I really do hate being so contrarian, but I have to say this. Yesterday’s N&R front-pager comparing school construction costs in Guilford and Forsyth counties was a lame attempt to show how Guilford’s costs really aren’t that insane.
The article focuses on two schools in particular —- Guilford’s Northern High School and Forsyth’s Reagan High School:
To get a better handle on the issue of cost and whether Guilford is overspending, the News & Record took a detailed look at the design, construction and cost of Northern and a high school in Forsyth County that it is frequently compared to: Ronald Reagan High.
Reagan, which opened two years ago in Pfafftown, cost $18.5 million to build, not including the price of land, furniture and equipment or design fees.
Match that against Northern’s $42 million and the answer would seem obvious.
Throw in the per-square-foot cost — $96.76 for Reagan versus the expected $149.64 per square foot on Northern — and the evidence of overspending seemingly becomes convincing.
Except it doesn’t.
OK, but what’s the point? The article unfortunately makes no attempt to explain why Guilford residents, two short years later, will be asked to swalllow $60 million for a new Eastern High School and $80-plus million for a new airport-area high school. These huge increases in costs over such short periods of time make taxpayers to wonder where it all ends.
With all this in mind, I think it’s important to take note of the mindset behnd the N&R’s reporting of school construction costs, exemplified by this post from its education blog:
During a closed session, I got into a conversation with a few folks about the district’s apparent willingness to drop what amounts to some small countries’ GDP on a high school. It wasn’t the first time I realized that people apply a double-standard to tax-funded versus privately-funded construction and the debate about construction costs often get obscured by hyperbole.
For example, one person made a comment to the effect that students don’t need a fancy school to learn in, that they could learn under a tree. But who does that and what parents in America would tolerate that?
I pointed out that most families of four in America could live in a two-bedroom apartment, but many don’t. They want to live in a three to four-bedroom house and if they can afford it (and even some who don’t) do it. True, governments need to be accountable with taxpayer dollars, but are homeowners being accountable to their neighbors or the general public when they buy or build larger homes, causing property taxes to go up? In some cities, lower-income residents actually have to sell their home because they can’t afford the property taxes. Or what about the next buyer who inherits the inflated cost of the home because of appreciation?
I’ve also frequently heard people say that businesses are more efficient with how they spend money because they have to look at the bottom line (yet these same people don’t have to sit in front of a public firing squad at each board meeting). Yet, folks will complain when Wal-Mart or Office Depot puts up a concrete box down the road from where they live instead of adding archways, brick facades, streetscapes and other features that would make the store look more welcoming to the public. So which way is it? Do we want cheap concrete boxes for stores and schools or do we want craftsmanship?
Meanwhile, it appears as though the N&O doesn’t think school construction costs in Wake County are out of line. The Locker Room’s Terry Stoops questions the definition of “out of line.”
