Redundant fields
To the editor:
There is still time for members of the public to let the school board know that their current plans for upgrading athletic facilities are redundant, wasteful and unacceptable. Throughout this process, school officials have repeatedly told taxpayers that their plans were designed to save money. Unfortunately, their plan to save money is almost as innovative as the financial practices of America’s auto executives.
In presentations before planning commissioners, city commissioners and members of the public, the school district’s chief operations officer pointed out that the district currently spends $80,000 each year to play football games at Haskell and to transport athletes to and from the games. Who could argue with the desire to reduce that figure in these challenging financial times?
How does the school board plan to respond to this challenge? Build two redundant football stadiums at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4.4 million. How do they plan to finance this? Take out a loan and pay it back over 10 years. What’s the bottom line for taxpayers? We will now spend more than $440,000 each year, for the next 10 years, to play football in two redundant football stadiums, six nights a year.
Why can’t we update both practice fields, but only build one stadium? Neither school currently has a stadium on site. The school board has not yet purchased the equipment or materials to build the two football stadiums. Contact them now and tell them that it’s time for plan B.
Bob Tryanski,
Lawrence