A Problem and A Solution:

A Practical Solution to the Problems of AES, Rail Road Tracks, Traffic, and School Cost and Location.

Build a Small High School for 750 students that will host GT Students and Some who want to attend an Arts and Sciences Magnet Only High School NO SPORTS... Dance For Physical Education. No Large Sports Fields.

For those GT Students and Parents who want Sports they can attend CHS as a Sports School.

Put the Large Stater's Store near the AES Power Plant, and it will serve both communities GT and Highgrove and the UCR Community... That location may even be able to get an ABC License as it is not located so close to a school or other sales points. The current Stater Brothers let's hope will be a smaller store that sales more produce at lower cost...

Mr Jacobsen can feel what it is like to have Eminent Domain Used on his property.
The Lumber Company can move and Stater Brothers can buy the land from the School District, and return the rest to the City of Grand Terrace RDA that lead them and the citizens to believe that the Power Plant was Dead and would stay Dead... But now will not say booo about the proposed new power plant.

The Folks who are still on their property the court case by CJUSD can be stopped and they can retain their property.

Gee... it seems so logical.... a GT High School for GT.... that fits GT.... in a Place of Pride Mid Town. Not next to a Power Plant Near Rail Road Traffic... who knows what kind of manufacturing in Riverside in the future....


From In the NEWS:
School money woes
Board mulls scaled-down funding for GT high school
Carolyn G. Schatz, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 08/18/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT

At a meeting to discuss financing for the first high school in Grand Terrace, the Colton Joint Unified School District board spent the evening debating just how much of a high school it could be.
And considering the financial obstacles that remain, a sparkling, brand-new high school doesn't seem to have moved any closer to reality.
Voters in the school district passed Measure B six years ago to fund several schools. This included the proposed high school, which would be the district's third.
But only a fraction of the $102 million remains. And none of the schools were ever built.
A presentation on Thursday outlined the funding shortfalls and provided recommendations for issuing millions of dollars in lease-revenue bonds to pay for the high school.
Members of the board and residents in the packed audience registered frustration alike as the prospect for a shiny, fully finished new high school dimmed.
Projected costs for a full campus have now more than doubled, from $75 million two years ago to almost $170 million, as construction costs have skyrocketed.
On Thursday, Gene Hartline of California Financial Services attempted to illustrate just how the board might go
about putting in a new high school - when only $31 million in bond money remains.
The district now is deciding which of three configurations to use for the new high school.
Hartline's conclusion that all three proposals could entail issuing lease-revenue bonds left even some on the board groaning.
The three configurations include a full campus design - which appeared increasingly unlikely, judging from the sentiment after his presentation - a less-expensive base design, or a severely pared-down version.
"You're not suggesting we go to voters with another bond?" asked board member Kent Taylor in dismay.
The comment received the first of several rounds of applause. The audience seemed anxious to hear how the board plans to deal with the glaring deficit in funds.
Even if the board were to ultimately go with just an initial-phase design - leaving out certain amenities such as a gymnasium until later - the school would leave the district needing an additional $7 million, after remaining bond funds and state grants are factored in.
The district already has spent $25 million on the project.
A base design, with some of the amenities excluded and others deferred, would leave the district short $45 million.
And the full campus design, complete with a pool, tennis courts and synthetic turf, would come in at $66 million over budget.
California Financial suggested using revenue bonds to make up the difference in all three options.
But at full bonding capacity, the district still would not be able to overcome the deficit on the full-campus project with lease-revenue bonds alone. It would need another way to come up with an extra $17.3 million.
"At what point do we need future revenue without going to the general fund?" asked board member Marge Mendoza-Ware.
Hartline tried to mollify her concerns. Some 2,500 new residential units, now in the tentative or final planning stages, would back up the bonds, he said.
"The general fund won't be the first call," Hartline said. "Developer revenue is. So, it's less egregious."
But that didn't seem to appease the board.
"Foreclosures are skyrocketing," said board member Mel Albiso. "But we're borrowing against potential development?"
Hartline's charts showed that even with the 2,500 homes in the planning stages, the developer revenue from those homes would not be enough to cover the full-campus design.
To pay for the deluxe high school, the district would have to consider relying on additional developer revenue from future developments or selling off vacant properties, Hartline said.
Otherwise, the district might have to consider a follow-up bond to Measure B, Hartline said. But his presentation was dedicated to the lease-revenue bond concept. He steered away from talking about the possibility of dipping into the general fund, as others have suggested.
"As a board, we need to decide what amenities to omit," board member David Zamora said. "No one knows what's ahead economically. We don't want to compromise the quality of the high school. But I don't think it would be fair or ethical to ask residents to support another bond."
Hartline told board members his figures were predicated on the base-campus design, and that there would be no need to go back to the voters with another bond request, if they stuck to that.
Lease-revenue bonds do not require voter approval, whereas general-obligation bonds do.
"The issue is a promise not fulfilled yet," said a clearly vexed Taylor . "We made a commitment to Grand Terrace 10 to 12 years ago, and I stand firm with that commitment. Will this board stay firm with this commitment and this promise?"