State unveils plan to build 53 schools in poor communities

[Star Ledger]

State unveils plan to build 53 schools in poor communities
by Dunstan McNichol/The Star-Ledger
Tuesday July 08, 2008, 10:36 AM

Fifty-three schools will be constructed in New Jersey's poorest communities with $2.9 billion in funding lawmakers approved last week.

Under a proposal submitted to the Schools Development Authority today, Newark's West Side High School and a long-delayed high school in Phillipsburg are among the projects proposed for funding.

Jim Pathe/The Star-LedgerIn April 2007, Phillipsburg High School was home to a record number of modular classrooms.

"Only projects that can be completed in the next five years were considered," said state Education Commissioner Lucille Davy.

The projects are the first to be proposed for funding since the construction program depleted its original $8.6 billion in funding three years ago.

Except for Neptune, the list includes at least one school for each of the 31 communities covered by the state Supreme Court's Abbott v. Burke school funding orders, the orders that prompted creation of the school program in 2000.

Other schools proposed for funding include Woodland Elementary School in Plainfield, a magnet high school in Elizabeth and two elementary schools in Paterson.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/07/state_plans_to_build_53_school.html

[Guest]

Lawmakers OK borrowing $3.9B for school construction
by Robert Schwaneberg/The Star-Ledger
Monday June 23, 2008, 6:32 PM

The Senate today gave final legislative approval to a bill authorizing the state to borrow $3.9 billion for school construction without approval by the voters. The bill (A2873) goes to Gov. Jon Corzine, who implored lawmakers last week to pass it.

The Senate vote of 21-18 came almost two hours after the Assembly passed the bill by a vote of 42-36. Republicans in both houses took a party position against the bill, arguing voters should determine whether the state goes further into debt.

Earlier Assemblyman Richard Merkt (R-Morris) noted that the Legislature planned to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment that would require voter approval for all future state borrowing. He said it is "somewhat hypocritical" to support that proposal while bypassing voter approval for $3.9 billion of new debt.

"The cost to the people of New Jersey is more on the order of $7 billion when you get done with interest payments,'' Merkt said. "There is no good excuse not to send it to the people." . . .

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/assembly_approves_borrowing_39.html

[Guest]

Interesting that Camden is going to get over 170 million to build 3 schools. How much should Cranbury get if we build COAH homes and have to build a new school (since we will not be able to afford all this building)?

[HistoricallyFiscal]

why dont the democrats solve more pressing matters like HEALTH CARE FOR ALL IN NJ, instead of these selective building projects?? COAH a building project too. They are forcing me to vote Republican at the state level.

[Guest]

Not just new schools
but new sewage systems
more roads, sanitation pickup, police, fire, etc.
all town infrastructure will be doubled at least. That is additional taxes ontop of building the COAH homes, and if its builders remedy - then 5 times more building since that's the ratio.
Its a no loose situation for these builders in NJ, right?

So in a bad economy let's just get some NJ politicians to pass a law that forces the NJ taxpayer to build. And will make developers rich. And let's rush it through both NJ houses and not give the NJ voter any say in this either.

Can't we rezone rest of Cranbury as protected farmland and just be done with it once and for all?

[Guest]

YEA - use one bad law to fight the other bad laws in NJ. Eminent domain every remaining parcel of land in Cranbury and zone it farmland and slowly, very slowly rezone it back. So Cranbury can still grow slowly at it natural pace, but I dont think that's legal. Not that COAH 3rd round is fair or lawful either.

Hey answered my own post, neither is lawful but at lest we CAN zone things around here can't we?

[publius]

I'm tellin' ya. It's the political-industrial complex which is behind all of this. By industrial I mean, builders, developers and various and sundry industries tied to real estate interests. Construction companies and state politicos are in bed together and having an orgy at OUR expense. Why can't WE get invited to this party?