Guest Commentary by Susan Shotthafer
January 30, 2020
Common sense, concern for our entire community’s welfare, and frugality guide our opposition to Port Angeles School District’s $52 million levy proposal increasing PASD property taxes 175 percent.
Voters rejected as unaffordable, PASD’s requested $2.06 per $1000 in 2015 and $2.42 per $1000 property tax in 2018. PASD now seeks a more excessive $2.62. PASD’s EPO dropped from $3.00 to $1.50. This levy proposes $2.62 more. From 2017’s $2.09, state 2020 school taxes rise to $3.07 per $1000.
If older homes need new heating, plumbing, or electrical systems, common sense requires least costly solutions—systems replacements. Razing homes because of such insufficiencies exemplifies extreme wastefulness considering countless possible productive expenditures. Which levy proponents are sufficiently wealthy to demolish their homes if similar improvements were needed?
Education Week estimates $4.5 million as average school renovation cost. Real world evidence demonstrates renovation viability. Unlike millions of home and thousands of school modernizations nationwide, levy proponents say Stevens’ students’ daily “unintentional corrosion” makes necessary demolition rather than renovation. What? Apparently, students elsewhere don’t corrode buildings.
A school director characterizing opponents’ use of “modular” and “wasteful spending” as “buzz words” displayed disappointing indifference towards affordability and frugality. Without any substantiation, levy supporters regularly disparage modular construction with minimally 35 percent cost savings, used nationwide for hospitals, fire stations, schools, etc. and commercial buildings. We suggest modular buildings if classrooms were needed and substantiate modular’s advantages at our website, stoppaschooltax.com
For many taxpayers recognizing school directors’ fiduciary responsibility, levy proponents’ dismissal of modular’s minimal 35 percent cost savings without constitutes “wasteful spending.”
Proponents disregard Washington State Office of Public Instruction’s approval of and ability to financially assist a district’s modular construction satisfying OSPI specifications.
This proposal “honoring” a decade-old facilities committee plan for each school sites buildings’ costly demolition and replacement, needlessly delays the date when all schools operate with new, efficient, electrical, plumbing, heating and safety updates. Hamilton waits until after 2037, Roosevelt after 2043.
With dollars saved by only replacing worn out systems and installing safety updates, PASD could provide for all schools much sooner and substantially reduce taxpayers’ burdens.
Appealing for safety, levy supporters promise vestibules. Will vestibules protect students at recess or waiting for busses? Psychopaths intending mayhem don’t need classroom access.
Legislators in Olympia currently propose HB1035 to provide a school resource officer for every Washington State school. One SRO serves PASD’s entire district. If HB1035 fails, PASD’s hiring of SROs for every school and posted notices of armed security would much more effectively protect students.
Another alternative, cutting edge, steel Shelter-In-Place BulletProof Storm Shelters capable of securing students and staff from “bullets, tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes in a matter of seconds” offer dozens of sizes and rapid installation. Prices vary by size. The manufacturer encourages installation by Wounded Warriors.
Keeping in mind the safety priority, school directors could request a safety levy to purchase these units protecting against 9.5 earthquakes and shooters for all schools instead of waiting until after 2043.
Ignoring sizeable differences between our local economy compared to wealthier districts, levy proponents turn cold shoulders to low income workers, renting families trying to save for homeownership, fixed income property owners, and small businesses, particularly considering approximately 20 percent property evaluation hikes.
Using dollars unspent for demolition and replacement homeowners could buy energy efficient windows, a growing family’s room addition, efficient outdoor watering systems, landscaping to beautify homes and community, children’s music lessons, family camping equipment, ad infinitum. We could donate to hospitals, charities, scholarship funds, libraries, and countless other meaningful purposes. Such expenditures would benefit our community’s residents and businesses. This $52 million plan would significantly preclude individual freedom to choose worthwhile purchases.
For our entire community’s wellbeing, we suggest common sense, basic modernization and safety proposals limiting taxpayers’ burdens. Please vote no!
Recent Comments