Letters, letters, letters

Last updated Oct 30, 2001 12:0pm0

The Nugget welcomes contributions from its readers, which must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Letters to the Editor is an open forum for the community and contains unsolicited opinions not necessarily shared by the Editor. The Nugget reserves the right to edit, omit, respond or ask for a response to letters submitted to the Editor. Letters should be no longer than 300 words. Unpublished items are not acknowledged or returned. The deadline for all letters is noon Monday.

To the Editor:

I have several comments relative to the continuing controversy over the new high school. The first of which concerns the architectural firm. It would naturally like the extra $2 million to be included, as it will pick up an extra $133,000 for essentially the same effort in designing the building.

Also, the size of the entrance and the fact that the school will have a plaza or courtyard are architectural showpieces and have little to do with the purpose of the school which is to provide teachers and students with a good learning environment.

To have architect Scott Steele say he believed he was authorized to design a school that would also include the interest on the bond implies that someone in authority led this thinking. Was this Steve Swisher? It also seems that Mr. Swisher is not being very on top of things when he has been using $265,005 in Systems Development Charges when reality may be $701,900. We pay him a very good salary to be better informed than this.

To have Mr. Swisher give the figure of 6 cents per $1,000 reduction on tax if the $2 million is returned sounds small, however that also turns out to be $2,400 in the life of the bond on a $200,000 house.

Already my school tax has increased by $193.22 beyond last year. That is much more than my Social Security increase. Incidentally I do not follow where Jeff Jones obtains his $14 figure nor where Betsy Mennesson obtains her figure of $24 for tax reduction.

The argument that the extra $2 million should be spent because all other districts do it reminds me of the same argument that students use in the classroom when they want something their way. The voters voted for a $20 million school and the architect and board should have to work to that standard.

Why, if money is tight, is the architect leaving in two football practice fields, a performance football field, lighted tennis courts and trying to cut science facilities, a classroom and a storage room? Which is more important to the general schooling of most students? Who is guiding this person? $668,000 is a lot of money that can be cut and still provide good grass fields for needed activity areas.

As far as the inflation argument goes, the voters never voted to build a $20 million school plus what ever is needed for inflation; they voted for what they voted for and the architect should have to live with that.

"Leave a legacy... Build a jewel of a school." Is this the attitude to approach the construction of a building whose primary purpose was to provide for a better middle school? You who say that remind me of a Realtor or a used car dealer encouraging a purchaser to buy something out of their budget.

Finally, I wonder if any of you in authority have looked at the construction of this school from the point of view that the building is to be an adjunct to the education of Sisters students and not an edifice to your tenure.

Sincerely,

B. Graham

* * *

To the Editor:

I'm not the brightest person around, and have a poor head for figures. Mr. Dolson's article on school costs is a bunch of numbers but the message is clear (see The Nugget, October 24, page 1).

Even if the interest money is used, we are short of the final cost for the new high school. I believe our mayor speaks for the majority of us in saying that the school board (two members, anyway) were not honest with the voters in leading us to believe we were agreeing to a $20 million bond when they planned on a $22 million school.

There are probably a lot of folks out there wishing they had not voted for the school when it seems we were hoodwinked by the promoters.

And if Mr. Dolson's calculations are correct, and they probably are, it is even worse. The various people who have written letters promoting spending the interest money on a "great" school, miss the point. It's the lack of honesty, of saying one thing and planning on doing another that is so upsetting.

And the statement, it's only $24 per $200,000 property doesn't cover the 3 percent increase in evaluation we were hit with, along with the previous school bonds, and all the other goodies on the tax statement.

Our property falls in the $200,000 category and our taxes are about $500 more than last year. I hope Heather Wester and Steve Keeton can convince Jeff Smith to agree with them, it's the principle of the thing and continued faith and trust in the school board that is at stake. And a $500 increase is not a few coffee lattÈs, Mr. Bennett (see Letters to the Editor, The Nugget, October 24).

Respectfully,

Mickey Duehren

* * *

To the Editor:

You can judge most people's integrity by the way they honor a promise as Steve Keeton and (school board) chairperson Heather Wester want to give back the excess money of the school bond back to the taxpayers. Thank you!

What part of recession and depression does the school board and district not understand?

In the days ahead, as the economy spirals downward, a $20.5 million school project will be able to be built for considerably less than that for the same if not better quality.

I want all the property tax money given back to me that is left over and that was promised to me that I have coming.

I've not really seen the board and school district address the problems of the low-income retirees and families with this huge tax increase forced on them that they can't afford.

The economy in Sisters has slowed drastically and I can't wait for it to affect those who have no regards for the down and out. What goes around comes around, hopefully real soon!

Chet Davis

* * *

To the Editor:

What is your share of the Squaw Creek Irrigation District $87,000-plus legal deficit?

It is election time for the Squaw Creek Irrigation District Division 1 board seat.

Incumbent, Lee Christensen, is running for another three-year term. He is not, however, running unopposed this time.

There is growing concern among Division 1 users as to the financial condition of the district proper.

Mr. Christensen, in his letter dated October 22 to Division 1 users, admits to financial woes and cites an ongoing lawsuit and a short water year as the cause.

Our question is, if this was a short water year, why have our individual bills been in line with previous full-water years?

Mr. Christensen's statement of the district's current financial situation is ambiguous at best and defies logical reason. The following quote is taken directly from his letter:

"Because of this (financial problems) we may be forced to special assess for next year's operations. We do not intend to assess for the legal expenses. As of last accounting, we owe our attorneys $87,000 and we have borrowed about $35,000 to operate this year."

In one breath he states they do not intend to "special assess" for the legal fees. In the next, he states they have borrowed funds to operate this year as the financial resources were depleted to pay toward the legal expenses.

The debt still remains, just in a different form. Will we, the users of the district, be assessed to pay the loan? Does this sound like good business to you?

As a possible solution to eliminating the perpetuation of the financial woes and to rein in the questionable management practices of the district, we encourage the adoption of a five member board with "at large" representation.

Circulating now are petitions to bring that to reality.

We may not be able to get back what we've lost, but we can stem the flow!

Respectfully submitted,

Peter Small & Ann Gates

* * *

To the Editor:

Thank you Dave Carey (www.davecarey.com) for coming to Sisters High School from San Diego to speak to a special group of kids, and for offering them the same type of inspirational speech that corporate America gets to hear. (See related story, page 5).

Thank you for speaking free of charge. Even the 'ah-shucks' crowd took notice and gave you a standing ovation.

Thank you Sisters High School kids for being so gracious to Dave Carey. Thank you Sisters High School for taking a chance and allowing this to occur. Thank you Peter Storton and Jim Mitchell for helping sponsor Dave Carey's transportation costs.

Sincerely,

Jack Addison

* * *

To the Editor:

On behalf of the Kiwanis Club of Sisters, I want to express my thanks to the students, staff, and parents of Sisters Middle School for the food drive they conducted the past couple of weeks.

In excess of 1,200 pounds of food was collected. It is because of efforts like this that Kiwanis is able to provide emergency food boxes to about 40 needy families in the Sisters area each month.

Bob Walter

Kiwanis Food Bank Chair

* * *

To the Editor:

I would like to thank all those who took part in our apple sale that helped us raise money for the New York Disaster Fund.

We wanted to help out with what little we could and with your help we are able to send $225 from the Harvest Basket, the Herburger family and the town of Sisters.

I hope you all enjoy the apples as much as I enjoyed seeing you all help us raise the money.