Difference between revisions of "Whitehall School District Bond Measure (May 2010)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with 'There will be a '''Whitehall School District Bond Measure''' on the May 4 ballot in [[Muskegon County, Michigan ballot measures|Muskeg…')
 
m (Text replace - "ategory:School bond," to "ategory:Local school bonds,")
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
There will be a '''Whitehall School District Bond Measure''' on the [[May 4, 2010 ballot measures in Michigan|May 4]] ballot in [[Muskegon County, Michigan ballot measures|Muskegon County]] for voters in the Whitehall school district.
+
There was a '''Whitehall School District Bond Measure''' on the [[May 4, 2010 ballot measures in Michigan|May 4]] ballot in [[Muskegon County, Michigan ballot measures|Muskegon County]] for voters in the Whitehall school district.
  
This measure seeks to create a bond in the amount of $11,760,000 in order to help with furnishing and equip various buildings in the school district as well as purchasing new buses.<ref>[https://treas-secure.state.mi.us/apps/findschoolbondelectinfo.asp?countyname=All&SelectYear=2010&electionresult=All&sortorder=ByElectionDate&Submit1=%A0Go%A0 ''Michigan State Treasure'' Qualified School Bond Elections]</ref>
+
This measure was '''approved'''
 +
* '''YES''' 1,050 {{approved}}<br>
 +
* '''NO''' 1,012
 +
 
 +
This measure sought to create a bond in the amount of $11,760,000 in order to help with furnishing and equip various buildings in the school district as well as purchasing new buses.<ref>[https://treas-secure.state.mi.us/apps/findschoolbondelectinfo.asp?countyname=All&SelectYear=2010&electionresult=All&sortorder=ByElectionDate&Submit1=%A0Go%A0 ''Michigan State Treasure'' Qualified School Bond Elections]</ref> School officials had emphasized the need of this bond, a reduced bond from the failed measure voted on in May of 2009. The school district had gone out to ask resident what they wanted and are hoping the scaled down version will be able to pass more easily with resident support behind it. Upgrades are noted to be greatly needed at many school buildings and officials are hoping that with support the schools will be able to upgrade as needed.<ref>[http://www.mlive.com/opinion/muskegon/index.ssf/2010/04/make_or_break_time_in_whitehal.html ''The Muskegon Chronicle'', "Make or break time in Whitehall;Failure in May 4 bond vote will be ‘devastating’," April 23, 2010]</ref>
 +
 
 +
Opponents stated that misuse of funds and stating that property taxes would not increase, when continuing them in fact keeps them raised, was strong reason to vote against this bond measure. They also noted that asking for continued tax increases hurts residents more in the hard economic times.<ref>[http://www.mlive.com/opinion/muskegon/index.ssf/2010/04/letters_vote_no_on_whitehall_b_1.html ''Muskegon Chronicle'', "Letters: Vote 'No' on Whitehall bond issue," April 29, 2010]</ref>
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
Line 8: Line 14:
 
{{Michigan counties}}
 
{{Michigan counties}}
 
{{Michigan}}
 
{{Michigan}}
[[category:Michigan 2010 local ballot measures]]
+
[[Category:Michigan 2010 local ballot measures]]
[[Category:School bond, Michigan, 2010]]
+
[[Category:Local school bonds, Michigan, 2010]]

Latest revision as of 19:49, 15 October 2012

There was a Whitehall School District Bond Measure on the May 4 ballot in Muskegon County for voters in the Whitehall school district.

This measure was approved

  • YES 1,050 Approveda
  • NO 1,012

This measure sought to create a bond in the amount of $11,760,000 in order to help with furnishing and equip various buildings in the school district as well as purchasing new buses.[1] School officials had emphasized the need of this bond, a reduced bond from the failed measure voted on in May of 2009. The school district had gone out to ask resident what they wanted and are hoping the scaled down version will be able to pass more easily with resident support behind it. Upgrades are noted to be greatly needed at many school buildings and officials are hoping that with support the schools will be able to upgrade as needed.[2]

Opponents stated that misuse of funds and stating that property taxes would not increase, when continuing them in fact keeps them raised, was strong reason to vote against this bond measure. They also noted that asking for continued tax increases hurts residents more in the hard economic times.[3]

References