To the editor:
I'm writing about the Lansing School District bond issue.
Do we need a new elementary school?
Probably, assuming the facts put out by the study group are true. I say that because in the past we've witnessed promotion for school bond issues that were less than truthful. I can certainly see the advisability of having all five grades in one school and understand concerns about separation among three schools, two of them not built with elementary age children in mind.
Forget the growth arguments. It is true that the Lansing area has and will continue to grow. However, previous growth in the area shows that unlike many communities, the general area growth does not translate to growth within our school population.
Arguments about what "pocket" the money comes out of also doesn't wash with me. Where did the quoted "state support" come from? The same pocket all other school money comes from - the taxpayers' pocket!
So why am I going to vote against this bond issue?
I will vote "no" because once again the school district's eyes are bigger than our pockets. The current bond issue asks for not only what is needed, but also what is wanted. We do not need a 900-seat auditorium to ensure excellent education in our schools. The high school auditorium is merely a want.
If school officials believe we really need an elementary school, why do they insist in including frills like the auditorium in each and every bond issue? It simply is not fiscally responsible to ask Lansing School District voters to support a 900-seat auditorium. Until school officials "get it," I will continue to vote "no" on school bond issues.