Mexmustang wrote:This IPF puts SMU even with the larger high school programs in North Texas. One high school has just spent $75,000,000 on there [SIC] new high school stadium. If I remember correctly Ford's budget was originally announced at $26,000,000. As someone said, this facility puts us number 31 amongst IPF's in North Dallas. Don't bother to check these numbers, as I didn't, I just repeated some numbers thrown around while having a beer while watching UCF. The point being, this facility puts us even with major high school programs, but SMU is again a dollar short and a decade late.
a) Ford was built 18 years ago and construction costs have increased significantly. however your numbers are off once again. you don't remember even remotely correctly. Ford Stadium cost $42mm to build (~$75mm in today's dollars, but like i said, would actually cost more based on increased cost of concrete, steel, labor, etc). that also doesn't include the suite expansion and total overhaul of Lloyd in 2012. nor the numerous improvements over the years like several million on new field. if i had to guess, if we tore the stadium completely to the ground and rebuilt it exactly how it stands now it would cost in the $150mm range.
b) no "One high school" has spent $75mm on a new HS stadium. McKinney ISD did it in conjunction w/ the city of McKinney via a bond (which is voted on by the citizens and paid by them via taxes - more on this below). multiple schools use the stadium. the city of mckinney also uses the stadium for other events. it was overbuilt based on future growth of the city as well to accommodate expansion.
c) the new indoor performance center is not even close to being on par with the majority of HS ISD indoor facilities that are glorified tents. most are owned by school districts, not individual HS's so they are used by more than one school/team.
d) your ignorance or unwillingness to understand HOW these things are funded is the most frustrating thing. A school districtΓÇÖs property tax rate has two elements: one that covers day-to-day operations such as teacher salaries, and another that covers debt service. The two needs are funded separately, and state law prohibits intermingling the funds. Property-rich districts are required to send some of their operations tax revenue to the state -- to be redistributed among property-poor districts --
BUT (this is the KEY thing) they keep all of the money raised through the debt service tax rate. That funding model, combined with dramatically rising property values throughout the state, has emboldened school districts to fund projects that they wouldnΓÇÖt otherwise.
e) why do you continue to make yourself look like an idiot all the time?
Ok this is getting ridiculous...I agree with Dutch on THIS ONE POST by him totally
