Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > November > 18 > Entry
The fate of Patterson(s)
(Patterson Career Center)
Hmm. School officials seemed a little perturbed that they were out of the loop on the city’s plans for a development project near Fifth Third Field that, oh by the way, depends on the school district selling the Patterson Career Center so it can be torn down.
The city-school district relationship could be headed down another bumpy road, much like when the district bought the Reynolds & Reynolds buildings for a new headquarters four years ago over the vehement objections of the city.
The city has long been interested in the Patterson property, a riverfront site close to the ball park. But the district has not been interested in selling or swapping it. Built in 1981, the school is the newest building the school district owns (outside of just-constructed schools) and is in better shape than any of its other buildings. The working plan right now is to develop Patterson into a Montessori school in hopes of attracting parents who work downtown after a new techinical high school opens in 2008 next to Sinclair Community College.
John Carr, the distirct’s construction chief, said if the district were to give up the Patterson site, it would want another good downtown site for its Montessori school.
Which got me thinking about the “other” Patterson.
Let’s step back in time about five years ago. Back then, most of the city’s career tech programs were located at the old Patterson High School on First Street, with a handful of program a short distance away at the career center on River Corridor Drive — the site now in question.
The district was in financial crisis and then-Mayor Mike Turner offered a cash-generating idea — close the First Street building and sell it to the city. At the time Turner said the city considered the First Street site prime downtown real estate that had high potential for redevelopment. (At the same time, downtown businesses supported the deal because of their perception that Patterson kids contributed to unruliness on the city streets, a suggestion school officials hotly disagreed with.)
In the end, a deal was struck — the city would pay $5 million for the building over five years. The district closed the school and moved the kids out.
There was just one small problem — the city reneged on the deal.
About two years later, city officials said they didn’t have the money and backed out, leaving the district holding the bag. The school has since sat empty.
And that’s why it comes to mind now. The First Street building is not conducive for use as an elementary school. But it is a pretty large site. Perhaps the school could finally be torn down and the site, which both sides once agreed was prime downtown space, redeveloped as a showcase Montessori elementary school?
Such a school would be just blocks from Riverscape, Fifth Third Field, the downtown library, Victoria Theatre, the Schuster Center, Memorial Hall and the art museum. Plus, it would be closer to downtown office buildings than the River Corridor site.
What would it take to pull that off?
Permalink | Comments (3) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Comments
By Keith
November 20, 2006 9:35 AM | Link to this
Schools not contacted about using their property? Sounds like fishy work is up. Wanna invest in rare coins anyne? Frankly a city-paid-sponsored entertainment area should be on the same side of the river next to the public paid ballpark. Wanna walk to a shopping area where Parkside Homes now exist? I don’t think so. Wanna drive? Let’s see: The Greens, Dayton Mall, Fairfield Mall, downtown Dayton-not a chance if I’m driving. This will be another Aracade redevelopment with OPM (other people’s money) like the last 4 Arcade doings over the decades. Waste of money (OPM). Just watch. If it were viable, the developers would buy the properties for themselves, and the developers would build it and “they would come.” It’ll all be with other money: Dayton School Board’s money (property), RTA (Public tax money), city money, state?, federal? grants. I don’t think so. Go back to the drawing board. The big sucker in all this will be the DPS They have a great location on the river for what they plan to put there in the way of schools. It’s away from the riffraff downtown nurtures. If they give away the property, I wouldn’t vote for any kind of levy for DPS.By Rick
November 19, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
It seems exceedingly odd to me that the School Board was not consulted in this. I think that is a very bad sign. Frankly, the School Board should take all the time it needs before agreeing to this concept. If that kills the deal, oh well, the developer made the choice not to discuss this with the Board and should bear the consequences for its failure to do so.By Mary
November 18, 2006 1:18 PM | Link to this
I don’t know what it would take to pull it off, but odds are the wealthy developers and powers that be are more focussed on entertainment facilities than on an education showcase or other more government related responsibilities. If the city had not poured money into 53rd Field and the Schuster and city golf courses, they probably could have paid their obligations regarding Patterson. I have strong feelings about how much government infrasturcture and taxpayer resources should crawl into bed with developers and commercial entertainment to make some individuals richer while more critical infrastructure needs - like education, environment, roads, sewer and water - disintegrate. Government is too much into glitz and private type undertakings. (Would Milton Friedmann agree?) One prime example is all the money poured into the New Orleans Superdome while the levees go into neglect. Many local taxpayers who never play golf are covering losses at government owned or financed golf courses. Greene County is giving financial breaks to the fancy new mall the Greene, and I think a few years ago spent $500,000 for the ice at the Nutter Center. Seems to me, both government and schools need to revisit their primary purpose for existing and their priorities.