A vote 'no' is not a vote against education

There have been many “voices of reason and common sense” written as letters to the editor giving facts as to why the third school bond is too expensive and makes no sense. One such letter written by Scott Hudson pointed out why high schools are so expensive to build, operate and maintain. Another by Gary Ash cited dollar amounts for an alternative solution. To these and others, we say thank you.

The voters have rejected the school bond twice, once in 2012 (50.5 percent) and again in 2015 (54.45 percent). We are again being asked to pass a similar bond proposal without the option of more cost-efficient solutions. Survey results showed a support for a second high school option, but the question to ask is, what voters were surveyed? It would seem that the “no” voters would be the most important demographic to be targeted. These “no” voters have continued to offer alternative solutions that would greatly reduce the cost of this bond proposal. If this bond fails, will voters continue to be burdened with the same proposal in hopes that they give up and just say yes?

A recurring theme in the letters written in favor of the bond is that if a taxpayer votes no that means he/she is not for educating our youth. We prefer to think of this no vote as a taxpayer wanting a more reasonable and less expensive option to help fund the education of our youth. Children can and will learn in an educational environment wherever that is provided for them. This does not have to be a $102 million facility.

We encourage voters to not allow themselves to feel bullied into thinking they are letting the youth down if they vote no.

Jayson Melcher

John Hermann

Moses Lake