SCHOOL BOND

Unanswered questions continue.

Since when does the cost of a building have any bearing on the value or the quality of education?

Are we really talking about education or just a fancy, over-priced building?

Why spend $14 million when a $1 million dollar building will house 167 students?

According to the district's own projections, the building will be too small after as little as three years. What then?

Why not purchase affordable housing, allowing for more local revenue to be used directly for education?

Been there done that.

I started school in a one room, one-size-fits all-school in Idaho. Then in Moses Lake during the 50's growth boom, we attended school in poorly heated, uninsulated, non-air-conditioned barracks buildings and in other buildings during construction. Yet we managed to learn and received a better education than many students are getting today.

Portables or permanent manufactured buildings cost 80-90 percent less than the proposed building. Maintenance cost is moot justification because there is little if any maintenance cost difference between different types of construction. On the other hand, consider that portables and/or manufactured buildings are just as good as or better than many students' homes.

Reference was made to the value of farm commodities but nothing about the 300-500 percent increase in costs the last 10 years that far exceeds the increase in commodity value; fuel, seed, labor, insurance, equipment, parts, maintenance, taxes, levies. And these same people pay for the state's matching funds too (double taxation).

And since when has the cost of a building had any effect on gang activity?

Gangs are found everywhere, even in elite and affluent communities.

One answer to improving education is not going deeper in debt but spending wisely. Forget taxing your neighbors to get money from them through the state.

Instead spend $1 million on housing and the other $7.75 million directly on education. Then a $8.75 million dollar bond might be worth voting for.

A fancy overpriced building by itself offers nothing to improve education. At least prudent spending would teach students the value of living within their means.

It isn't that private sector taxpayers are opposed to education. They are opposed to government debt and government waste. A $14 million building for 167 students will increase state and local debt and is obvious waste.

We the private sector people are tapped out. We want value for what little money we have left.

Dale Hellewell

Royal City