ROYAL SCHOOL BOND

Reader: No compelling reason to vote no

As you are probably aware, the Royal School District has recently floated several bond measures, all without success.

This suggests that a number of citizens have concerns about the proposed bond. As a bond supporter, I'd like to look at some of the specific concerns that have been raised by people I have talked with.

Does the school district really need the new facilities?

No one questions that enrollment is up substantially over the past decade and currently shows no sign of leveling off. Classroom space must be found, and portables will do that.

But portables won't enable kindergartners to eat lunch at a more reasonable time than 10:30 AM or allow middle school students to travel between classes without having to squeeze past each other or enable both high school basketball teams to no longer hold practices from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. So I don't find this as a compelling reason to vote "no."

Are the buildings too expensive?

Perhaps the building code is substantially increasing the cost, but it's not the school's building code. Voting "no" won't cause the district to propose buildings that can serve the same needs at a fraction of the cost. So I don't find this a compelling reason to vote "no."

Has the district administration not performed as you hoped?

If they haven't, will putting kids in portables and making sure kindergartners keep eating lunch at 10:30 cause the administration to do what you want? Probably not, so I don't find this a compelling reason to vote "no."

Is the tax increase going to represent a severe strain on your income?

Perhaps it will. No farmer has shown me their balance sheets for various years, and I'm not asking any to. Maybe you need the money more than the school district does, and I am certainly not going to begrudge anyone their hard earned money. This does look like a compelling reason to vote "no."

And yet...the school district must house these students, and it must be paid for one way or another, and it turns out that all the other options will cost the taxpayer more than the proposed bond.

For example, a levy only requires a 50 percent vote to pass and is projected to cost substantially more than the proposed bond. If holding on to your dollars is the reason you are voting "no," I suspect you may come out behind, rather than ahead, for it. Ironically, economic self-interest may be a reason to vote for the bond rather than against it.

If you are concerned that the building isn't being properly designed, a "no" vote won't improve it, but giving input at facilities meetings would.

If your reasons for voting "no" are personal, such as slights you have received from bond supporters, I apologize for such offenses and hope that you haven't felt offended by my arguments. I hope you will agree that the need to properly educate children is bigger than the need to teach bond supporters better manners.

So ultimately, I find no compelling reason to vote "no" on the upcoming bond, and I hope that you will join me and many others in voting "yes" for Royal's kids.

Dr. Eric Carlson

Royal City