After researching and contemplating the latest school bond request from the South Kitsap School District’s board of directors, one word came to mind—arrogant. Now that’s a relatively strong word and, when communicating, words mean a great deal.
Being a bit old fashioned I reached for my dusty, trusty thesaurus to see if there might be a more appropriate adjective to describe the school board’s latest action. Among others, Random House offered the following alternatives; pretentious, high-and-mighty, insolent, disdainful, contemptuous and pompous.
Now that’s a relatively strong word and, when communicating, words mean a great deal. Being a bit old-fashioned, I reached for my dusty, trusty thesaurus to see if there might be a more appropriate adjective to describe the school board’s latest action. Among others, Random House offered the following alternatives: pretentious, high-and-mighty, insolent, disdainful, contemptuous and pompous.
Following two unsuccessful bond measures in 2016 that requested $127 million over 30 years, your elected school board officials voted unanimously to try a third time. However, this time they decided to increase the amount and decrease the term of the bond request, substantially increasing the annual assessment. The bond issue you are being asked to ratify with your vote on Feb. 14 has now morphed into $172.6 million over 21 years. In whose “standard operating manual” does that translate into heeding the will of the voters?
Under the circumstances, prudent and responsible elected officials would listen to a majority of voters and either drop the request or go back to the drawing board and seriously scale back the scope of the project to a bare-bones plan. A blueprint that would be palatable to the voters as well as begin to meet current needs. There is nothing prudent about wasting precious tax dollars (paid to Kitsap County) on funding a third ballot measure in less than a year while potentially placing an inordinate number of seniors and economically disadvantaged families in financial jeopardy.
By my calculations, if I lived in the mythical $250,000 home cited on the SKSD website and both the bond issue and levy renewal passes, I will allocate at least $110 per month of my fixed retirement income to support the school district. That does not include the state’s portion of my property tax or the governor’s proposed 25 cents per gallon increase in motor fuel tax that would be dedicated to schools.
How many of us on fixed incomes will have to soon make decisions on putting food on the table, life-saving prescriptions in the medicine cabinet or building a Taj Mahal-like edifice for a privileged few? Is arrogant the best word to describe this bond proposal? Check your thesaurus. Maybe you can find a more appropriate word.
I have no choice. Survival dictates I must vote No on Feb. 14.