If Fort Worth ISD sells Farrington Field, here’s what it must get in return
Fort Worth ISD officials are unveiling an ambitious plan to offload excess property and realign district facilities.
If it goes the way they project, the district will emerge with two new, modern athletic facilities, administrators better dispersed throughout Fort Worth, and even a bigger tax base to draw from long term.
But the proposal that Superintendent Kent P. Scribner and several district officials and consultants outlined to the Star-Telegram Editorial Board has many moving parts, and its two biggest pieces could bring significant push-back from the public: selling Farrington Field and constructing a new administration building.
Farrington has long been a Fort Worth jewel. But it’s past its prime — it would cost too much to renovate, and it’s not in a location that makes sense for many Fort Worth students and families anymore.
More to the point, it sits on tremendously valuable land, and the district is pitching lofty mixed-use development ideas that could spark economic innovation and job creation.
BEHIND THE STORY
MOREHey, who writes these editorials?
Editorials are the positions of the Editorial Board, which serves as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s institutional voice. The members of the board are: Cynthia M. Allen, columnist; Steve Coffman, editor and president; Bud Kennedy, columnist; Ryan J. Rusak, opinion editor; and Nicole Russell, editorial writer and columnist. Most editorials are written by Rusak or Russell. Editorials are unsigned because they represent the board’s consensus positions, not the views of individual writers.
Read more by clicking the arrow in the upper right.
How are topics and positions chosen?
The Editorial Board meets regularly to discuss issues in the news and what points should be made in editorials. We strive to build a consensus to produce the strongest editorials possible, but when we differ, we put matters to a vote.
The board aims to be consistent with stances it has taken in the past but usually engages in a fresh discussion based on new developments and different perspectives.
We focus on local and state news, though we will also weigh in on national issues with an eye toward their impact on Texas or the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
How are these different from news articles or signed columns?
News reporters strive to keep their opinions out of what they write. They have no input on the Editorial Board’s stances. The board consults their reporting and expertise but does its own research for editorials.
Signed columns by writers such as Allen, Kennedy and Rusak contain the writer’s personal opinions.
How can I respond to an editorial, suggest a topic or ask a question?
We invite readers to write letters to be considered for publication. The preferred method is an email to letters@star-telegram.com. To suggest a topic or ask a question, please email Rusak directly at rrusak@star-telegram.com.
We’ll see if that materializes, and we are hesitant to see school officials get bogged down in the re-development business. More important is that the district gets a great deal for such an iconic facility. Whatever gets built must fit in with the Cultural District and enhance, not distract from, Fort Worth’s key attractions.
And most of all, the district must preserve the stadium’s classic west facade, including art by Influential artist Evaline Sellors. The district and the outside consultants it has hired understand their significance and pledge to keep, at a minimum, the bas-relief sculptures and columns at the entrance gate.
Fort Worth residents should demand ironclad commitments to maintain them in any redevelopment, and district officials should push to preserve as much more of the overall facade as possible.
As for the field itself, a certain nostalgic outcry from longtime residents is inevitable. But the district’s plan to replace it with two facilities, one on the north side and one on the west, is solid. Fort Worth children deserve upgraded stadiums, and it’s a rare opportunity to build without incurring debt. That said, the proposed west side site, outside Loop 820 near the district’s western boundary, may be too far out.
As for the headquarters, district officials believe the current administration offices on University Drive are too big and would need too much renovation. Voters may grumble at the idea of a new building for bureaucrats, but district officials contend they’ll net at least $60 million from the property sales and reduce operating costs.
More administrators would be in learning centers around the district, where they can help support principals and teachers. That’s an improvement, though we wonder if some could just as easily work at various campuses.
District leaders pledge to incur no debt on the proposed new construction. And development of the sold land could eventually add $150 million to property tax rolls, which would help local governments at many levels.
Parents and taxpayers are well within their rights to ask how any of this improves education. Scribner touts the investments the district is making in schools with bonds that voters approved in 2017. He notes that two facilities on the list to be sold are currently housing students, and relocating them is part of his proposal to redraw school boundaries for the first time in 20 years.
That intertwines a lot of his priorities. Setting new boundaries will bring its own hue and cry, so Scribner and the elected board that supervises him could quickly find themselves under fire on several fronts.
They deserve credit for trying to turn excess property into assets that will serve long-term needs. But going forward, they must be transparent about decision-making and ready to take input from residents and other stakeholders.