Comment history

Letter: Bond investment

I agree completely and plan to vote yes for the bond because a strong school system is directly tied to a strong community and economy.

In response to oneeye_wilbur above, the district is retiring a previous bond, so it is correct that the bond will not raise taxes. And just to clarify the costs to voters, a homeowner whose home is valued at $150,000 would save only $8.67 per month if the bond doesn't pass.

We need to pass the bond because:
- The Career & Technical Education Center is badly needed—26% of local high school students go straight into the work force.
- Our elementary schools are suffering from decades of underinvestment, and the bond will fix utility problems and provide modern spaces designed for the way kids really learn.
- ALL of our school buildings leak energy (both the old and new facilities). The bond will address these issues to save about $290,000 annually in tax dollars. (This is not unique to our district.)
- Lawrence actually invests less in our schools than our peers across the state. Lawrence needs our school system to stay strong so our community can remain vibrant and competitive.

March 30, 2013 at 12:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence Chamber endorses school bond proposal

Upon what do you base this assumption? I don't believe this is remotely true, but it is designed simply to make people angry and not consider the actual details of the bond. Our local elementary schools are suffering from decades of neglect, and the bond will fix that. Our school building (both old and new) leak energy, and the bond will fix that, conserving about $290,000 in our tax dollars. Our schools need a consistent technology backbone in all buildings, and the bond will provide that. If you are going to speak against the bond, or any issue, please uses actual facts to make your case.

March 30, 2013 at 11:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )