extra-cirriculars that use the high school stadium.  Football, boys and girls soccer, the band will have a dry place to march after our monsoons, same with Westernaires, twirlers, flags...etc.  The boys and girls basketball gyms have had money put in them, along with the baseball and softball fields.  In a previous bond, NISD built a first class Performing Arts Center at the high school for choir/band/theater... it's time to upgrade the football stadium if any money is going to be spent above the schools that are 

Not all fields you mentioned have had any upgrades at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, 3n2 said:

Not all fields you mentioned have had any upgrades at all.

Yes, the softball fields have had upgrades.   There have been additional stands, a scoreboard and batting cages put in.   I agree that it needs some additional work too. It definitely looks different from when i was there because there wasn't a field there at all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WOSgrad said:

 

WO-C SISD tried that a few years ago.  School bond passed....stadium bond failed.

 

There is that danger.  But the board didn’t want to possibly jeopardize the school upgrades if people were opposed to stadium upgrades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, WOSgrad said:

So if Nederland follows WO-S' lead. Y'all will have a turf field in about 4-5 years.

I mean I can't blame them, it is pretty much a consensus that they schools need upgrading (rebuilding).

But seeing how this workout in Orange, I don't see it working.

Part of the reason why they are going about this route is 2 different reasons... reason number 1 when they have had the stadium upgrades and such in with a big bond certain people in community have tried and poison peoples minds by saying this is a “athletic bond” blah blah blah and scare tactic people on not letting the bonds pass. Reason number 2 they are focusing on what the feed back they were getting during the survey, board meetings, and etc everyone said schools are important they come first let’s upgrade and update schools first before we do athletics.... I wish they would have left it in with the fear of stadium bond not passing, but I believe the right people are on the board now and the community wants this as well, this bond is a lot more organized then years past... I mean thirds time a charm right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with their approach. If the education bond passes and the athletic bond fails it will allow the district to focus more local funds on athletics because their education needs are getting met. It would be disappointing to have a community pass 150 million or so and reject 4.5 simply because its athletic related.That's a community that really has a problem with athletics.

However, they run the risk of a failed education bond and a passed athletic bond because it will have little to no affect on the tax payer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...