No new stadium for Kiski |

No new stadium for Kiski

In the Nov. 13 article “Fields still are major work in progress,” I read the Kiski Area High School practice field had been resurfaced with artificial turf. This project cost $1.2 million, $200,000 of it from a grant from the NFL.

Where did the school board get the remaining $1 million? It came from the taxpayers, no doubt.

So many Pennsylvania school districts are talking about raising property taxes, but in Kiski there’s talk of lights and bleachers at the practice field and maybe playing all football and soccer games there in the future.

How many million is this going to cost us?

Kiski Area has been playing football and other sports at Davis Field in Vandergrift since the school opened. The Davis Field property was donated to Vandergrift on the condition it be used for the town.

That hasn’t been true for some time now. One of our fire departments wanted to use the field and was told it needed the Kiski school board’s permission. The board turned down the fire department.

How can my school district spend all of this money and talk of raising property taxes to pay to do it?

There’s been talk for years about building a stadium at the high school campus in Allegheny Township. Vandergrift rents Davis Field to the school for $1 a year. Why would the district pay millions for a new stadium when it can use Davis Field for $1 a year?

Improvements at Davis Field would cost far less than what a new facility would cost the taxpayers.

Daniel T. Serena

East Vandergrift

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.