Bond will add to other increasing costs

Let me see if I understand the school bond issue here in Whitefish. Our economy has changed dramatically, gas prices are way up, which effects anything that arrives here by motorized transportation (groceries, clothing, lumber etc.), and our housing boom has slowed considerably (which means, fewer jobs, less income and less money in our local economy).

Enrollment in our school system has declined and now we are being asked to approve a $21 million bond, which in reality could eventually be close to $30 million. We are being led to believe that a closed-campus will help save our kids from making "poor" decisions.

So does that mean when our kids are not in school that they need to be confined to their home or backyard so that they never have the opportunity to make one of those "poor" decisions?

C'mon let's be realistic here. About four years ago, we were asked to approve a $10 million bond for the high school remodel (no fancy words like "renovation" here), which by the way was rejected.

So we turned down a $10 million request, and four years later our enrollment has declined, the growth in our town has slowed, and with the average age of those moving here, we are not likely to see an increase in our student numbers, but yet in those four years we need three times as much money to fix the same school?

Now, I'm not the smartest guy around, but how in the world can that be financially responsible? Building costs have definitely gone up but not even close to that much.

And since the taxpayers are being asked to support this, are we going to use a local architect and project manager? Or are we going to use the same out-of-state firm that was involved in the over-budget Central School project?

Why would the school board not hire a local firm when they are asking those same people to approve and pay for this bond? This is absurd — period. You cannot defend that kind of decision.

Look, I'm not against a bond to fix our high school, it obviously needs attention, but let's be realistic and financially responsible. Hiring a local firm would go a long ways, not some out-of-state firm that has no vested interest (except financially) in our town. Just because they have "connections" here doesn't make them right for the job.

If this is truly about providing a better learning environment and educational opportunities for our kids, then we don't need some "Taj Mahal" type of building. Let's make sure we are focusing on "needs" not "wants."

John Kalbfleisch said it himself in his letter — "our kids are (key word) successful and achieve many things." I, too, feel I have a responsibility to our youth (key word responsibility), which means I also have to think about their future after high school.

Most of our kids will never be able to own a home and live in the town that they grew up in and love. Whitefish has gotten to be a very expensive place to live, and taxes play a big part in that.

Your right, Dr. Kalbfleisch: $10-$18 a month doesn't seem like much — roughly $200 a year. OK, what about the tax increase we received from the Central School bond? How about the continual increase in our sewer and water fees? Have you looked at what the city charges to hook up a new home to the sewer system; it is ridiculous.

So now, instead of $200 a year, add in the Central School bond increases, the increasing sewer-water rates, etc., and where are we now? $400 a year? $500? All of a sudden, it is not just two movie tickets a month.

So where does it end? Will we be asked for another $20 million for Muldown in a couple of years? What about the independent high school?

Again I am all for fixing the high school but cannot in good conscience vote for the one in front of me.

Andy Widdifield is a resident of Whitefish.