TIGER has some reasonable bond alternatives post-Nov. 7

I got my mailing from TIGER, the citizens’ group in opposition to the Lancaster School District bond, in the mail today.

I’ve actually been working ahead on a possible editorial incorporating at least some of the same ideas, for the Nov. 16 issue of Lancaster Today, should the district’s request fail at the polls Nov. 7.

I agree with much of what the group’s mailing says, with a caveat or two.

The main caveat is that we won’t need a second high school for 10 years. We can do that and still be smaller than Cedar Hill or DeSoto high schools will be by then; in fact, 10 years from now, we won’t be a lot larger than DeSoto High School is today. The fears mentioned by the district of us having a monstrous Duncanville-sized high school are just that: fears.

Behind that caveat of mine is that a high school is a focal point for a community. And I don’t want that focus divided. Even more than that, I don’t want that focus divided without community input that’s been lacking so far.

Second caveat: The TIGER mailing left out the technology, maintenance and vehicular fleet issues.

I have no problem including them ― as long as they’re in one or more separate bond propositions. I’m especially thinking of the technology items. On the maintenance issue, just setting up a pay-as-you-go isn’t enough. The backlog is big enough we need some cash investment for catch-up work now. But, at the same time, the district should start budgeting maintenance needs; by doing so now, we could at least lessen the amount of bond money needed in this area.

So, pending what happens Nov. 7, stay tuned.

I wish now that I had written something like this after the failed May bond election, rather than writing a more indirect editorial, trusting that Superintendent Larry Lewis would get ― or would choose to get ― the message it contained.