It is important for everyone to realize that the "taxpayers" don't own the
buliding, the district does. The school dstrict is a taxing entity that
represents the interests of a large group of tax payers. Unfortunately for
some of our more provincial thinkers, that group of tax payers includes
many who are not city tax payers.
The Board of Trustees of the school district is charged with the
responsibility of protecting the interests of all those who make up its tax
base, not just city residents. The district must make the best deal it
can. The rejection of the White Avenue property was a rejection of using
county tax dollars to clean up a city waste site.
There are other considerations that must be remembered when considering
this deal.
First, the city and the district agreed that the building has no value.
The district is not selling the building to the city, it is selling the
land. This agreement is spelled out in the April resolution by the city
council regarding the purchase.
Second, this same resolution, passed by the city council, stated that it
was the intention of the council to aquire and renovate this building
without using tax dollars. I did not attend the council meeting and have
not seen any "counteroffer" yet, so I assume the unwillingness to use tax
dollars is still pre-eminent. Thus the idea that "taxpayers" are going to
pay for this building twice is ludicrous.
John Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com