As I was saying

Alexander Brown announces Mayoral bid and launches website

Last week, we started to comment on the candidacy of Alexander Brown for Mayor in the 2010 municipal elections. Unfortunately, the Trentonian's on-line glitch distracted us from the point we wanted to make.

Here is what we wanted to say at that time:

Anyone considering Mr. Brown as a viable candidate and agent for positive change in Trenton need only look at his track record of "public service" to realize he is not up to the task.

According to his website, Mr. Brown was elected to the school board twice in the 1980's. He was appointed to two consecutive terms on that body by Mayor Palmer, serving from 1990 -1996. In 1998 Mr. Brown became the Chairman of the Facilities Advisory Board: the body charged with overseeing the state funding for school construction under the Abbott Ruling. And Brown was reappointed to the Trenton School Board in 2007.

How did the schools fare during Mr. Brown's intermittent tenure on the school board?

How well did the Facilities Advisory Board handle their responsibilities under Mr. Brown? (still no resolution to the TCHS restore or build new question, the false-start of the Jefferson School project)

Yes, he's only one man. But he does not appear to be a man with any sort of workable, practical plan.

And one other thing...Mr. Brown announced his candidacy with a press release and conference on May 27 of this year. The Trentonian announced the launch of his campaign website a week ago. Yet, the Election Law Enforcement Commission website does not show any paperwork filed for his candidacy.

Mr. Brown is just another example of the kind of empty suit that hack mayors like Mr. Palmer pull out of the closet and prop up with appointments. Now Brown wants us to believe he has the goods to change Trenton for the better, but he hasn't shown us he's even capable of following the most basic of regulations for running a campaign, let alone running a city.

Alexander Brown should change his slogan from "A New Way a New Day" to "Nothing new, different day."

Circular Logic

The Facility Advisory Board (FAB) of the Trenton Board of Education (BOE) met Wednesday night to discuss and clarify the recent round of funding promised from the School Development Authority (SDA).

The Save Trenton High Coalition posted an update on the meeting that addressed the status of the Early Childhood Center, MLK/Jefferson, Roebling and Trenton Central High School:

Mr. Dwayne Mosley of the FAB gave the presentation and Mr. Alexander Brown of the Board of Education (BOE) facilitated the meeting. Representatives from the School Development Authority’s (SDA) and the State Department of Education (DOE) were not present. Approximately 15 members of the public and two BOE members were in attendance.

A significant amount of time was devoted to discussing and deciphering the SDA’s decision-making “process” as presented by the FAB and BOE, specifically as it relates to Trenton High and Roebling. Apparently, it borrows heavily from the chicken and the egg theory. It goes something like this:

1. The SDA has told the BOE they must make a decision soon on either renovating or replacing Trenton High and Roebling.
2. The SDA has refused to provide the BOE with a cost analysis or feasibility study on renovation and replacement in order to make an informed decision.
3. The only way to get the SDA to provide any information to the BOE in order to determine the best alternative for the students (and this is where we were told to suspend our disbelief) is for the BOE to vote on a resolution to “abandon” Trenton High and Roebling and build brand new schools.

That is precisely what the BOE is going to do. On Monday, July 28 the BOE is going to vote on a yet to be written resolution to “abandon” the landmark Trenton High and build a new school that serves only 1300-1500 students, all in the name of studying its renovation.
The FAB and the BOE attempted to pacify the public by explaining that this is how the SDA’s “process” works. Possibly by September the SDA will complete its analysis, and another FAB meeting will presumably be held to the present to the public the results of renovation versus new construction.

Extremely confusing, yes. But if this is truly the “process,” it is apparent that the SDA is still incapable of managing school construction projects. By forcing the BOE to scrap the existing renovation plans and start from scratch there is a very real risk that the limited amount of funding will disappear.

The meeting reportedly concluded when Mr. Brown abruptly adjourned it while one member of the public tried to ask a question.

So, if we understand this as presented, only if the Trenton Board of Education votes to abandon the idea of renovating the existing Trenton High School and build a new facility that serves fewer students will the School Development Authority provide cost estimates for new construction versus renovation.

One could conclude that the SDA would take their cue and make the financial case for not renovating the existing Trenton Central High School because the Board has to vote that way in order to get a cost estimate.

This is not just wrong, it is absurd.

If the money is designated for the city of Trenton, shouldn’t the responsible body be able to determine how it is to be spent? And shouldn’t the funding agency be mandated to provide the information needed to determine how it should be spent…

…prior to the Board of Ed making that determination?!?!?!

Not one to give our BOE a pass, but should the state really hold us hostage because it failed to rein in the waste and corruption of the SDA’s predecessor, the School Construction Corporation?

The BOE will vote on this new resolution on Monday, July 28.

Let’s hope the powers that be shake some sense into the SDA before then. Let’s get realistic and comprehensive cost comparisons for renovation vs. new construction and give the Trenton BOE the opportunity to make an informed decision.

It’s the very least that should be done for the citizens of New Jersey who are footing the bill for whatever is done here.

Meanwhile, over in the schools administration building

"Dumber than a bunch of rocks."

The Trenton School District has had another glorious week.

First, there was the story of conflicting understandings of what actually occurred at a meeting between District Officials and representatives of the Schools Development Authority (SDA). In an article by reporter Lisa Rich in the Times, (Mix-up swirls around TCHS), readers were "entertained" to learn that the fate of the city's 75 year old high school was still up in the air because the participants in the private meeting walked away with completely opposite understandings of what was said.

That's right. Trenton School Officials and State Representatives couldn't even agree on what their stated positions were with regard to the ongoing drama of trying to save Trenton's iconic central high school building.

This morning we were treated to another telling article by Ms. Rich wherein the school officials claim that the district's failing grades on the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) test are misleading. (Trenton district says AYP data misleading)

Mandated by the Federal No Child Left Behind rules, the AYP doesn't account for fact that many of Trenton's schools house elementary and middle school students. The elementary students are improving, but the middle schools are not and that is dragging down the systems scores.

But if the elementary school kids are showing Adequate Yearly Progress, why isn't that translating into the middle schools as those students are promoted through the system?

So early in the new year for so much cynicism

Tonight the battle lines will be drawn in the fight to save Trenton Central High School. On the one side, the cash strapped State of NJ who is bullying the equally cash strapped City of Trenton and it's School Board into accepting a "new school or nothing" approach to updating the facilities. On the the other side are the preservationists, alumni, and common sense advocates struggling to hold onto this beautiful old edifice.

Certainly, if Trenton's City and Schools Administration actually knew what they were doing and had treated the existing TCHS building as the treasure it is, we wouldn't be in this bind.

And if the State hadn't thrown away all of the school funding through the badly managed SCC and just gone with the plan that was prepped and ready to go three or four years ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But the fact remains, our government entities have failed us once again. And now the community is left holding the bag of crap our "leaders" have dealt us.

It is time for the State to get off of its high horse and release the money for the renovation of TCHS. Period.

And we, as a community, need to stand tall and demand our school board, Superintendent Lofton, and the City Administration meet their collective and individual responsibilities to see that this gets done and gets done right.

And along the way, school board member Lucy Guzman should reimburse the district the $300 for the on-line course her daughter is taking for free.

We're in this mess because too many people have fed too long and too well at the public trough while our facilities go wanting.

Stop. Now.

The three "R's"

Read this, do the arithmetic and write to the appropriate parties.

A group of concerned citizens has provided the following information supporting the the saving and renovation of Trenton Central High School.



What you can do . . .

• Attend the Special Board of Education meeting on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 5:30pm. Formal action may be taken at this meeting.

• Attend the Regular Board of Education meeting on Monday, January 28, 2008 at 7:00pm. Arrive between 6:00-6:15 to sign up to speak.

Both meetings are at the Board of Education building at 108 N. Clinton Avenue

• Send this information to others so that they can also speak up.

• Contact the following people and tell them we need to follow-through on renovation plans for Trenton High School now.

Trenton Board of Education. Send emails to the Board Secretary prhoden@trenton.k12.nj.us and let her know you want your comments distributed to all the Board members: Joyce M. Kersey, Diane Campbell, Alexander Brown, Lucy Guzman, Lisa Kasabach, Harry Luna, Marcellus Smith, Donald Shelton, and Nicola Tatum.

Trenton City Council. City Council passed a resolution in support of saving Trenton High School on January 17th. Let them know we need their continued support. The resolution was introduced by Councilwoman Annette Lartigue westwardcouncil@aol.com other council contact information can be found at www.trentonnj.org (Contact Information – scroll to City Council)

Mayor Douglas Palmer. We need his help with the state to ensure Trenton gets what it deserves – now that all the suburbs have their new schools mayorsoffice@trentonnj.org

State School Development Authority (SDA). They oversee the design and construction of schools. Scott Weiner, Chief Executive Officer sweiner@njsda.gov or 609-943-5955

State Department of Education (DOE). Along with the SDA, they determine which projects will get funding. Lucille Davy, Commissioner (609) 292-4450

State Legislators. They represent our interests at the state level. Senator Shirley Turner (609)-530-3277, Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson-Coleman (609) 292-0500, Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (609)-292-0500. For emails go through steps at www.njleg.state.nj.us

Write an op-ed for the local newspaper and tell them why Trenton High must be saved. Trenton Times letters@njtimes.com; Trentonian letters@trentonian.com or contribute anonymously to “BackTalk” by calling 609-396-7030

Sign up your organization, civic group or yourself as an official “Save Trenton High” supporter. To sign up as a supporter please email SaveTrentonHigh@hotmail.com with your name and contact information.

For more information, go to www.TrentonHistory.org . This effort is being organized by the Trenton Historical Society, the Trenton Preservation Committee, the Trenton High School Alumni Association and dozens of individual Trenton residents and tax payers just like you.

And it bears keeping in mind that if the renovation plan had been executed three years ago, the project would be at least near completion and the costs would have been lower. The state has been dragging its feet on this and now wants to force Trenton to do the wrong thing.

Under the clock tower

A few thoughts regarding the debate over renovating or demolishing the Trenton Central High School building.

Let’s start right at the top with the money.

We all know that the city only pays 10 percent or less of the school district’s budget as it is. The rest comes from the state. And that includes construction funding…regardless of whether it for building new or renovating existing structures.

So yes, on the surface, it looks like a no-brainer cost saving measure for the state to spend $90-$100 million on building a new school than an “estimated” $250 million on renovations to the old school.

The problem is the “savings” are only superficial. In fact, there may not be any actual savings at all.

In a letter to South Ward Councilman Jim Coston that was posted to his blog, a local professional with some knowledge of these kinds of projects raised some questions about the cost figures the state is providing.

Stephen Doyle is a project manager at KSS Architects, city resident and member of the Trenton Planning Board. His comparison of cost figures quoted in the press with what he knows from his work is somewhat enlightening.

Mr. Doyle questions whether the $250 million price tag quoted for “renovating” the existing high school doesn’t also include some new construction costs. Apparently the project was originally to include about 400,000 square feet of renovation and 100,000 square feet of additions to the existing building (new construction). This calculates to what Doyle terms an “insanely high” cost of about $500 per square foot.

At the same time, assuming new construction of an equal amount of square footage, the estimated costs of $90 - $100 million yields a cost of between $180 and $200 per square foot. This, Mr. Doyle asserts, is below the average for school construction projects in New Jersey. He goes on to quote his firms school projects coming at $250 to $325 per square foot.

And are the costs quoted for new construction taking into consideration the acquisition of land for new buildings? Planning and permits?

Let’s not discount the aesthetic qualities of the craftsmanship and materials that went into constructing the current TCHS building. There is simply no way new construction will come close to matching that level of workmanship. The simple fact that the building is still standing 75 years later is a testament to that quality. We’d be hard pressed to say the same for anything built totally new today…especially at the apparently low price point the state quotes are indicating.

Many people have pointed out that there has been no talk about the dollar cost of demolition of the building. We’ve not addressed the environmental impact of disposing of the material once the building is torn down. And then there are the energy costs to carry out the above. (What happened to Trenton going green?)

This situation is not unique to Trenton, and there are rational precedents for saving the beloved TCHS.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has a document that addresses the renovation vs. demolition question. The document suggests that you look at all the factors and solicit community input.

Facilities.net has a similar article comparing renovation with new construction. The article notes that renovation is not without its difficulties and pitfalls, but comes down in favor of it over new construction.

One of the main things not being discussed in the current reporting of this story is the planning and scheduling of the project.

Certainly, renovating the existing building while students are in attendance will be an issue. But since the students are currently spread over a handful of “campuses” throughout the city, it would seem that accommodations could be made fairly easily. This is especially true if the work is scheduled and phased in a sensible fashion.

A little more difficult to deal with would be providing for the students during wholesale demolition of the main (existing) building on Chambers Street. Where will they go to school in the interim? How much will the additional transportation cost?

And, as Mr. Doyle pointed out in his letter to Councilman Coston, what about the cost of maintaining the existing building while new construction is occurring, only to then tear down the 75 year old edifice. Seems rather wasteful, doesn’t it?

We may need to get creative and seek ways to mitigate some of the costs of renovating the existing structure, but it will be worth it. The sense of pride and accomplishment might just help bring the fractured community that is Trenton back together.

To be sure, it is an emotional as well as a fiscal issue. But when you look at all the costs, cash and other, it seems to make sense to save and renovate that grand lady on Chambers Street.