Where Could HPISD Put a New School?

Does any have any land in the shaded areas that they would like to sell?

This week’s front page includes my account of Tuesday’s Highland Park ISD board meeting, where the trustees were kicking around options for dealing with the district’s growing student population. They talked about building a fifth elementary school, constructing a kindergarten/preschool campus, and/or moving the football and baseball fields away from the high school. But nobody talked specifically about where more land could be acquired in the 6.2-square-mile district.

So let’s talk about it here. Off the top of my head, here are a few options:

  • The boondoggle commonly known as the Chase Bank building has been off everyone’s radar for a while. The University Park City Council has never agreed to any of Albert Huddleston’s plans for the tower at the corner of Hillcrest and Daniel avenues. Maybe the district could take it off his hands?
  • I’m told the Parks Department in University Park is responsible for about 60 acres’ worth of green space. Maybe the city could make do with only nine of its 10 parks. Do we really need two parks (Goar and Williams) right next to each other? And what about Caruth Park, which is halfway between two other parks (Curtis and Coffee) of comparable size? Perhaps that land is suitable for a school.
  • I realize I’m about to put a stick in a hornet’s nest, but I called the two churches that my gut tells me have the smallest congregations in the Park Cities. Staffers at Preston Road Church of Christ and First Unitarian Church of Dallas told me that each one averages about 500 parishioners per Sunday. (To put that in perspective, Park Cities Baptist Church averages 2,800.) Well, the district’s smallest elementary school, Armstrong, has an enrollment of 572 this semester. From my secular seat, the numbers show that a school would be a better use for either plot of land. Could the school district make either church an offer?
  • Let’s sacrifice an even more sacred cow by focusing on land the district already owns. Having an indoor practice field and tennis courts is nice, but having enough space to educate grade-schoolers is nicer. And it’s always seemed to me that the land occupied by the Seay Tennis Center and the Multi-Purpose Activities Center is about the size of an elementary school.

So, those are my suggestions. Your thoughts?

By Dan Koller Dec. 12, 2013 | 3:33 pm | 54 Comments | Comments RSS
54 comments to "Where Could HPISD Put a New School?"
  1. Avid Reader @ December 12, 2013 at 3:56 pm
    Only reason the hornets would get in a tizzy is your word choice in saying “better use”.

    Coffee park is a better choice than the other parks as you would get less community pushback than Caruth/Goar. Caruth and Goar park are in the middle of the community and are used by the residents substantially more than Coffee.

    Best idea I’ve heard so far is to take one or multiple elementary schools vertical.

  2. XT @ December 12, 2013 at 3:57 pm
    We could also get our zoning regulations in line, and stop allowing the building of apartments/ multi-family dwellings.

  3. JRSmith @ December 12, 2013 at 5:08 pm
    The Chase bank area would cause a terrible/unmanageable traffic bottleneck around Daniel & Snider Plaza. Plus the school would have no yard.

    I agree w Coffee Park. Though I thoroughly enjoyed 6th grade Y baseball on that field, let’s all admit that it’s a weird area of the PC that nobody uses and is totally replaceable.

    Caruth and Goar are way better parks.

    Anything by HPHS would be too much traffic & people.

  4. mom of 4 @ December 12, 2013 at 5:12 pm
    Talk about a hornets nest – I agree with XT – why do we continue with all of the apartments and multi-family dwellings?

    I love our community and I am glad people can move into it and have a great education for their kids but it has to contribute to the over crowding of the schools.

  5. JRSmith @ December 12, 2013 at 5:36 pm
    And too bad they tore down old McCulloch. There was still plenty of field/yard and it prob could’ve been modernized.

    Or build on part of Stinson field.

    Mom of 4 doesn’t want duplex moms moving in. Stay in Lakewood you freaks.

  6. NFW @ December 12, 2013 at 5:57 pm
    The Chase building may not work for an elementary school, but I’m sure it would work for administration purposes. That would free up a hunk of land for the high school. I walk my dog at Coffee Park, and there is rarely anyone there. Car pool would be a killer on that corner though.

  7. Park Cities Mom @ December 12, 2013 at 6:01 pm
    Seriously STOP the building of multi family dwellings. The plan that has been toggled to the Board talks about a lot of choices for Elem. and a few for Middle School. Then it goes into great detail about new sports facilities at the High School. We need to worry about educating these kids, not making our facilities rival those of other districts!

  8. Southern Gent @ December 12, 2013 at 6:14 pm
    I wonder if anyone has ever sat down with Ed Cox and asked him his thoughts on willing his land to the district to create Cox Elementary School? Can’t hurt, the worst thing he can do is say ‘no’.

  9. Parkie @ December 12, 2013 at 6:21 pm
    Why is everyone always crying about apartments and town homes? The real cause of the growth is the new construction up and down every single street in HP and UP. The little houses, most often sold when an elderly person passes away, are replaced by exceptionally large homes, and the buyers are families with two or more children.

  10. Splash1976 @ December 12, 2013 at 7:42 pm
    I agree with the multi family dwelling issue, and when SMU’s new dorms are finished and the freshman and sophomore have to live on campus, this will just add to the school problem. I have also heard of families renting these tiny apts and they actually live somewhere else in Dallas, is this investigated in anyway by the district?

  11. Tongue in Cheek @ December 12, 2013 at 7:48 pm
    No guarantee that kids get to attend a particular elementary if it is full. Put all overflow created by newcomers in an existing building, like Chase Bank. HPISD can’t zone against multi-family units in its 3 cities even if it wanted to.

    The Unitarians were here first, since 1944. PC Baptists moved here from Dallas only in the 90′s. Take them by eminent domain and you get what they already call a campus, complete with buildings, sports facilities, parking garage, and even bus routes.

  12. Observer @ December 12, 2013 at 8:35 pm
    @Splash1976. The district used to enforce its residency rules, and those students with multiple addresses had to spend most nights in district or risk investigation and removal. Just owning or leasing property in the district was not sufficient. But after Robin Hood arrived, HPISD seemed to overlook cheaters in order to get more per student dollars from the state.

    Enforcing residency rules could probably kick us back into the new 5A, but perhaps not alleviate overcrowding. Maybe the district could take the land with those tiny apartments vacated by SMU freshmen and sophomores, and build a school there. Beats displacing families from homes they own.

  13. Ray @ December 12, 2013 at 8:50 pm
    Parkie@ a larger home don’t always equate to larger families. I know several people living in newer larger homes with 1-2 children each. We our selves only have one child. Although larger homes can support 4 children these newer larger duplexes can support multiple families of equal size. We’re talking as much as 8 children vs 4 on the same size plot. The same goes for apartments. So we can discuss new schools if people wish but it’s only a bandaid. The city needs to seriously consider restricting multi family housing as part of any plans of building a new school or expanding existing schools.

  14. Up resident @ December 12, 2013 at 9:09 pm
    The best option above is the tennis center and relo of the football field. It doesn’t need to be attached to the campus. Since the refurbishment, coffee park is very busy. I like the cox suggestion.

    I disagree with the comments that are aimed at fighting density. I don’t think there is anything freakish about a mom wanting to live in a duplex and live in the district for her kids. To me, this sounds like a responsible person who I want as a neighbor and room mom.

    My two thoughts:

    1. Cut into the land of the dcc. They have more than enough.

    2. Abbott park. Up always bears hpisd expansion burdens. Let hp share the love.

  15. J @ December 12, 2013 at 10:10 pm
    Build a kindergarten school and/or elementary at Germany park and then move the track to the middle school. Inconvenient for high school track team but they could schedule around it. Possibly add locker rooms for the track team Adjacent to the new middle school track.

  16. Not like it matters what I think... @ December 12, 2013 at 10:19 pm
    Coffee park might be busy, but not by so many residents that it would make the other close parks too crowded.

    To free up space at the HS move the HPISD/Alumni offices from the high school campus to an office building (Chase land?).

    Build a new kindergarten center at Coffee Park. That way you don’t have to deal with being one of THOSE poor kids that HAD to go to the NEW Elementary school instead of one of the original ones. This would also not mess with so many of the traditions that I suspect are preventing some decisions from being made.

    If elementary and HS overcrowding is the issue…build a 4/5 center at coffee park and move 9th grade back to MIS. Build a track around the new school, gym, smaller field, 5 story building. Done.

    If just elem/MIS is an issue, build a new elementary school at Coffee Park and move the 5th grades back to the FIVE elementary schools.

    It is not a fun choice taking over a park, but it sure beats having kids eating lunch at 10:30 or 1:30 because the café is too small for the volume of kids or having 30 kids to a class because there are no available classrooms.

    There needs to be a tip line where you can report people that do not reside in the district. Period. Play by the rules people.

  17. Tongue-in-Cheek @ December 12, 2013 at 10:20 pm
    @Ray. Cities control zoning; HPISD controls schools.

  18. University Park @ December 12, 2013 at 10:44 pm
    Don’t even think about putting up an elementary school where the I for and seay indoor courts are. I am in highschool and I can speak for everyone at hphs and say that WE DONT WANT AN ELEMENTARY SCHOLL THERE. We went though the 4 elementary schools when we were there and it worked just fine until all the duplexes and apartments started going up. IF U CANT AFFORD AN ACTUAL HOUSE GET OUT. There r plenty of other places to live.

    And do not take over any churches space it is not fair we have freedom of religion so don’t take it away. And Caruth park is right across the street from me and u don’t want all the little obnoxious screaming kids near me Hyer is already close enough. We already have a problem with the little kids damaging our mad for plaid sign.

  19. Lifer @ December 12, 2013 at 10:52 pm
    Build it on top of the Daniel (?) cemetary. Just kidding

    Better idea…buy Northway Christian Church at Airline and NW Hwy. problem solved

  20. Dave Miller @ December 12, 2013 at 11:15 pm
    @university park, if you were educated in our school system, God help us all. You’re truely a moron.

  21. Dan Koller @ December 13, 2013 at 12:00 am
    That fantasy about Ed Cox’s property (6.6 acres, according to DCAD) is interesting. It couldn’t hurt to ask him.

    I’m going to sleep. No new comments will be approved until morning.

  22. Parkie @ December 13, 2013 at 1:21 am
    Everyone has this odd idea that the district can just take some land from UP or HP. Hello? Do you really think the residents of either municipality are going to give up a square foot of property without a long and bloody fight? If it wants land, the district needs hard cash to buy it or find someone to donate it. Since the district also covers land in Dallas, maybe it should look for space there.

    About all of these new apts and multi family dwellings–I’m not aware of any changes to zoning in UP which allows apartments or duplexes where single family houses used to be. The new construction usually is larger, but people in the old apartments had children in the district, too. Or are you folks talking about high rises like the Shelton?

    Building on land it already owns seems like the only realistic option.

  23. Dr. Dr. @ December 13, 2013 at 8:23 am
    Take it easy on “University Park” above. Clearly the high school student is suffering from “Afluenza.”

  24. UPTX @ December 13, 2013 at 9:11 am
    Clearly, we need more highland park high school students to share their voices. If “University Park” is truly a high school student and is representative of the student body, I think the enrollment problem will be solved pretty quickly if we can get to know them better.

  25. Back To The Future @ December 13, 2013 at 9:23 am
    Picture this: It’s 2002 and the proposal for the Chase bank site is a new building that houses a new UP Library, new YMCA and a massive underground parking garage for the commercial area. New elementary school gets built on old Y location. Hello? Hello? Anybody home? Huh? Think, McFly. Think!

  26. Professor McGillicuddy @ December 13, 2013 at 10:28 am
    Caruth Park? Now that’s adding gasoline to the fire. Coffee Park should be sacrificed since it’s on the periphery and non-residents use it the most.

  27. Picasso @ December 13, 2013 at 10:56 am
    Put classroom cubicles in the massive indoor sports facility and a cafeteria in the tennis center.

  28. Ray @ December 13, 2013 at 11:21 am
    Tongue-in-Cheek @ Yes the city controls the Zoning, which is why I mentioned the city in my original reply. I’m implying there must be a joint effort in order solve the pending issue. HPISD needs to expand it’s schools but the city should place stricter zoning regulations on multi-family housing. That is just my opinion.

  29. Duplex Mom @ December 13, 2013 at 1:32 pm
    Wow! I’m surprised by the arrogance & hostility expressed in the some of these comments, particularly the one posted by JRSmith. “Duplex moms”??? “Stay in Lakewood you freaks”?!?!? My family & I have been Highland Park residents for decades. I’m now a divorced single “duplex mom” with one child. I’m just as entitled to live in this wonderful neighborhood, and allow my son to attend an exemplary public school, as you are, madam. You stated that you have 4 children. I have one. I propose that perhaps it is you, not I, who are contributing to the enrollment problem. Thank you, UP resident, for your kind words … As a matter of fact, I am a room mom for my son’s class, and love having the opportunity to be an active member of the PTA. As far as University Park’s ignorant comment is concerned, I must agree: affluenza. It’s rampant around here, but avoidable when parents take the time to instill values & encourage empathy in their offspring. That being said, Coffee Park seems a logical solution, in my humble opinion.

  30. Scholarship resident @ December 13, 2013 at 1:35 pm
    Let’s be clear that it’s not the new building of individual homes. Many lots are being turned into a double lot residence actually reducing the number of single families. In terms of individual homeowners, what about all of us sending our children to private schools! The trend is up, drive around and count the signs in yards. Many of my 3 elementary children’s classmates are also Park Cities Residents. Several factors are it’s a recession and many “empty nesters” are selling their homes to unlock the value, but clearly the multi-family residences would have the most student per square foot ratio. I live in the district and send kids to private for the parks and the neighborhood. Please lower the crowding in the school and I might send my kids!!!

  31. Observer @ December 13, 2013 at 1:57 pm
    @Parkie. With eminent domain, if HPISD takes it, they pay for it. Yes, the owners will fight it, but they probably lose. Back in the 90′s when the district wanted to build an elementary school on Rosedale, they planned to use eminent domain if owners wouldn’t sell. Then the bond issue failed, as might a bond issue to build a new school now.

    SMU seems flush with land and money these days. What about a joint venture, a school where the College of Education can send its elementary ed student teachers?

  32. Tongue in Cheek @ December 13, 2013 at 1:59 pm
    @Lifer. Why are you and Dan picking on the ecumenicals?

  33. Avid Reader @ December 13, 2013 at 3:00 pm
    @Duplex Mom, You need to read the posts more carefully. The one you are taking offence to is clearly being sarcastic in response to another’s post.

  34. Professor McGillicuddy @ December 13, 2013 at 3:25 pm
    If you’re interested, please participate in an informal poll at:

    http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=52ab7a51e4b0169ef69e6d49

  35. JRSmith @ December 13, 2013 at 3:38 pm
    @DuplexMom– clearly I was being sarcastic. There’s nothing wrong w recently divorced hot moms living in duplexes to do right by their kids.

    Just post up at the Hillstone bar Saturday night and you’ll find your meal ticket.

    Caruth and Coffee shouldn’t even be part of the same conversation. Coffee park sucks.

  36. Parkie @ December 13, 2013 at 10:51 pm
    @Observer, you are right about paying for property. What people need to understand is that eminent domain is about taking PRIVATE property. UP-owned PUBLIC parks are off limits, unless the city agrees to sell, which is highly doubtful because residents will not support it. The needs of the district and the needs of the city overlap to some degree, but they are not the same!

    @scholarship resident, hundreds, maybe thousands, of single family homes have been torn down within the district’s boundaries in the last 20 years, with young families moving in and sending their kids to both public and private schools. Between 2000 and 2010, more than 20 houses on my old block in UP were rebuilt. On my street right now, five are in the process of being torn down or extensively remodeled.

  37. M. Blankenship @ December 14, 2013 at 3:24 am
    9 students allows Highland Park High School to play football in 6AA next year. For those of you who moved into University Park with school age children, how much of the history of this wrangling over school buildings do you know? The landmass of the small city can hold only so many people. What I see happening is saturation of the land by people with no regard to the future problems of URBAN PLIGHT. Every new resident wants to deny the reality that UP is overrun with cars and people right now. YOU ARE KILLING THE CITY AS IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE A SMALL TOWN WITHIN DALLAS COUNTY WHERE TRADITION AND NEIGHBORING WAS THE REASON PEOPLE MOVED TO UNIVERSITY PARK. Not one suggestion in this article makes any sense. How many times can something be remodeled before it must be torn down? This is what young new residents are doing to the HPISD. Without the tradition of GOOD SCHOOLS where students are few HPISD is just Frisco close to BIG D..

  38. JRSmith @ December 14, 2013 at 12:05 pm
    Everyone take a deep breath.

    @M Blankenship: yes it’s getting more crowded, parking at Snider Plaza is inconvenient. But let’s stop acting like it’s totally out of control.

    HP has in no way compromised its academic or athletic standards, it’s hardly Plano.

    I’m sorry the influx of younger families is disconcerting to the Saturday night Cafe Pacific crowd.

  39. Taxpayer @ December 14, 2013 at 3:36 pm
    The comments above are truly representative of the fine Conservative, Republican, Christian values of the Park Cities – all in the name of “supporting” the socialistic public school system by taking of property from other members of the community.

  40. Taxpayer @ December 14, 2013 at 3:42 pm
    Since SMU doesn’t have eminent domain rights, have they made a backdoor deal with HPISD to use its eminent domain power – ultimately for SMUs benefit in the not so distant future??????

    The last item in the poll above:

    “Form JV with SMU. Create school and teaching opportunity for edu. students”

    Since SMU students’ children attend HPISD schools, particularly elementary schools, perhaps SMU would financially contribute to the community with offering the use of property they already own and pay no/virtually no property taxes for????

  41. Just curious... @ December 15, 2013 at 8:05 am
    What about the houses that are in Dallas, not University Park, but feed to HPISD?

  42. M. Blankenship @ December 15, 2013 at 11:30 am
    @JRSmith
    Who is the Saturday night Cafe Pacific crowd you refer to? That seems a put down from a younger citizen to older citizens. So may I presume you want a fourth wrangle over a bond issue and school buildings? The wrangles really have not made neighboring a priority but divided the residents like DC political parties. Get the historical facts concerning the HPISD going back to its beginning, its legacy of superintendents and teachers/staff and WHY building schools and crowding more people into a small space is a PLIGHT meaning dilemma or crisis. The residents served by HPISD should leave SMU out of HPISD business. It is a private university with NOTHING to do with the state of Texas monitored public schools. Access… to homes close enough to walk very near UP Elementary…. is controlled by traffic patterns and stop signs. TOO MANY CARS for the safety of the children. It is bad there now and so is Snider Plaza. The wrangles and politics at the School Board ARE NOT ABOUT GOOD EDUCATION. One room schoolhouses WHERE DEDICATION OF THE TEACHER was the priority educated children.

  43. Observer @ December 15, 2013 at 1:12 pm
    @Just curious….HPISD could take the Dallas houses, too, as long as they are in HPISD–if that’s what you’re asking.

  44. Just curious @ December 15, 2013 at 3:48 pm
    @observer….I’m thinking that if all those Dallas houses didn’t feed into HPISD any longer…that would cut down enrollment too, right? I believe there are a handful of them close to 75 and some close to the Tollway. Just a thought.

  45. Parkie @ December 15, 2013 at 4:29 pm
    @M Blankenship, in the early 80s, HP was 5A and played Plano.

  46. Observer @ December 15, 2013 at 5:52 pm
    @Just curious. I don’t think HPISD can vote to change its boundaries. (Maybe the state could redraw them?) Those Dallas houses are as much HPISD as are those on Armstrong Pkwy. There’s no connection to HP & UP city limits, e.g., HP west of the Tollway is DISD.

  47. LSB Dad @ December 15, 2013 at 9:48 pm
    Although the City of Dallas houses in HPISD elementary makes some sense because it is the furthest from any elementary, I think the comment above was implying that they don’t belong. What Just Curious probably doesn’t realize is that there is also a great deal of HP on the west side of the tollway that is in DISD. It pretty much evens out and keeps kids from having to cross a highway to go to school. I sure hate the tone of a few people looking to blame a ‘lower’ class. I so not think there has been any increase in zoning to more multi family. In fact, it is probably the opposite. The homes, multi and otherwise, have all just gotten bigger. I would bet school class sizes has more to do with our ever growing metroplex and people wanting to live in close with great schools. Do you blame people for liking the PC and wanting to live here?

  48. Parkie @ December 16, 2013 at 10:07 am
    School district boundaries are exceedingly difficult to change in Texas. Excerpts from the state education code
    http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ED.13.htm#B.

    SUBCHAPTER B. DETACHMENT; ANNEXATION

    Sec. 13.051. DETACHMENT AND ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY. (a) In accordance with this section, territory may be detached from a school district and annexed to another school district that is contiguous to the detached territory. A petition requesting the detachment and annexation must be presented to the board of trustees of the district from which the territory is to be detached and to the board of trustees of the district to which the territory is to be annexed. Each board of trustees to which a petition is required to be presented must conduct a hearing and adopt a resolution as provided by this section for the annexation to be effective.
    (b) The petition requesting detachment and annexation must:
    (1) be signed by a majority of:
    (A) the registered voters residing in the territory to be detached and annexed, if the territory has residents;

    It continues after discussing detachment of unoccupied territory:

    (d) The proposed annexation must be approved by the board of trustees of each affected district, subject to the appeal provisions of Subsection (j).
    (e) Unless the petition is signed by a majority of the trustees of the district from which the territory is to be detached, territory that has residents may not be detached from a school district under this section if detachment would reduce that district’s tax base by a ratio at least twice as large as the ratio by which it would reduce its membership. The first ratio is determined by dividing the assessed value of taxable property in the affected territory by the assessed value of all taxable property in the district, both figures according to the preceding year’s tax rolls. The second ratio is determined by dividing the number of students residing in the affected territory by the number of students residing in the district as a whole, using membership on the last day of the preceding school year and the students’ places of residence as of that date.
    (f) A school district may not be reduced to an area of less than nine square miles.
    (g) Immediately following receipt of the petition as required by this section, each affected board of trustees shall give notice of the contemplated change by publishing and posting a notice in the manner required for an election order under Section 13.003. The notice must specify the place and date at which a hearing on the matter shall be held. Unless the districts hold a joint hearing, the districts must hold hearings on separate dates. At each hearing, affected persons are entitled to an opportunity to be heard.
    (h) At the hearing, each board of trustees shall consider the educational interests of the current students residing or future students expected to reside in the affected territory and in the affected districts and the social, economic, and educational effects of the proposed boundary change. After the conclusion of the hearing, each board of trustees shall make findings as to the educational interests of the current students residing or future students expected to reside in the affected territory and in the affected districts and as to the social, economic, and educational effects of the proposed boundary change and shall, on the basis of those findings, adopt a resolution approving or disapproving the petition. The findings and resolution shall be recorded in the minutes of each affected board of trustees and shall be reported to the commissioners court of the county to which the receiving district is assigned for administrative purposes by the agency and to the commissioners court of the county to which the district from which territory is to be detached is assigned for administrative purposes.
    (i) If both boards of trustees of the affected districts approve the petition, the commissioners court or commissioners courts to whom the matter is required to be reported shall enter an order redefining the boundaries of the districts affected by the transfer. Title to all real property of the district from which territory is detached within the territory annexed vests in the receiving district, and the receiving district assumes and is liable for any portion of the indebtedness of the district from which the territory is to be detached that is allocated to the receiving district under Section 13.004.
    (j) If both boards of trustees of the affected districts disapprove the petition, the decisions may not be appealed. If the board of trustees of only one affected district disapproves the petition, an aggrieved party to the proceedings in either district may appeal the board’s decision to the commissioner under Section 7.057. An appeal under this subsection is de novo. In deciding the appeal, the commissioner shall consider the educational interests of the students in the affected territory and the affected districts and the social, economic, and educational effects of the proposed boundary change.
    (k) Any additional tax resulting from a change of use, as provided for by Chapter 23, Tax Code, and the interest and penalty on the additional tax, that is imposed for any year on land in the annexed territory shall be paid to the school district that imposed the tax.

    Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995.

  49. Just curious @ December 16, 2013 at 3:11 pm
    Got it! Obviously y’all know more about the “school district” stuff than I do! :). Thanks for filling me in!

  50. t-Bone @ December 16, 2013 at 6:03 pm
    I own a house in West HP and I say annex it and the land behind Westside into HPISD. The homes values would rise $300,000 overnight and HPISD could acquire the vacant land behind Westside Dr for a new school.

  51. JohnG @ December 17, 2013 at 11:10 am
    Just to stick up for Coffee Park, I must report that it is my kids’ favorite. I prefer Abbott ever so sligthly but even I give the number 1 nod to Coffee if it has rained recently. Also – land use is a very complex issue with no single silver bullet solution. For example, take duplexes (is that the proper plural of duplex?). Duplexes aren’t new and aren’t necessarily a problem – They have been around in UP for quite some time, e.g. my previous 1947 on Normandy. Many an original duplex has been converted to single family, and many of the new ones are occupied by SMU students who don’t have kids to send to HPISD. Also, to a certain degree a broader mix of housing stock can add to the desirablility of a commmunity, overall property values and tax base.

  52. Neal @ December 17, 2013 at 9:49 pm
    Unless I missed it, I am really surprised no one mentioned the Dallas Country Club golf course between Mockingbird and McFarlin. Not all of it, obviously. A city block-sized tract is all that is needed, probably at the intersection of Golf and McFarlin with the main entrances and exits on Golf. There would be a huge eminent domain fight with DCC, but no one would be put out of their home or deprived of their investment property, and neither of the two cities would need to give up a park. The purchase price would essentially be lot value. And the site has the advantage of being undeveloped. The designers could come up with an entirely new concept that would minimize traffic and make the most of the space. There could be a parking lot on the school property instead of the streets. Plus the geographic location is perfect – more or less equidistant to all the existing elementary schools.

  53. Avid Reader @ December 18, 2013 at 9:19 am
    @Neal, Someone mentioned something about DCC earlier, though not as detailed. There would be a bigger legal fight over DCC than Coffee park and probably even Caruth for that matter. Also, I’m sure all the members are stock holders of some kind and making the course a few holes short of 18 would probably deprive them of their investment.

  54. 1st anon @ December 18, 2013 at 3:08 pm
    Other ideas:
    - Burleson Park
    - eminent domain over apartment complexes
    - apartment complex just north of Germany Park, across University Blvd.
    - Planning and zoning should increase the grass-to-concrete ratio, thus decreasing the size McMansions, and therefore the room for kid expansion
    - HPISD residents should support the idea of a separate “White Rock Independent School District”, which would take the pressure off of the desire to move to HPISD
    - pay us to leave. Cut us a check for the same expense-per-student, and I’ll either home school or find a private school. For that matter, every year, we get an email from Grapevine ISD asking us to come to their school district (yes, it’s legal to live in HPISD and go to another district if they have open enrollment)
    - turn the HP city hall temp location permanent, and turn the existing location into a school
    - Cut out the Youtube videos, ranting on by the teachers about their favorite football team, and other time-wasters, and make an efficient 4-hour education-filled school day. Hey, no cafeteria needed! My kids will take the morning shift, thank you.

Leave a Reply

    FRIEND, FOLLOW, AND SHARE US
    SEARCH OUR SITE