I know this is not the popular view on this site, but I liked the article. The Rodman thing makes me sad, but CV is right in a lot of what she said. The boundary meetings woke up a lot of people and scared a lot of people. Split/shifts was also a scare tactic. I am sure they would of done portables before they did split/shifts.
Just curious why you think that they would have done portables?
I'm going to paste part of an e-mail from Mark Metzger below that addresses this issue. I'm not going to e-mail the article around b/c it has a lot of people's e-mail addresses, including mine. But I feel very confident if you contacted Mark he would reiterate everything contained below.
-----
One more topic and I'll stop. I was recently called by a
man who asked why we were engaging in "this charade." When
I asked him what he meant, he told me that everyone knows
that when this is defeated, the district will just resort
to portable classrooms and additions. I'll tell all of you
the same thing I told him: there's no money to do either
of those things. Portable classrooms (including delivery
and installation) cost more than $115,000 per, assuming you
don't put restrooms in them. Restrooms add $50,000 per.
They're passable, but not anywhere near as durable as a
real building. For that reason, the state doesn't want
them used for the long haul, so they will only let you use
them for five years.
At 25 kids per classroom, 1,000 kids requires at least 40
units, but we have the middle school space need also, so
that's another 800 or so kids to accommodate. Add another
30 units. 70 portable classrooms, unplumbed, would cost at
least $8 million -- EVERY FIVE YEARS. And then there's the
question of where do we put them -- 70 requires several
acres of space. And then there is the question water
retention -- covering land means accommodating more run
off. And finally, there is the "core" issue: The core
areas of the buildings are built for 3,000 kids, not 5,000.
We need space for gyms, libraries and lunchrooms, and
there's no money for that either. Additions are even more
expensive.
And while I'm not an expert in real estate, I have to
assume that a bunch of trailers sitting around for twenty
years isn't going to do anything to help anyone's property
values.
That's why split shifts are the only alternative. Although
they will cost more in operations (you can't expect that
the teachers will work extra hours for free), that's less
expensive than any addition or portable scenario. And
let's not kid ourselves, the home buying market doesn't
like split shifts either.