To the editor:

My acquaintances have asked me if I am against a bond issue for USD 497. My reply is no. I am against the present $59 million bond issue for the following reasons:

1. There are not firm estimates to justify the $59 million estimated expense for the bond. If there are, then the Journal-World should print the estimates, the names of the contractors who did the estimates and the work to be done.

2. The “crumbling” buildings that we read about are not a result of the taxpayers but rather of the failure of present and past board members and superintendents to maintain the buildings. Past bond money was used to purchase the administration building at 110 McDonald Drive. Wouldn’t $4 million be a start toward maintenance?

3. All this talk about how it is “for the kids” is, well, getting old and without substance. Tell me how paying DLR $3 million is “for the kids?”

4. We read that the bond would only cost $5.80 a month for a $100,000 house. Well, how much will it cost a business such as Westar, Kmart Distribution Center, Wal-Mart and, better yet, how much will the owners of property in downtown Lawrence pay? Print those figures.

5. An increase in valuation automatically raises your school taxes without a bond issue. Finally, let’s read a current financial report of the district in these news articles about the bond issue.

Maybe a pie chart for various businesses and addresses in Lawrence showing what is paid for taxes would be more informative and revealing.

David Holroyd,

Lawrence