IBJNews

Indiana House OKs looser rules on selling old schools

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

School districts would get a break on how long they have to hold onto their vacant buildings as possible charter school sites under a measure the Indiana House approved Monday.

Legislators proposed the changes after two school districts in the Fort Wayne area ran into legal troubles trying to sell unused buildings even though no charter school operators wanted them.

The House voted 98-0 in favor of cutting the current four-year waiting period to two years and allowing a fast-track, 30-day period for selling a closed school. The bill now goes to the Senate, which already is considering a similar measure.

The 2011 law on the sale of unused schools was sponsored by Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma, who said the intent was to address situations in which public school districts were purposely refusing to sell buildings to charter schools to avoid competition.

Rep. Matthew Lehman, R-Berne, said he sponsored the changes because the four-year waiting period was too long since the school districts faced spending thousands of dollars to maintain the vacant buildings.

The bill would allow school districts with an interested buyer to seek a waiver from the state Department of Education on the two-year waiting period. The department would then give a 30-day window for a charter school operator to claim the building by giving notice to the state charter schools association and charter school sponsors, including the Indiana Charter Schools Board, Ball State University and the Indianapolis mayor's office.

Any charter school wanting to take over a vacant building would have to have a plan to start using it for classroom instruction within a year.

House Minority Leader Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, said the bill improves what he believes is a bad current law that allows privately operated charter schools to take over public property for $1.

"I wish we would repeal the whole thing, but I do believe this bill makes it substantially better," Pelath said.

An Allen County judge ruled against the current law in December, finding that the waiting period didn't change other laws on how school districts can sell property and forced districts to incur unnecessary costs.

The Indiana Public Charter Schools Association had challenged the Fort Wayne Community Schools' plan to sell an unused elementary school building to the county airport board and the East Allen County district's attempt to sell a vacant school to the Fort Wayne-South Bend Catholic Diocese.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Another Example of Failing to Protect the Taxpayers First
    Being a wealth-worshiping state, it's not surprising that the Indiana Republican super-majority would do everything possible to help privateers make a profit, including at the taxpayers' expense. These school buidings are worth more than $1.00 each, and the money paid to privateers is taken from public school budgets. Privateer-run schools do not necessarily do better than public schools, and after they get comfortable with making a profit, they'll cut back on quality teachers, and the problems with just re-surface. This is wrong.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. If I were a developer I would be looking at the Fountain Square and Fletcher Place neighborhoods instead of Broad Ripple. I would avoid the dysfunctional BRVA with all of their headaches. It's like deciding between a Blackberry or an iPhone 5s smartphone. BR is greatly in need of updates. It has become stale and outdated. Whereas Fountain Square, Fletcher Place and Mass Ave have become the "new" Broad Ripples. Every time I see people on the strip in BR on the weekend I want to ask them, "How is it you are not familiar with Fountain Square or Mass Ave? You have choices and you choose BR?" Long vacant storefronts like the old Scholar's Inn Bake House and ZA, both on prominent corners, hurt the village's image. Many business on the strip could use updated facades. Cigarette butt covered sidewalks and graffiti covered walls don't help either. The whole strip just looks like it needs to be power washed. I know there is more to the BRV than the 700-1100 blocks of Broad Ripple Ave, but that is what people see when they think of BR. It will always be a nice place live, but is quickly becoming a not-so-nice place to visit.

  2. I sure hope so and would gladly join a law suit against them. They flat out rob people and their little punk scam artist telephone losers actually enjoy it. I would love to run into one of them some day!!

  3. Biggest scam ever!! Took 307 out of my bank ac count. Never received a single call! They prey on new small business and flat out rob them! Do not sign up with these thieves. I filed a complaint with the ftc. I suggest doing the same ic they robbed you too.

  4. Woohoo! We're #200!!! Absolutely disgusting. Bring on the congestion. Indianapolis NEEDS it.

  5. So Westfield invested about $30M in developing Grand Park and attendance to date is good enough that local hotel can't meet the demand. Carmel invested $180M in the Palladium - which generates zero hotel demand for its casino acts. Which Mayor made the better decision?

ADVERTISEMENT