Back to bungalows

Snazzy idea.



No matter what they want to call them, they’re still just temporary classrooms that are thrown out on the field somewhere:


FireShot Capture 134 - Burbank Unified School District - http___www.burbankusd.org_


Hey, wait a minute! Isn’t this what Measure S was supposed to prevent?

Yes, it was.


FireShot Capture 137 - Measure S • Depart_ - http___www.burbankusd.org_District_Department_89-Bond-S


Don’t you love it too how the courts now allow these agencies to lobby for bond-measure passage through the use of extended ballot statements that are chock full of what is clearly promotional and almost tear-jerking language?

It’s so absurd.

Anyway, did we ever hear talk about Measure S being about more bungalows at our Burbank schools?

Didn’t think so.






Filed under Uncategorized

11 responses to “Back to bungalows

  1. Irwin Fletcher

    My understanding, based on public comments from Larry A. at least a year ago, is that Measure S was not intended to build more classrooms, but that newer Class Size Reduction laws have forced BUSD to spend more money to build these extra rooms, so they are dipping into Measure S to avoid non-compliance. Add to that the new dual-immersion language classes at Disney and MCKinley (and eventually more schools since this is super popular now), where they are adding a new class each year so that they will have K-5 DI cohorts- which means somebody has to pay for these new buildings. What really frustrates me is the loss of grassy fields because it’s too expensive to build two-story structures.

    • semichorus

      I think it’s a voluntary program– they get more money if they can get K-3 down to size.

      They had class size reduction starting in the late 90s, before they got the first bond through. So unless the school population has increased significantly since then, which I don’t think it has, where was the planning? There haven’t been that many new classes.

      The district seriously overspent on the high schools, which is I think the main source of the problem. It’s from long ago.

  2. Anonymous 3

    To REPLACE aging temporary structures.

    It says noting forbidding more temporary structures.

    • semichorus

      Oh yeah? Like those Log Cabins they insisted on tearing down by lying about how they weren’t repairable, when the real reason was that some people just didn’t like how they looked and thought were in the way.

      The BUSD even lied about how old they were. The said they were WPA, but most were built in the early to mid 20s. Lincoln’s was built in 1924. I’ve seen the original bid notice listed here:

      And why are there portables anyway? I thought this 300-400 million dollars the last 16 years was being spent on classrooms.

      • Anonymous 3

        “Classrooms” is a different noun from “buildings”

        Otherwise I have no idea what you are jabbering about.

        Measure S does not disallow bungalows or other temporary short lived structures.

        • semichorus

          Measure B was sold as a solution to portables. “…to replace aging portable classrooms” means nothing, I know.

          Who cares about how Measure S was sold, right? Asshole.

          Burbank had lots of portables pre-1997 and the passage of the first bond measure. And now they’re back? Almost $400 million and the portables are back. Great.

  3. Irwin Fletcher

    Class size reduction laws are more strict now- they are site based, not averaged across the district (which is how some middle schools got away with 40:1 class ratios because a few classes had 25:1, so it balanced out.) They are not voluntary. The new buildings are not to replace aging structures, they are to take on increased numbers of kids. This has been stated at board meetings and LCAP meetings.

    • semichorus

      Don’t believe anything you hear from Burbank. It’s voluntary:

      The school board lies all the time. And they get lied to by the administrators. Ask Danielle B.

      There’s been plenty of money since 96 for real classrooms. But the priorities were elsewhere– and they lied about that as well. CSR is only K-3, too, which they were doing in the late 90s already. So why didn’t they account for it back THEN?

      During ALL of the facilities planning the BUSD was well succeeding in CSR. So why didn’t they … plan for it? Burbank had a good CSR program between about 97 and 2008 or 2009 or so.

      • Donna

        Have any Board Members or Administrators mentioned the $700 per day in Interest adding to the Judgement ?
        Money is no object to those who choose to ignore Injustice.

        • semichorus

          It’s up to almost 5 million now. Doumanian has apparently dropped out of the latest case and handed it over to a friend. She’s also trying to get Baez’s lawyers to come down on the amount.

          • Donna

            This Do-Do-Doumanian has milked the harassment of Baez for over NINE years.
            Her ability was enabled by representing our School District under the umbrella of the Joint Powers.
            Successive Members of our Board have acted as enablers.

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s