I live in the Hockinson School District. I voted "no" on the issue of replacing grass with turf.
One of the problems the Superintendent, Sandra Yeager, has is the idea that we "have to do something" and that what was offered is the only solution.
It isn't, of course. And yes, I've got a few options.
First, why we objected to this expenditure is irrelevant in the real sense.
If we rejected it because we don't like turf (Though I played football on a rug for a few years... I could take it or leave it as a player) or if we rejected it because we think it's a waste of money... what, exactly, can be done about either?
Nothing.
As a brief aside, the University of Washington wasted another quarter billion dollars on yet another stadium renovation... and, as a season ticket holder and former tackling dummy for the Purple and Gold, I feel somewhat qualified to say that the money was wasted.
Just down the street from Husky Stadium is a cutting edge facility where, oddly enough, they do exactly and precisely the same thing: play football.
I'm referring to CenturyLink, aka The Clink, the home of the Seattle Seahawks.
During the course of the renovation, the Dawgs played at the Clink... so it' not like they haven't done it before.
It also begs the issue: Why didn't the Dawgs simply move to The Clink permanently?
Why did they have to rebuild a stadium from a perfectly serviceable building to the "latest thing?"
Besides ego, I mean?
Imagine how much money the Huskies could have saved for other, more academic pursuits if they had only made The Clink their home field on a PERMANENT basis?
That brings us to Hockinson.
There are 3 local fields that could serve the Hawks at considerably less money.
The Battle Ground School District has a field where both the Tigers and the Falcons play. How hard would it be to add the Hawks? The Evergreen School District has McKenzie Field, Vancouver has the Kiggins Bowl.
Instead of wasting the money to try and "fix" a problem that, let's face it, isn't REALLY a problem (A lot of football is played in the mud in other locations.) look at other alternatives outside the district.
It simply doesn't rise to the level of adding yet another tax... on top of all the dozens of taxes we're already paying,.. when so many other alternatives are right here.
I am much more concerned about Hockinson's lack of academic outcomes than I am their football uniforms getting dirty.
Think outside the box. Think outside the district. Understand that a turf field is a "want" to have... Not a "have to have."
And I'm sure that the shock of this effort failing... a first in the 12 years I've lived in this district... has yet to have worn off in the Administration.
But I am not going to support expending more money on fluff. And essentially, that's what this was...and the primary reason it lost.
One of the problems the Superintendent, Sandra Yeager, has is the idea that we "have to do something" and that what was offered is the only solution.
It isn't, of course. And yes, I've got a few options.
First, why we objected to this expenditure is irrelevant in the real sense.
If we rejected it because we don't like turf (Though I played football on a rug for a few years... I could take it or leave it as a player) or if we rejected it because we think it's a waste of money... what, exactly, can be done about either?
Nothing.
As a brief aside, the University of Washington wasted another quarter billion dollars on yet another stadium renovation... and, as a season ticket holder and former tackling dummy for the Purple and Gold, I feel somewhat qualified to say that the money was wasted.
Just down the street from Husky Stadium is a cutting edge facility where, oddly enough, they do exactly and precisely the same thing: play football.
I'm referring to CenturyLink, aka The Clink, the home of the Seattle Seahawks.
During the course of the renovation, the Dawgs played at the Clink... so it' not like they haven't done it before.
It also begs the issue: Why didn't the Dawgs simply move to The Clink permanently?
Why did they have to rebuild a stadium from a perfectly serviceable building to the "latest thing?"
Besides ego, I mean?
Imagine how much money the Huskies could have saved for other, more academic pursuits if they had only made The Clink their home field on a PERMANENT basis?
That brings us to Hockinson.
There are 3 local fields that could serve the Hawks at considerably less money.
The Battle Ground School District has a field where both the Tigers and the Falcons play. How hard would it be to add the Hawks? The Evergreen School District has McKenzie Field, Vancouver has the Kiggins Bowl.
Instead of wasting the money to try and "fix" a problem that, let's face it, isn't REALLY a problem (A lot of football is played in the mud in other locations.) look at other alternatives outside the district.
It simply doesn't rise to the level of adding yet another tax... on top of all the dozens of taxes we're already paying,.. when so many other alternatives are right here.
I am much more concerned about Hockinson's lack of academic outcomes than I am their football uniforms getting dirty.
Think outside the box. Think outside the district. Understand that a turf field is a "want" to have... Not a "have to have."
And I'm sure that the shock of this effort failing... a first in the 12 years I've lived in this district... has yet to have worn off in the Administration.
But I am not going to support expending more money on fluff. And essentially, that's what this was...and the primary reason it lost.
No comments:
Post a Comment