The Number One Enemy of New Richmond
By
Have you ever wondered what the number one enemy of the City of New Richmond might be? What is the one factor that will bring the City Beautiful to its knees? Some might guess:
· The ninety three million dollar school referendum. With no real growth projected in the intermediate future (except for Hazel and her blind followers) the referendum created excessive classroom space that won’t be filled in the next hundred years
· Potentially the highest property taxes in the greater metropolitan area
· The lack of industry and jobs
· The burst of the housing balloon and the 600+ unsold homes on the NR market
· The devaluation of property values
· The unreasonable access fees to initiate construction projects
· The lack of excellent public library space
· The sub-standard city wide recreational facilities
· The fact that most residents don’t shop in New Richmond, killing local small businesses
· The arrogance of some school board members, school administrators and public officials
If you had guessed anyone of these factors alone, you would have been wrong. Sure, they are all contributing factors. The number one enemy of the City of New Richmond is something that is out of the control of any person involved with shaping New Richmond’s future. The number one enemy to city growth and economic stability is the new paradigm of spiraling gasoline prices. Folks, gasoline prices are not coming down, and you will probably see $10.00 – $15.00 a gallon prices in your life time.
For decades many people moved out of the inner hub of the Twin Cities to save money. With cheap commuting gasoline prices, New Richmond and much of St. Croix County had a lot of appeal. The rural, small town life, affordable housing and taxes, low crime, and cheap gasoline.
It’s the non-ending increase to the price of fuel and commuting, not just the high property taxes alone, that will choke the future of any growth in New Richmond. A recent N.P.R report shows the close link between driving costs and the housing market. The father one lives away from where the jobs are, the more significant the home prices have fallen, and will continue to fall. At the current $100 a week commuting costs, intellectually advantaged people will not move from the Twin Cities to New Richmond to save money. Those days are gone forever.
Rising fuel costs are to blame for everything from soaring utility costs to lower retail sales, higher food costs, higher airline tickets. And now experts predict that high gas prices will reshape U.S. cities.
Gasoline prices have always fluctuated up and down in the mind of American citizens, albeit giving way to a slow but steady rise in cost per gallon over the years. But once the realization soaks into the American consciousness that high-cost gas is here to stay, those high commute prices will pull more homeowners – even young families – to live in central cities and create a push for more public transportation. We are not going to see the historic pattern of building single-family detached homes farther and father into the desert. New Richmond will no longer be a city of destination. Commuters are not going to line up at the city gates waiting for the new schools to open. The new schools will be seen as a liability rather than as an asset because of their financial effect on a dwindling tax- payer base.
For years city officials have been asking the wrong questions. When gasoline was cheap and commuting costs reasonable, there were many from the Twin Cities moving to rural Wisconsin to build single-family residences. The question that the city administrators asked themselves is “How can we slow down growth?” The logical answer to this near -sited question was to increase the access fees and red tape involved in developing property. Then when the price of gasoline started its journey up to the four dollar a gallon figure, and nobody from the Twin Cities considered New Richmond as an affordable option to commute from, these same city administrators asked themselves the question: “How can we speed up the growth rate?” I’ve got an idea, “let’s drop the cost of access fees and red tape,” as if that were going to make a difference.
These questions are not the right questions to ask. The right question to ask is this:
In five years from now when the price of gasoline is $7.50 a gallon, and commuting costs to the jobs in the Twin Cities is $8,000 a year, and the district property taxes are the highest in the greater Metropolitan area due to the $93,000,000 referendum, and the school population is decreasing, and the space in Paperjack Elementary is not longer needed…with all these factors in mind…“how do we position ourselves – what can we do in the next five years to reverse what appears to be inevitable crippling of a once growing community? The question is not how can we maintain our small town ambiance in times of explosive growth. Explosive growth is dead and will never return. The time for wearing the smiling face and promoting New Richmond as something that it isn’t is over. There are tough times facing the city, and nobody seems to have a clue. We’re just waiting for the new school buildings to open, the new bridge to be in place. We’ve convinced ourselves into believing that once the buildings are built and the bridge is open, 600 new housing starts will happen every year. New Richmond will once again return to its glory of the early 2000’s.
Where’s the leadership in New Richmond? Who is bringing the right questions to the table, whether it is the city council or school board? Is anybody out there? Anyone?
In the mean time New Richmond’s inability to address reality is posing harm to those who call New Richmond home.
No related posts.
Latest rumor is 240 children enrolled in kindergarden for next year. In Jan. 08, the count for preK was 193. So they expect 47 new kids?
In Jan. 08, the total K-12 enrollment was 2694 and are predicting Sept. enrollment of 3000. Another 306 children, when there were only a gain of 2 from the last year. When everyone is moving out, homes are for sale, two pages of foreclosures. IS ANYBODY OUT THERE? Like can anyone speak the truth?
The east property line of new school site had about 6 to 10 rows of 12-15 ft pine trees. A beautiful buffer between property lines. One day they were gone, cut right off. Not made into logs, they were ground up into mulch and hauled off in trucks. A logger would have paid money to the school district for the logs, if they needed to be cut down, it would have made them money, instead, they paid to have them cut down. IS ANYONE OUT THERE?
The people in Hallewood estate had a great view, they told them they would be looking over the school. Now they are looking at a brick wall of the “Hillside” school. They built the school “up”. What?? Was that a lie?
They tell us how much money they are saving, but that will give them a good excuse to build the much needed football stadium. We will be so happy about how thrifty they are. We are like SHEEP led to the slaughter house, happy as can be.
When the “sheep” voted “yes” for the school, they voted “no” for the extra teachers and for the maintenance of buildings. IS ANYONE OUT THERE?
I am sure, they will wait till the new mega high school is in building stages, like a point of no return, when they will have to have a new referendum to pay for any new teachers, several coach’s and maintenance. A no brainer, pay more or have big empty schools with no-one in them. All the money they are saving now, could possibly pay for that, or a choice of using that savings for that or more play grounds. What do you think?
A new referendum “Now that we have the schools built, we have to pay some of the people and maintain them ( Yes or No) Your taxes will just go up a llittle bit more, I will explain in detail and so complicated you will not understand, just vote yes, since we have them all built now,” This will be a quote from the school administration.
The sheep will say “As long as we have gone this far—————I will vote yes” The overburdened tax payer will hopefully say “no” and let them explain this fatal error in their judgement. When the “yes” for new school won, it should have been evident that they would have voted yes for the staff, maintenance, etc.. It kind of goes together. When one failed, both should have failed.
Will new referendum be fair and let it be known before the building has gone too far? Or will they wait till we have no choice?
Guess we should demand a referendum right now. To be fair, they should have had it before any new construction begins. Except, they have never been fair or given the true statics. When the truth comes out, we will all pay for it. Some of the instigators of this new school and who was also on the planning committee were not even in this school district. They did not worry about high taxes, they just wanted a new high school. ATS&R, architects from Minnesota also did some planning on how to get the new school. They were paid over $100,000 in fees, even before the school was voted for, in help to propagate a “yes” vote. They organized and led the meetings for the public to attend.
The media and the school administration has spread untrue propaganda for the new schools. It is a realization now. We have already seen our tax bill, and it will go up even more. Many who have voted yes, have already lost their homes, and many more are trying to move out. There are houses on every block for sale, and no buyers. Housing is actually up, for apartments. Have to have somewhere to live, I guess.
Truth is, you want your kids to go to a brand new school, join in many sport events that will take you not only in Wisconsin, but Minnesota and pay high taxes?? Then come to New Richmond. We have a front porch community, you will love it here. Can have a garage sale every year, sell your overload China junk from Walmart and meet your neighbors. You can also join the “Front porch group” by Patrick Overton. Not sure who is paying him. Also Jerry Brown, from Stillwater, who is promoting Overton, and has an office in the New Richmond City building. Could that be the leadership in New Richmond. You have questions? They have answers. Like I said, ask, and you will recieve an answer so detailed, you will have figured out Einstiens Therory quicker.
The people who have figured this out have already moved. The suckers are the ones who have roots here, lived here most of their life, have friends and family here and do not want to move. They will pay and pay and pay. They are the minority who voted “NO” They are the ones who call New Richmond “home”. They will take the brunt of “wantabe front porch people”.
You are asking a lot out of the City Council and School board. I have watched these two organizations work and it’s a lot of hard work, research and digging for the true facts. These people don’t want to do it.
We have 27 or so St. Croix county board members and Ramsey county about seven. Yes the are full time, but they have the time to look into things.
Look at the appointments to the U of M regents. They can’t control their budget which goes up twice the rate of inflation. But it’s for the kids and a superior education. Anybody check the results.
During the first dog and pony show on the referendum at Ready Randy’s, I asked how the general budget would effect the mil rate. Well, they said, that’s just a fact of life. The teacher’s contract has not been settled and is in arbitration. The union wants a bit of the $400,000 saving by getting rid of the WEAC health plan. The new contract should have been in place by July 2007. After it’s over the union will end up with 4.2 to 4.7 percent increase. Put that on top of the debt repayments and we’ll have a 12 percent/year increase in school taxes. We need warm bodies.
Has anybody asked if we have overbuilt houses?
Why don’t you submit your post for NRN publication #1? I have not been to a 20/20 meeting, but early on, Pat Overton said that one of the rules of discussion would be not to criticize. I would rather see shouting and screaming at a discussion. It has a tendency to keep the idiots with no in-depth research from opening their mouths with cockamamie ideas.
I have not studied your ideas thoroughly, but on the surface I agree with all of it. I would submit it if you want to remain anonymous.
Z Man,
Feel free to submit all of it, or any part of it, edited any way you like. I am not in a position to do so and it would be interesting to see if there would be any response.
In response to Number 2, I could be wrong but I really don’t think the school board is in a position to go back to a referendum and ask for more money for operational budgets. It was defeated in April of 06; end of story.
If there is a referendum for operational money it could be pretty ugly. The Board and administration would come under a scrutiny they have never seen before. WAG Moberg would need to defend why he planted a 3-5-7 growth seed in the head of those 100 or so devoted Vote Yeser’s. With his sincere but misdirected 3-5-7 claim, he solidified a base that was intent on misrepresenting the facts during the second referendum. The board would also need to defend their 8% 8% 8% valuation increases. They would also need to defend their personal enrollment projections that are falling way short. They would also need to defend those cost savings in construction; where they went and how much of that is going to be a true savings for taxpayers. Yes, if they open up a referendum, they will open up a can of worms that will expose them for who they really are. If they are wise they will let a sleeping dog lie. It would be interesting to start developing a list of all the things that these people did to misrepresent the truth. They certainly were clueless in having any understanding where the economy was going; or where the price of gasoline was going. “Build it, and they will come.” It might work for baseball fields, but it doesn’t work for $93 million dollar referendums.
Always enjoy Ziller’s contortions. He was as vocal a proponent of the $93 referendem as anyone in town. Yet at the same time he was also calling Congressman Kind and any other Democrat a liberal spender. He appears to express remorse now about what he supported, even though he was repeatedly advised at the time his arguments were hollow and would not prove true. This blog documented the phony premise which the referendum was proposed.
TVOR – how will the District open an entire new school – without coming back to the voters seeking additional operating funds? Do you really believe they will be concerned about revisiting some of these issues? The operating budget has already risen from $21 million a couple of years ago to more than $25 million – with basically the same amount of kids. Aren’t there limits on how much the operating budget can increase without asking voters for approval?
Jack,
You pose a challenging question. If I remember correctly the operational budget increase in April of 06 was for $500,000 a year for five years, then it would lapse. After reading what Bob has written I am assuming that by ditching the WEAC health plan and subscribing to a health provider at a lesser cost the district will save $400,000 a year, which could be applied toward other operational costs? That would go a long way to hiring a third elementary principal, administrative support staff, custodians and utilities for the new building. It sounds like the teachers want a good share of the $400,000 though, and if they are successful through arbitration, the source of additional operational dollars should be a major concern. I can’t believe however (as previously stated), that the Board would desire to go to another referendum that would expose all the errors to a public community wide forum. As also mentioned earlier, I could be completely wrong.
#4, I did my analysis on student enrollment projections done by Reinhardt and thought they were reasonable based on past trends. Who would have thought it would drop from double digit increases, to near zero.
The only enrollment pressure I saw was for an elementary school and asked for it to be built to the north of West elementary school. I further asked that it be built for year-around use.
A group of school administrator visited such a school in Woodbury. It was Valley Crossing Community School. We just hired one of their vice-principals from that school. Ironic.
As for building a new school behind East, the administration spent $10,000 drilling holes to check out the soil. ATS&R said it would cost too much money to remove the silty soil and replace it with good earth for a school foundation.
I asked, would the new school be built for year-around and was told no, that was putting the cart before the horse by Veilleux (whatever that means). I didn’t hear anybody speak out about the building or enrollment collapse. Where were you Masked Jack? You could have come to the meeting with a ski mask.
I wanted only an elementary school and then wait a year or two before building any other school. When I saw the picture of the high school Taj Mahal in the NRN, I thought that would be enough to sink the referendum. I was stunned when it passed.
Then Tim O’Brien asked for a standing ovation for the hard work the board did. Ninety-nine percent clapped.
My impression was that the administration and friends wanted nothing to do with a year-around school nor building on existing school property. They wanted it all. But that’s water under the bridge. It’s like buying a stock and the next day the company files chapter 11. Sucks don’t it?
I think TVOR’s post would bring some reality to New Richmond. I had to edit it down. Newspapers don’t like long letters.
Ten years ago, people complained that young families with children weren’t moving to New Richmond. This was seen as a problem and the solution was to build new schools. What people ignored, however, was that seniors WERE moving to New Richmond. As far as I can tell, this influx happened without any conscious planning on the city’s part.
Seniors moved to New Richmond primarily because they could find affordable housing. New Richmond has many amenities they need–good hospital, nursing homes, county offices, etc. But one of the big draws was the relatively low tax rates. Seniors on fixed or slightly increasing budgets were looking for a place where their dollars would go farther. They looked for a place in which the elected officials would act in a predictable (no surprises) fashion. New Richmond seemed that place.
What a difference a few years make! Now the only predictability is ever increasing taxes. We all know that our real estate taxes will go up over the next four years and that the debt service will continue for twenty years. For some, that is a life sentence of taxes. Seniors know they need to pay taxes for good schools, but where is it written that they should underwrite classrooms that won’t even be needed for many years to come?
Because of the magnitude of the school board’s action, the City Council’s spendthrift ways have largely gone unnoticed. But the City Council shows signs of trying to best the school district in fiscal irresponsibility.
A good example is the new library. Rather than create a study group representative of city residents, they call a meeting of self-selected citizens to “study” the issue. This group is filling up with the same type of people who formed the “Vote Yes’ committee. It includes some township residents who are outside the City and will never pay taxes towards the construction. Bob Ziller described the school district’s planning committee as acting as if they had just won the lottery. We are now witnessing something similar in the library planning committee.
Whether young families with children will move to New Richmond is unclear. But the unsung success of bringing seniors to New Richmond is coming to an end. The very forces that attracted seniors to New Richmond now repel them. The City could not have stopped the flow of new senior residents more effectively if it had actually planned to do so.
Too bad the seniors had no voice in the school district’s long range planning committee.
Good comments #7, however, the School District LRPC did have a senior representative on it – Bob Ziller.
And I voted against the long range planning report and issued an alternate plan and presented it to the school board.
But then you voted for the $93 million tax raising plan and urged all others to do so.
Sounds a bit like John Kerry, – “I voted against the $93 million plan before I voted for it.”
Jack, sounds like you are having fun with Bob Z. Know it or not, he is on our side. You do not know for sure he voted for the school fiascal. He knows the numbers, the statistics and knows it was a farce. I would say “lay off”.
Did you read his minority report from the long range planning committee? It was not only energetic but most informative.
The long range planning committee was a farce to begin with. They hand picked the people who would be the “sheep” with a few wolves. They picked the subject, the program, with no way to in put any ideas of anyone, but their own. After it was over, Bob Z. wrote a brilliant minority report. It was on the schools web site for a while, but not many read it. It was never published and ignored. If you would have read it you would know that Bob Z. was not for all that they planned, lied and did.