Ms. Reith’s response disputing the facts in my letter opposing Proposition 1 is misinformed and misleading.

Ms. Reith’s wrong that all the promised projects using money from the 1998 and 2006 bonds were completed. The bonds were approved for modernization. State law limits modernization to remodeling. Only two were modernized as promised. The other 20 were replaced. Ms. Reith’s wrong that district studies showed replacement costs are the same or less than renovation. I’ve reviewed cost/benefit analysis’ in those studies. As just one example, costs of over $22 million were included for additions, site development, site utilities, off site work and other non-remodeling work in the estimated costs to modernize Rose Hill Middle School. The district claimed that modernization would cost millions more than replacement. Their estimate showed that remodeling would cost millions less.

Ms. Reith’s wrong that the replacement projects were “locked in” when the enrollment surge was predicted. Dr. Kimball, previous superintendent, publicly stated that money planned for rebuilding could be redirected to accommodate growth.

The district has already converted space in Juanita HS to make more classroom space available. The rebuilt schools have much more space per student than the buildings destroyed. I don’t know how Ms. Reith can claim that there’s no underutilized space available.

Ms. Reith doesn’t deny that Proposition 1 leaves thousands of kids and their teachers in overcrowded schools and substandard buildings for years more than needed. That it provides virtually no money to enlarge our many overcrowded schools. None to renovate our many substandard buildings. That more money would be spent to replace Juanita HS and 2 Elementary Schools than needed to add space for 2,000 new students.

Proposition 1 is wasteful and inadequate in providing for growth. It should be rejected and replaced with one that is in the better interests of our kids and teachers.

Paul Hall, Kirkland