I am a resident of Hays and a small business owner. My wife and I own a home here, so we pay property taxes. We have one child, a son who is completing his freshman year at Hays High. My wife works at FHSU and is one of the dozens of community volunteers that has spent countless hours attending meetings to discuss, plan, and develop the current bond proposal from USD 489. One of my partners is Bill Jeter, and Bill (and, therefore, our firm) is counsel to the district.
Forgive me for all the disclosures, but I wanted to be up front with that information. I have no doubt that some would try to manipulate or diminish what I say by suggesting I have some sort of hidden agenda. That’s not the case.
Nobody asked me to write in favor of the bond. I am not writing this as counsel for USD 489. I write simply as a taxpayer, business owner, and resident of Hays; someone that is concerned about our future as the communities around us continue to shrink.
I have noticed, as I am sure others have, that the last few weeks have seen efforts made to rally voters to turn out against the bond. That is no surprise, and that is everyone’s right. Every ballot initiative should be scrutinized, and I respect that opinions will vary and votes will differ.
I am, however, struck by how the anti-bond efforts repeat familiar refrains intended to inflame emotions or frighten us into paralysis, rather than addressing the merits of investing in our school facilities – or the costs of continuing to fail to do so. I have seen a litany of reasons tossed out for why people should vote “No,” including but not limited to federal government monetary policy (nothing USD 489 can control), other state and local taxes (again, nothing the district can control), claims that the facilities now are “good enough” (they aren’t, and when did just “good enough” become the goal?), worldwide supply chain problems, and on and on.
Opponents have even found a way to create controversy where none should have existed by focusing on a single email sent by Superintendent Wilson encouraging district employees to exercise their right to vote. While I do not think any reasonable person could read Mr. Wilson’s email and conclude that he was seeking to “intimidate” employees or “bribe” them with dessert for merely exercising their right to vote, some chose to use his message as an excuse to pour negative light and publicity on the district and Mr. Wilson, hoping it would spill over to and taint the bond proposal itself.
Nowhere among these efforts and arguments are there any alternative, better proposals. There is no attempt to address the hard truth that our students and teachers are in desperate need of new and refurbished facilities. Instead, as with most ballot initiatives, it is easier to politicize the issues in play by avoiding them altogether and railing on about “the process” and attacking public education administrators in state and local media.
Each one of us had the opportunity to participate in the formulation of the bond proposal. Open meetings were held. Opportunities to provide input were given. If you spend any time talking to members of the committees involved in the process, you will likely find that the decisions made about the scope of the bond were driven by community members that recognized our district and community needs and how best to address them, not the district’s consultant, DLR, as some would have you believe. But, again, there is no need to come up with a better idea or debate the merits when it’s much easier to fire up voters by looking for easy targets like DLR, the district, or its superintendent.
If you are a voter still considering your decision, as a fellow voter and taxpayer I simply ask that you not be distracted by these tactics. Consider the bond on its merits. Take the time to ask questions and get the information you think you need to make an informed decision.
While I, too, am concerned about inflation and rising costs (other negative arguments I have heard of late), I am more concerned about what the costs will eventually be if we continue a policy of spending millions of dollars on band aids to maintain buildings that range from 40-plus to 90-plus years in age and have inadequate space for the district’s 21st Century needs. I am more concerned about the price our community will pay if we send the message to young families looking to move or stay in our community that we are satisfied with inadequate, ill-equipped, and over-crowded school facilities.
So, I think it is critical that the bond passes. I think that despite knowing that I, as a taxpayer, will contribute to paying for the costs of the bond and despite knowing that it is very unlikely that I will have any children that attend school at any of the new or refurbished facilities that will result from passage of the bond.
I am convinced that, of all the bond proposals considered, the current bond proposal makes the most sense in terms of facility usage; that this has not been a “rushed” process and that considerable time and effort has gone into crafting a bond proposal that makes sense in its scope;that it gives us a valuable tool to help attract families and businesses to either stay or relocate to our community; and that it avoids kicking the proverbial can down the road for our children and grandchildren to deal with.
There is no such thing as waiting for “the right time” to pass a bond. Failing to pass this bond, at this time, will only cost us more in the future as USD 489’s facilities get older, and the scope of the work needed gets larger.
I will vote “Yes” twice for the bond and the sales tax, not because I love to pay another dollar in taxes, but because the current bond proposal deserves support. What I hope is that each voter that intends to vote, whether for or against, will come to their own conclusion by focusing on the facts and the merits of the proposal, the needs addressed, and the costs of doing nothing, instead of letting misinformation or contrived outrage distract them from the real issues at hand.
Chris Sook, Hays