Bond proposal is too expensive

I usually use this space to try to make people laugh by making a few sarcastic remarks and funny comments. However, today I want to take a minute to be serious and tell you why I think everyone should vote no on Tuesday's school bond issue.

I admire and respect those trying to push the $32.3 million issue through. I think most have the best interests of the students at heart and they should be applauded for their efforts. At the same time, I just don't think a 20 percent increase of our school taxes in this current time is the answer.

I have been a strong opponent of this issue since it was proposed and I could write all day, listing reasons one after another, why we as voters should vote no. However, nobody wants to read a long-winded rant so I will try to keep my points short as I address a few of the main arguments for the bond issue that have been plastered across the front page of this paper in recent weeks.

Yes some of the buildings are old and repairs are needed, especially in the case of Lee Hunter. I realize that but at the same time, if Lee Hunter was so bad, why did school officials decide to close Morehouse Elementary after the 2011 school year and move a majority of those students into an ill-equipped building? At the time, many parents opposed the move because they didn't want the schools to be overcrowded, yet officials said the schools could handle it and class sizes would "fall within the state's recommendation."

Morehouse mayor Pete Leija said at the time his fear was Morehouse would close and two years later the board would decide Lee Hunter's building is in bad shape and want to construct another one. Give that man a prize.

Buildings may aid in the ability to educate children but it falls well under the ability to want to learn, the quality of teachers and good parenting. I went to a school that didn't have air conditioning. And you know what, while not ideal, it didn't keep me from getting a good education. The age of buildings isn't keeping people at Harvard from learning or at many other colleges and high schools around the country for that matter. Not to mention, new schools have been built in Cape Girardeau and Caruthersville and their test scores went down.

With all of that said, I would be in favor of a small tax increase to build a new school to replace Lee Hunter. That school is in need of major repairs and is not in an ideal part of Sikeston to have children. But I am not in favor of a proposal that would raise school taxes 20 percent.

In this current economy we have seen the cost of milk and other food items increase. The cost of gas continues to remain high and locally we have seen a significant increase in our electric rates. Yet I'm sure many of us have not received an increase in salary because of the tough economic times facing everyone. And now we are being asked to approve a 20 percent increase in our school taxes. It is too much in my opinion.

I've been told the increase "wouldn't be that much." Proponents are using the ever popular "well it is only this much per day." If anyone ever tells you that, that are trying to get something that is pretty expensive. Anything sounds cheap when it is broken into days. That's why they don't tell you what your total cost would be over the life of the bond? And keep in mind that number that you come up with by using their formulas is an increase over what you already pay, not your total cost.

Proponents also say that we will see a return on our investment through higher property values and more businesses moving to Sikeston. While new businesses look at schools, it is one of many factors and not the sole factor to moving to a city. Case in point is Do It Best which just moved to Sikeston from Cape Girardeau, despite the fact Cape Girardeau has a new public high school and several quality private schools to choose from.

And in order to have higher property values you have to have more people move into your community. A higher school tax may discourage some from moving to Sikeston and will certainly discourage those that rent, as the cost to rent will surely increase.

If passed, Sikeston will have the second highest school tax in southeast Missouri, behind Risco and just ahead of Scott Central. Both of those schools need a higher tax to help keep their schools open. I see other school districts with lower school taxes and new buildings going up all the time. How do they do it?

I have been told by a couple proponents I obviously don't care about our community, that I don't care about the kids, or that I just don't get it. That isn't true. While I don't have any children, I have never voted against a bond issue and am usually in favor of anything practical that promotes the schools and the community. But as I drive around the streets of Sikeston I just don't see a community that can afford a 20 percent increase in their school taxes.

According to our online poll we have running on our Website, I'm in the minority. If 75 percent of Sikeston wants this bond issue I will walk into my publisher's office on Wednesday and beg for a raise to help pay for my part. But if you are against this proposal, I encourage you to get to the polls and vote no. It doesn't mean you are against education or don't have any pride in Sikeston. It just means you don't like this expensive proposal.