Houston Independent School District trustees discussed the possibility of selling 19 district-owned properties as a means of funding the rising costs of maintaining school infrastructure.
The discussion in a school board meeting on Thursday followed voters’ overwhelming rejection of a $4.4 billion bond proposal in the 2024 General Election. This proposal would’ve cost taxpayers nearly $9 billion after interest.
The bond proposal, which was split into two parts, faced significant opposition despite the district’s claims that it would address critical infrastructure needs.
Proposal A, which would have cost taxpayers roughly $8.4 billion (including interest), was dedicated to renovating aging school buildings, constructing new schools, and upgrading campus safety and security.
Proposal B, with a cost of around $529 million, was aimed at upgrading the district’s technological infrastructure.
However, the bonds failed to gain voter approval, with 58 percent of voters opposing the proposals.
Because these proposals failed, Houston ISD faces the challenge of financing critical infrastructure needs without requiring hard-working Houstonians to take on more debt. One potential solution discussed at Thursday’s board meeting was the sale of district-owned properties.
According to the meeting agenda, the board was set to discuss the “Consideration and possible action to declare the Brookline Facility, Chatham Facility, Dodson Facility, East Area Office Facility, Fairchild Facility, Fonwood Facility, Grimes Facility, Harper Facility, Haviland Acreage, Kirby and Orem Acreage, North Forest Acreage, North Forest Mesa Strip, Rhoads Facility, Ryon Facility, South Area Office, Southbank Acreage, Terrell Facility, and/or Tidwell Acreage as surplus and authorize sales procedures.”
While the sale of properties could generate significant revenue to cover infrastructure needs, this part of the meeting took place behind closed doors, and thus precluded taxpayers from being aware of what the discussion entailed.
Despite the lack of transparency from the board, even a discussion about selling off properties is considered a huge win for taxpayers, as it would be a far more fiscally responsible option compared to taking on billions in new debt.
The rejection of the bond proposal signaled to Houston ISD that taxpayers are unwilling to finance the fiscally irresponsible decisions the board continually makes. Instead, there is a growing demand for the district to live within its means and find alternative solutions that do not require additional tax increases.
While the sale of district properties may or may not materialize, Houston ISD will likely be forced to consider these sorts of steps to continue operating.
