To the editor:
I am writing to respond to Dan Eyler's letter about the proposed bond issue. Mr. Eyler makes huge generalizations about education, but misses the entire reason for a bond. State money doesn't replace buildings. State money doesn't pay for major renovations to buildings. The things I saw listed for this bond are technology, renovations and/or additions to LHS, FSHS and three of the junior highs. South Junior High gets replaced. Thank goodness!
Most of these improvements would also help us eliminate the large number of portable classrooms at these schools. I think these things represent a safety hazard, and as far as I'm concerned I think my kids and their friends ought to have the safest buildings we can provide.
My house has never gone up in value by 10 percent in one year. And even if it did go up 10 percent, that doesn't equal a jump from $50 to $150 in taxes. Apparently investing in education has been a good idea for Kansas because even my kids can do that math. I think this bond is fair and a good deal for Lawrence. I'm voting for it.
I sincerely hope Lawrence voters will take the time to research this bond and get the facts for themselves.