Andrea Heyser: ‘Go Bond’ a bad idea
An open letter to Dr. England, Penn Valley School District superintendent:
I’ve read that you want to us to support a Go Bond of $35 million for maintenance of primary schools. It will cost us $70 million in interest alone, which could be resting in our savings accounts drawing interest instead of paying it.
You have compared buying a house to fixing the bathroom, you cannot pay for a house like paying for the bathroom. We’re poor folk and we have to think twice before spending the peoples’ money for interest.
It seems like you wish to borrow money to do the entire job of repairs to some schools all at once which will cost us $100 million or thereabout, when we can pay as we go for $35 million. We repair our houses when we have the money over a period of time, not all in the same year. Why don’t we use our money set aside for repairs and updates and not borrow?
Are you perhaps suggesting you don’t have a maintenance fund? Why not? Doesn’t your tax money include maintenance? Why not?
If you need more money set it in stone, tax us a small fee for maintenance — it will still be a lot cheaper than your Go Bond, which is kind of expensive. Spending $35 million sounds much better than $100 million for the same job.
Rough and Ready
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.