Although it is probably not part of the job description for school board members, I see them as stewards of the sites they oversee. (My dictionary defines steward as “one called upon to exercise responsible care over possessions entrusted to him.”) When the school sites were established, we all thought they would be used as school buildings for our city school children. Now that our public school enrollment is lower than it once was, the district finds itself with more buildings than it currently needs. What is responsible care of these properties? If they are sold, then they can never again be used for our school children; that solution doesn’t seem to incorporate vision for the future. And if they are sold to a developer, that doesn’t seem to be at all responsible in terms of our environment. Shouldn’t we make an effort to use the buildings that we have for a useful purpose, instead of tearing them down and starting something new? I believe that the current thinking about “green” building involves making good use of what we have instead of simply destroying it or throwing it away. The board members probably never thought their job would include being good landlords or having to find suitable tenants, but it has evolved that way. Isn’t it nice that we already have some very good tenants, providing us with regular income? And why aren’t we looking for/or accepting tenants for the Kettler site, as well? It certainly seems that responsible care for that site would not allow that facility to stand vacant year after year.

The school is newer than the housing development adjoining it and is currently standing vacant. Isn’t the property usable–especially after recent the expensive upgrade, etc.? I would really like to understand what it is that Ms. McGough and/or the board finds undesirable about the site.

Thank you.

I agree that Rechsteiner had the right approach.

I am friendly with Celia Jaffe and have a lot of respect. But I strongly disagree with her idea that the board’s priority is to do what they deem best for the district even if it’s harmful to the community. I the long run, if the community’s hurt, the district is hurt too.

For example, they are concerned about the impact of declining enrollment. If we eliminate our precious few play fields, why would young families ever want to move here? It will kill the community.

I think we need to get our city councilmembers to work out a deal to take over LeBard and pay the district an amount that makes it all work for them so they can meet their other requirements without selling a second site. Rechsteiner’s right, it’s four sites for the price of one. Maybe the district can lease LeBard to the city, or carry longterm debt for the city on a mortgage.