Re: Old High School

["John and Laurie Danahy" <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>]

> 
> >  On Wed. 8 Jul 1998, Dale Goble wrote:
> 
> (snip)

> I doubt that anyone would argue for wasteful expenditures.  My contention
> is that the cheapest present cost is not necessarily the best choice
> because 
> (1)	it often has a shorter life span and/or higher upkeep;
> (2)	it often is ugly -- compare the Lane County Courthouse with the
> 	courthouses constructed in the last century;
> (3)	there often are other social values that trump the lowest-cost
> 	choice AND people who dislike the social values often cloak
> 	themselves in the role of cost-savers when they are actually
> 	attacking the social value.
> 
> Dale Goble
> Moscow

None would ever argue that wasteful expenditures are necessary, but I would
contend they are a sometimes accepted shortcut to problem solving. 
Engaging in "shortcuts" or waiting till a project becomes socially vital,
only produces excessive expenses and unnecessary errors.  The expenses and
errors then become something we have to live with because there are no
other viable alternatives once the project is completed. 

 My contention is that:
1) long term facility planning needs to recognize both identifiable needs
and long term methods of funding.
2) foreshadowing needs will often result in better initial data, more
concrete projections, and increased community involvement in the funding
process. Perhaps even to the point where bond levies may be either
drastically reduced or not needed at all.

Social value is often in the eye of the beholder.  Time and effort can
change the perception of social value.  Action taken too quickly only
hardens the perception.

John

John and Laurie Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com