By Kathy Bence
Transparency, which goes a long way to ease concerns in a community, was lacking in planning for the Crimson High School-Middle School complex to be built in Washington Fields.
Consider Crimson High’s main building. The site is surrounded on the east and south sides by undeveloped land, on the north by 4200 South and on the west by St. George homes on 3430 East. The school district has chosen to place a three-story high school building — the largest structure on the campus — adjacent to the existing homes on 3430 East with a minimally required buffer.
The building’s placement is unique because a structure that is the focus of campus life is usually located in the center of campus rather than on the edge. Throughout school district campuses, the main buildings are situated away from existing homes and businesses. The reasoning behind this building’s placement has not been disclosed, but if it has to be built on the edge of campus, why could it not be placed next to the undeveloped land on the other side of campus? Should future houses be built next to this large structure, those new homebuyers will have the advantage of prior knowledge.
Without an explanation for the building’s placement, residents must furnish their own answers. Perhaps a developer agreed to purchase this undeveloped land adjacent to the school along with the district’s property to the east. Perhaps a better price was guaranteed if the district agreed not to have this structure overlooking the developer’s purchase. Perhaps the developer is a friend or relative entitled to better treatment than the residents on 3430 East. Without clarification, there can only be speculations.
Another concern is the school complex’s change of location. When residents discovered the change and questioned why the original property had been removed from consideration, the school board gave soil issues as one of the primary reasons. However, despite that issue, the new location was purchased and building plans were finalized without a geotechnical soils test. They disqualified one piece of property because of soil conditions and purchased another piece with potentially the same problem.
When a local contractor asked a month ago if he could request a copy of the soils report for the original site — the only soils report the district had completed — a school board member responded in a public meeting, “You don’t have enough skin in the game.”
In other words, from this board member’s point of view, the contractor is not affected enough by this project to request the report. Yet before the location changed, this contractor would have built two homes; therefore, he is losing a significant amount of income. By most standards, he actually does have a lot of skin in the game, but the bigger concern is a school district that feels it has no obligation to be transparent with taxpayers.
Whether or not the law requires the district to inform residents of the construction of a school in their neighborhood, to explain the placement of the buildings, to release a soils report, or perform a traffic study for the safety of the community and students, doing these things would demonstrate a desire to be open and to assure taxpayers they are funding a school district with the community’s best interests at heart.
Kathy Bence is a resident of South Pasadena, California and a St. George property owner.
RELATED ARTICLES
State Auditor reviews Washington County School District’s dubious credit card use
Arrowhead Elementary School student with Mohawk dismissed from class
This should be public information and can be obtained by submitting a GRAMA (government record request).