Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

View Article

Search Articles


It looks like our crusade to get the Raleigh City Council focused on schools is making progress.

In his annual State of the City address this week, Mayor Charles Meeker laid out three goals for 2006: reduce fuel consumption, fight homelessness and – according to The News & Observer – “push Wake County to solve its school-crowding crisis.”

Click here to read the story.

It says:

Meeker said he realizes Raleigh government has no control over schools, but he felt the need to urge action.

It will take roughly $1.2 billion to renovate schools, move students out of trailers and handle the 12,000 new students estimated for the next two years.

Wake County’s tax base will increase enough that $400,000 to $500,000 can be committed now without a tax increase.

The rest of the money, Meeker said, should be left to voters to decide on this fall’s ballot.

“We’re behind,” he said. “We’ve been behind now for a couple of years. … I have confidence this community, as it always has done before, can solve our problem.”

That’s not much. But it may be a start. Maybe he’ll now join the outnumbered Council members who want the City to debate this issue.


Posted in: General, Raleigh
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |

One comment on “Mayor Meeker a Schools Convert?

  1. gpearce says:

    Is there a correlation between the increase in homelessness and illegal immigration? Should we encourage the business owners that hire illegals to hire our “homeless”. The net effect would be the same, the “homeless” would become consumers.

    Comment by Doctor Feelgood — February 28, 2006 @ 6:00 pm

    Now, Gary and Carter, may I ask why you’re hounding the City Council over this and not the County Commission? They’re the ones who are responsible. Or do you have some other agenda?

    If its the $20 million hotel (compare to $1.2 BILLION) going to an attempt to revitalize downtown, it seems like a drop in the bucket compared to what’s needed, and what the county is responsible for. If you’re concerned about the schools, go after the ones responsible (or irresponsible, in this case) — they’re not the ones on the City Council.

    Comment by n — February 28, 2006 @ 6:10 pm

    Did Meeker really say $400,000 to $500,000? Or $400 million to $500 million?–as the real amounts that could be financed by anticipating future revenue growth without a bond issue.

    Comment by Bob Geary — February 28, 2006 @ 7:21 pm

    It is 400 to 500 million, and I’m betting Gary’s beating of the drum had little to do with the Mayor’s comments. In fact, I’m pretty confident Mayor Meeker doesn’t frequent this site. If he did, he would find the spin from Isley, Craven, Coble et al that Gary has been giving undesearved credence to laughable. The Mayor is offering a realistic approach because he is a public servent, not a politician. The same cannot be said for many of us here.

    Comment by WhalerCane — February 28, 2006 @ 7:50 pm

Copyright (c) Talking About Politics   :   Terms Of Use   :   Privacy Statement