go ahead...pay higher property taxes, school fees, etc. Let me guess, then you will complain that the school board wasn't being fiscally responsible by locating buildings with a lower rent. Some people can't be satisfied no matter what.

Also...have you heard the truism that it takes a village to raise a child? Perhaps your Sunday offering isn't cutting it. Perhaps your dollars to the local charities aren't enough. Perhaps this is a win/win for our "village" and it's children. Must everything be a battle?

TCB: "Ive visited temples, mosques, and churches of all faiths and yet some how I seem to practice my own faith." . . . Just how many of those places you visited were in the U.S. functioning under the Constitution and had PUBLIC taxpayer financed PUBLIC schools within their walls? I highly doubt you saw publicly financed schools in religious facilities unless they were in theocratic nations. Even though the courts have now ruled churches have "won" and can freely discriminate against employees, are they now engaged in an end run forgoing their failed push for education vouchers at the public tax trough to, instead, just gain unaccountable financing through rental fees?

tj24:

What is the worst thing that could happen? Is the building going to brainwash your child? Is home schooling an option for your child?

As for religious owned buildings. What about hospitals? Many hospital corporations are owned by "relgious institutions." If you were to fall ill or injured and you were taken to that hospital is your fear that you might receive medical care and be proselytized?

Its a fairytale to assume that simply walking into a religious building that one will convert. I recommend that you travel the world. Go into various "buildings" of various religions and test your hypothesis. Ive visited temples, mosques, and churches of all faiths and yet some how I seem to practice my own faith.

I already give to my favorite non-profits and would prefer my federal/state education tax dollar$ not go to fund religious related causes. That's what the "Sunday offering" is to be used for...

Actually, I'd like to see how the rent amount was calculated--utility, cleaning, overhead only--or a little extra cushion for a special cause?
=============

There's got to be a better answer.
=============

Here's one: A house of ill-repute will donate space they own for $11,000. That's $2K less than the church. Does the school go for the cheapest rate, or do what's right?

What if the religious building wasn't "christian"? Would that make a difference in the selection process? (Just curious... where do the officials go to church?)
===================
Hard times -- hard decisions. Well, here's one: Don't take the easy way out by going with a cheap place that has religious ties.

I would rather see the District renting space from a church than next to a head shop -- especially with the kind of program they offer to kids completing drug and alcohol treatment.

Although I see the savings, as an unaffiliated non religious person, I'd have an issue with taking my child to a religious building for school. Maybe I don't want to be affiliated (or look like I am) with a church. Or maybe I am affiliated with another church...there are so many what ifs. I think putting a district school setting in a religious owned building is a bad idea.

I would prefer that a public entity such as the school board not involve itself in this way with a religious institution, but there's nothing illegal about it, especially if it merely involves rental of space and not entanglement of programming.

really, proartist? I think Sodemann is being cognizant of wisely spending taxpayer dollars.

..."School board member Bill Sodemann has been suggesting for several years that the district reduce its rental costs.

He said he'd prefer that the district use any vacant spaces in its own buildings wherever possible.

"I'd rather have no rent, but it's definitely a step in the right direction," Sodemann said when called for comment."

How is this being "unconstitutional" with regard to the Janesville School District, taxpayer dollars or the fact that his business chooses to donate to certain organizations, religious or secular? His position on the school board and his business are two separate functions within the community.

I am not necessarily in alliance with all of Sodemann's views; however, I think it was an unfair comment. (just my opinion, of course)

Per his involvement with Phone Plus (Sunday, February 22 - Janesville Gazette): “Churches can call us and we’ll do our best to help them for nothing or next to nothing,” Sodemann said." No wonder he finds no problem melding TAXPAYER secular funds into a religious institution where there is no accountability for the monies invested and which can freely discriminate against those it employs (http://current.com/items/90485671_religi...). Do the charter school grant monies to "comply with school safety codes" also come from the taxpayer? If Sodemann truly heeded the fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution, he would proceed with more caution rather than fund church entities he clearly professes a bias to advance. This sets a very dangerous precedent when Janesville has many empty and affordable properties available. The school district has embarked on a very slippery slope with this decision. . .