Bursting the bubble theory

[rew]

Arch, I'm asking worst case scenario ITRP and the growth goes bust, what does the 272M cost the avg household if EAV stays flat and no other households are added???

[gumby]

archwinsome said:

gumby said:

So, we should vote no based on the conjecture that the job market may go away sometime in the next 20 years?

Please show me where I said you or anyone else should vote NO.

Show me anywhere where I said you were telling me to vote no.

[Arch]

rew said:

Arch, I'm asking worst case scenario ITRP and the growth goes bust, what does the 272M cost the avg household if EAV stays flat and no other households are added???

Whether it passes or not, using a 4.25% rate for 272 million dollars:

A 12 vs 20 yr refi adds 56 million dollars in additional payments the taxpayers need to make if the debt is strung out over 20 years instead of 12.

Not sure why you're framing it in the context of ITRP, since it was said that the refinance was going to happen anyway, right?

So, take that 56 million and spread it over the taxpayers that it needs spreading over (I don't have those specific numbers). I'm not looking at this as a "What's it cost me?", I look at this as a "What does this cost everyone?". Hard to believe, not looking out for my own wallet in the short term on this... Kind of breaks the mold of the typical NO voter people keep trying to frame me into.

[Arch]

gumby said:

archwinsome said:

Please show me where I said you or anyone else should vote NO.

Show me anywhere where I said you were telling me to vote no.

Ah yes.. Doublespeak... if I frame it in the form of a question, then I can deny actually having said it.

"So we should vote no..." assumes I am telling you why you should vote no, which I didn't say anyone should vote NO for my or anyone else's reasons.

[rew]

Arch, IIRC, the refi can only happen with a vote...that is why it is on the ballot??? That's why I frame it ITRP....

But I think it does matter what it costs ME, because the SD is saying the avg taxpayer will save $$ with the refi, but that includes addt'l homes coming and I'm asking what does it cost me worst case scenario - non new growth?? Because that's how I can make a cost/benefit analysis... ie.

"ITRP and the area goes bust we have a refi that is going to cost the avg taxpayer...$180/yr additional taxes over 20 yrs."

Then I can decide if that $$$ is worth the other risk...the growth comes and my kids go to SS/overcrowded etc. I think the number per household is important.

[wvhsparent]

archwinsome said:

rew said:

Arch, do you have any numbers??? What will the current refi cost an avg taxpayer, ITRP and the addt'l growth doesn't come and we have three HS with 2500 enrollment each, but EAVs stay flat or fall, because the economy is a bust??

For the separate (but tied into to cost justify) refinance 12 to 20, a full writeup was posted on 'the other board'.

Basically, you can take any financing calculator and do the math:

272 million existing debt at 6.25-6.5%ish, refinance it for 12 years at 4.25%, then refinance it for 20 years at 4.25% (The numbers being used at the time).

Add up your total payments under both scenerios and your 12 year refinance will be approximately 64 million less (give or take a few million bepending on the actual %points used) in total payments levied against the district taxpayers.

That is also assuming that all taxpayers are going to stay fro the entire 20 Yrs. I for one have probably about 10 years left...then someone else will pay the last 10 years....so I saved money.

[gumby]

archwinsome said:

gumby said:

Show me anywhere where I said you were telling me to vote no.

Ah yes.. Doublespeak... if I frame it in the form of a question, then I can deny actually having said it.

"So we should vote no..." assumes I am telling you why you should vote no, which I didn't say anyone should vote NO for my or anyone else's reasons.

Ahh, the pot calling the kettle black, considering you only spew forth negatives about the referendum.

[Arch]

gumby said:

archwinsome said:

Ah yes.. Doublespeak... if I frame it in the form of a question, then I can deny actually having said it.
"So we should vote no..." assumes I am telling you why you should vote no, which I didn't say anyone should vote NO for my or anyone else's reasons.

Ahh, the pot calling the kettle black, considering you only spew forth negatives about the referendum.

The referendum is what's on the floor to be picked apart, poked, prodded, tossed against the wall and ultimately voted upon; not an individual person.

And no, you are wrong. I don't only spew forth negatives about it.

[Arch]

rew said:

Arch, IIRC, the refi can only happen with a vote...that is why it is on the ballot??? That's why I frame it ITRP....
But I think it does matter what it costs ME, because the SD is saying the avg taxpayer will save $$ with the refi, but that includes addt'l homes coming and I'm asking what does it cost me worst case scenario - non new growth?? Because that's how I can make a cost/benefit analysis... ie.
"ITRP and the area goes bust we have a refi that is going to cost the avg taxpayer...$180/yr additional taxes over 20 yrs."

Then I can decide if that $$$ is worth the other risk...the growth comes and my kids go to SS/overcrowded etc. I think the number per household is important.

It would be a good calculation to have, unfortunately I am without the last pieces to do the final math: 1) # of taxpayers (If you want the 'average taxpayer burden) or 2) EAV breakdown of homes in groupings w/ counts so we can actually see a better 'average cost to taxpayers' and also how much of a burden based on EAV of our homes, and apply our own math with our own home value to find out the real price.

[gumby]

Oh yeah, I forgot. You are looking out for both sides. I am sure I cannot find a majority no position from you on this board.

Anyway, I am stopping commenting on this before I get whacked, since you are a favored son on here.

[fence]

archwinsome said:

rew said:

Arch, what specific job market losses do you see for our area, that would impact on us particularly or are you predicting a general economic slowdown nationwide(there are others would agree w you)...and therefore, do you believe that there's no SD in the nation that should be currently building any buildings??? Do you see impending doom for the nation's job market as a whole and would you be voting NO in any referendum across the nation??

I see a general overall downturn and national trend that will further weed out the income brackets that have driven the buildout in this area. Basically the slow elimination of the upper middle class.

The bursting of the bubble theory hinges on GROWTH.

First off, when and if the upper middle class is eliminated, Naperville and various other majority UMC suburbs will have bigger problems than what to do with their high schools.....

I'm not sure that your statement makes sense: "bursting of the bubble hinges on growth" b/c it assumes that we have identified a bubble to begin with. Look up the difference between bubble and boom from an economic perspective and let me know what you find out. You cannot evaluate economic trends and forcasting like an accountant with an HP12c.

[Arch]

fence said:

archwinsome said:

I see a general overall downturn and national trend that will further weed out the income brackets that have driven the buildout in this area. Basically the slow elimination of the upper middle class.

The bursting of the bubble theory hinges on GROWTH.

First off, when and if the upper middle class is eliminated, Naperville and various other majority UMC suburbs will have bigger problems than what to do with their high schools.....

I'm not sure that your statement makes sense: "bursting of the bubble hinges on growth" b/c it assumes that we have identified a bubble to begin with. Look up the difference between bubble and boom from an economic perspective and let me know what you find out. You cannot evaluate economic trends and forcasting like an accountant with an HP12c.

It was 'bursting of the bubble theory' not 'bursting of the bubble'. I think that is where the confusion may be.

For it to not be a bubble, growth has to continue. If grows stops, I would predict the enrollment population will go down because of the implications that brings with it.

[rew]

Isn't there a concept of stablility, the plateau...does a population have to be growing or declining?

[204parent]

archwinsome said:

fence said:

First off, when and if the upper middle class is eliminated, Naperville and various other majority UMC suburbs will have bigger problems than what to do with their high schools.....

I'm not sure that your statement makes sense: "bursting of the bubble hinges on growth" b/c it assumes that we have identified a bubble to begin with. Look up the difference between bubble and boom from an economic perspective and let me know what you find out. You cannot evaluate economic trends and forcasting like an accountant with an HP12c.

It was 'bursting of the bubble theory' not 'bursting of the bubble'. I think that is where the confusion may be.

For it to not be a bubble, growth has to continue. If grows stops, I would predict the enrollment population will go down because of the implications that brings with it.

Enrollment is sustained by turnover. There is no bubble.

[fence]

I'm saying that you don't need to show continued growth to burst the bubble, theory or otherwise, because natural slowing of growth does NOT equal decline or "burst bubble". Two very different economic pictures. You can have natural growth, or even a boom that comes to a gentle conclusion, which clearly does not show continued growth and yet refutes the bubble "theory." People need to be very careful when predicting our economy. Greenspan didn't depend on his calculator to direct the Fed.