Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Shop around

August 18, 2011

Advertisement

To the editor:

First of all, our governor did not order the closing of the SRS office in Lawrence. Never suggested it. He ordered “administrative cuts” be made and, rather than cutting a few high-paying administrative jobs or cut some out-of-town “educational seminars,” the SRS administration decided to close the office.

That said, the “Give back” letter by Jim McCrary (Public Forum, Aug. 16) made a very valid point but only offered one solution to the $300,000 per year SRS building lease. The landlord (a Lawrence resident) should lower the cost. Great suggestion, Jim. I think it would be very patriotic and the Christian thing to do (if they are either of those).

About the “deal” made to keep our SRS office open, we all know how the local governments are going to come up with the money for their “deal”: raise more taxes. How about shopping around for a building taxpayers are already paying for? Do we have any recently closed school buildings available? Let’s see, you get ample parking, a reception area, plenty of office and meeting rooms, it is probably wired for computer access, larger “play area” for the kids, and even access to a kitchen where they could serve meals or have a food pantry.

So who owns the empty school buildings in Douglas County? I think it is the taxpayers. Do we as taxpayers ever have a say in these properties we paid for?

I say the local elected officials should shop around. Is this “deal” the best they could come up with? Seriously!

Comments

2 years, 8 months ago

Sam, It's good to see you're such an ardent supporter of The Gov. Unfortunately, you're wrong in that he didn't direct the closing of the Lawrence SRS office. His overpaid crony from the failed welfare system in Florida (you know, the place where children were "lost" in the system for years) doesn't do anything without The Gov's say. You and I both know that.

Here's how it works. The Gov says cut the SRS budget. The legislature intends the budget to be cut at the top level in Topeka. The Gov hires overpaid cronies to mismanage and destroy the State's system. Instead of doing what the legislature intended (cuts at the top level), Seidlecki (sp?) closes the Lawrence SRS as well as 8 others around the state. The Gov didn't publicly say close them, so his hands are clean, just like Pontius Pilate's. Seidlecki takes the heat, doesn't care, and The Gov can point fingers, like he always does.


Unless the school district has sold the buildings, they belong to the district. An earlier discussion pointed out that those buildings could not easily be used for other purposes. I like the idea also, but the State (remember, it's a State program) would have to either rent or buy the building from the school district.

Reticent_R, Prices are like that all over town, not just with commercial but also with residential properties. That's what happens when you let developers to both turn Lawrence into a bedroom community and pander to the students.

0

rtwngr 2 years, 8 months ago

My vote would be to close it.

0

tbaker 2 years, 8 months ago

Local government always works best. Put the matter on the ballot. Let the people whose taxes will pay for it make the call.

0

jayhawxrok 2 years, 8 months ago

Best answer, fire all Brownback's cronies he hired in at high salaries, continue with business as usual.

0

Richard Heckler 2 years, 8 months ago

Who owns enough property that would be willing to take 50% less?

0

Richard Heckler 2 years, 8 months ago

There is time to consider this thinking which makes dollars and sense!

0

edjayhawk 2 years, 8 months ago

Not unless I'm carrying a Glock to defend myself from you.

0

gl0ck0wn3r 2 years, 8 months ago

Why should the landowner be forced to take a hit on his rental prices? It's easy to sit in your armchair without owning any property and tell other people how to handle their investments. Would you be willing to cut your income by the same amount you suggest the property owner cut his rent?

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 2 years, 8 months ago

$11.25 sqft. The Reuter Building is available for $10.00 sqft. $300,000 I-70 Business Center was available for 8.95 sqft. $264,025 935 Iowa is available @ $16.00 sqft, but only 1000 sqft. 1045 E 23rd St is available for $9.50 sqft, but only 9600 sqft.

Whoa, commercial property rental rates are up there...

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 8 months ago

"First of all, our governor did not order the closing of the SRS office in Lawrence. Never suggested it. "

Wanna buy a bridge?

0

GardenMomma 2 years, 8 months ago

What is the square footage of the current SRS buildings? I believe there are two buildings.

0

PROAMERICA 2 years, 8 months ago

What a great idea! Sam Hunsaker should be mayor!

0

Kookamooka 2 years, 8 months ago

Good suggestion about re purposing a closed school. Save the taxpayers money and thwart the evil ambition of the money grubbing land LORD.

0

Benjamin Roberts 2 years, 8 months ago

$27,656 per month rent is beyond comprehension. The landlord recoups the entire appraised value every 4 years. Something smells rotten.

0

somebodynew 2 years, 8 months ago

First of all, if you believe Sed-licky (or anyone else in this Administration) did anything without your govenor's approval you are naive.

That being said you bring up some good points, but you leave out one important point. The idea of taking over a closed school really deserves a close look, since we are now on the hook to keep the office open as long as Sham is in office. I would take some glee if we could move out from that particular landlord as I am sure he will not think about giving a break on the outlandish rent. (Even though he has gotten his fair share of breaks from both the City and County over the years.)

The one thing you, and other similar posters, have not addressed is that it will take $$$ to move the SRS office anywhere and it will take time to plan it. Now, I seriously hope someone is planning that right now so that we are prepared for when this "deal" runs out. But you must keep in mind, even if we get a building for free (not likely) there will be a great expense getting the building ready and actually moving. It would be savings overall, but don't neglect the upfront costs.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.