ShareThis Page
New buildings unneeded |
Letters to the Editor

New buildings unneeded

| Wednesday, February 22, 2017 9:00 p.m

So, let’s get all this in perspective, since the stories are a source of contention to all. The Franklin Regional school buildings have been deemed to need a lot of upcoming repairs.

The costs seem to be all over the map, even though a tidy sum was spent on an “assessment.” That is irritating enough. But what is really irritating are the almost subliminal suggestions that we need new school buildings.

I believe I even read one article that suggested we need surveys and geotechnical tests on the properties. These would only need to be done if someone was pushing for new buildings.

Our school buildings have “very good bones” and have been well taken care of, in my opinion. And they can continue to serve the purpose of teaching for decades to come. Yes, they need constant maintenance, but that is natural.

Architects and engineers certainly play a crucial role in construction. However, I have not seen one yet create an accurate estimate of construction costs. Only a qualified contractor can create accurate estimates.

To all Franklin Regional School District taxpayers, do not let the district convince you that we need new buildings. Demand that it have contractors estimate the repair cost. And all planning should consider the national trend of falling enrollments.

Michael J. Kardell


The writer is a former general contractor.

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.