- I think it is terrific that people are talking about this issue, even if tempers flare. The more people who know about the District s plans the more likely itMessage 1 of 1 , Oct 4, 2013View Source
I think it is terrific that people are talking about this issue, even if tempers flare. The more people who know about the District's plans the more likely it is that the bond will fail. We have $5 million dollars already saved (no new borrowing, no new taxes) and the state will kick in an additional $1.9 million dollars. With $6.9 million dollars we can take care of the must haves at the schools, and do so without burdening that segment of the community that is reeling from sky-high taxes.
Why not start there and let us spend the money we already have. There is a difference between must-haves and would-be-nice-to-haves. Roofs, fire protection, lighting -- those are must-haves. Artificial turf and a new stadium a few blocks away from the old stadium are not must-haves.
I am voting NO because I don't want to support the would-be-nice-to-have items when a large portion of the community cannot afford their taxes and our children cannot afford to live in the community they were raised in. I actually think it is offensive to burden the community for 15 years for an artificial turf field that may last 8 years. And then what, another bond to replace it? Is that fair?