If you voted no on the Pilot Point ISD bond because you could not absorb the increased costs, I get it.
However, the bond failing means the can has been kicked down the road, not that the need went away.
As I said in my first column encouraging voters to approve the bond, I've seen the reality and the cost of growth firsthand as an Aubrey ISD parent.
The bonds that we approved in our district have allowed us to essentially play catchup with the growth, because the growth out-paces school construction.
Short of someone donating the money for a school, bonds are the only actual method of paying for new buildings or the major renovation of old ones.
That's because the state has clamped down on the flexibility once allowed in the maintenance and operations budgets for school districts, such as lease-purchases instead of bond-election- funded construction.
In a perfect world, the best option would have been if developers had been required to pay for any schools that they advertise as amenities in their developments and if they had to pay school impact fees to proportionately help pay for new middle school and high school facilities.
Even if the state passed laws like that at this point to allow those changes, it would be too late for Pilot Point ISD to have those tools on anything already in the process of being developed.
Growth can't pay for growth.
You can't charge people who will live here in five years for the preparations that need to happen now to be ready for them, because even they don't know they'll live here in houses yet to be built.
The result will be growth hitting before the district will be able to come back to the voters for even a portion of what just failed.
When those growing pains, which will likely include portable buildings, hit Pilot Point ISD, I hope that the people who voted no take accountability for that decision instead of getting upset with the district.
Those portable buildings, by the way, will actually take away from the ability to pay for other needs, such as teacher raises or necessary supplies that directly impact student instruction, as opposed to if the bond had passed and the money to triage the bleeding from the growth would have come from the debt service side.
Also, don't be surprised if when those items come back to the ballot they cost more.
Barring a 2008-style crash, construction costs are unlikely to come down for school construction for the foreseeable future, and residential growth will likely continue.
It's also possible that the tax rate staying lower than surrounding cities could mean that if people are comparing similar houses to purchase in Pilot Point to Aubrey, Celina or other area cities, they might go for Pilot Point to save some money on the purchase.
The reasons that growth might slow down based on school ratings would likely lag behind by one to two years because of the way education reporting works.
As I said in my second column about the election, growth won't stop just because you say no.
It's disheartening to see people assume that there was no legitimate reason people supported the bond.
Not being prepared for growth causes more problems.
Taxpayers who stay in this area will pay more for the same facilities because of this vote.
I'm grateful I live in a community where the voters saw the need and supported it.
I hope next time these schools come before Pilot Point voters that they will do the same.
Abigail Bardwell is the Editor & Publisher of the Post-Signal, and she serves on both the North and East Texas Press Association and the Texas Press Association boards. She can be reached at abardwell@postsignal. com.
OPINION
