Chuck Hughes, Board of Education
It is refreshing to have an online conversation with Mr. Paris without maligning each other. Still, I will reluctantly keep my response short and point out some facts that he may have missed.
First, his comments about shutting down “perfectly good” schools:
I appreciate Todd’s nostalgia for these 1920/1930 elementary schools. Although new when he enrolled, they are now 89 years old, and it is just a matter of time before the brick and mortal give way to father-time, that is if the old man is not already surveying his stock. Clearly these schools will have to be replaced in the near future, or have money wasted on modernizing heating and air systems that eat up thousands of wasteful dollars each year. However, that is contingent on if the upgrades can actually be done on buildings not designed to accommodate modernization. And if they could, it is likely that the technical modernization would out-live the buildings themselves.
· About the removal of the old structures and asbestos when they finally die. The fact is, this issue will have to be addressed eventually despite consolidation.
· The issue of “tens of millions of dollars” for new buildings is an understatement. We will eventually need to replace many more schools and do so in a short period of time (see the other elementary schools and construction dates below.)
· At a minimum, we are looking at $60 million to $100 million in the next five years or so just to get these projects started. You can blame this on years of neglect and planning failure. The current board is trying to “catchup” and is in the process of long-term construction plan
· If the influx of industry does occur, then the county wealth will take care of all the new schools we want.
K-5 OLDER THAN 50 YEARS ORIGINAL CONTST. # OF UPGRADES LAST UPDATE
I would agree that it would be beneficial to see a plan that consolidated these older schools with a newer school. However, demographics may make this impossible. It is a question worth asking, however.
Todd Paris’s Reply to this Letter-to-the-Editor:
