Re: New High School

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

Duncan speaks fervently in regards to a subject he is clearly passionate
about.  It is good to be passionate about subjects and all communities
benefit from those who are passionate and speak their minds.
However, passion is best tempered with an occasional dose of reality.

In Duncan's response to my comments, he suggests that improving and
maintaining older "stately" buildings takes less money away from education
than building new.  I do not quite understand this concept,  As buildings
age, it takes more and more ongoing funds to maintain and upgrade them.
Such funds come from a districts ongoing budget.  New buildings are built by
voter approved tax levies, thus not impacting a districts budget until
occupied.  Once occupied, assuming similar size, maintenance funds can be
shifted to educational needs that were once spent on the old building.
Since ongoing funds are limited unless local voters approve increases, then
older buildings have a greater impact on district budgets.  The 1912
building could have been repaired and upgraded with a tax increase by
district voters, but there was no support for such a tax increase except
from a passionate few.  I suspect that if the district had tried for voter
approval to spend 3.5 million dollars to return the building to usable
space, there would now be a parking lot instead of a building.

This debate will clearly go on for a while as the district and the community
absorb information and make decisions.  In the end, it will be the voters
who decide, and the voters are rarely passionate!

John

John Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com
----- Original Message -----