The Press-Republican noted in an editorial recently that voters are not in the mood to approve construction projects of any kind — especially those for which a desperate need has not been certified. That continues to be true, and officials at both Northern Adirondack and Saranac schools must be whittling away at their fingernails with that fact in the backs of their minds. They have each proposed building projects that have drawn substantial public criticism in Letters to the Editor, Speakouts and comments on our online stories.
The administrators of both schools — and any other institution proposing or about to propose a project — are painfully aware of this. They know voters don't want to spend any more money than absolutely has to be spent, and who can blame them? Many voters have lost jobs, or had hours trimmed, or have taken a pay cut. Taxpayers have less disposable income now than they're used to having.
Without seeking to encourage or discourage anyone from voting for the proposed projects, however, we want to make this one observation that seems applicable to the situation: Government aid, which is substantial right now, might not be available for long. If you don't get the state help now, you may not be offered it again for years.
Several readers of stories on school projects have offered this comment: The state is practically broke and shouldn't be committing the large sums of money to help fund our proposed construction or repair.
The question is, if the money is not spent on the local project, will it be saved?
Of course not. It will go to another district with a less-deserving project. It will not be put back into the general fund to reduce the need for new revenue.
Districts all over the state apply for grants to fund what they believe are necessary additions or repairs to school buildings. The state ranks them according to need and dispenses the money accordingly.
If a district decides not to accept the money and go through with the project, the sum committed to it simply is handed off to the next district on the priority list.
Some voters argue that the district shouldn't accept the money just because it's available. That's what's wrong with government, they maintain. That's one reason spending has gotten out of control. The just thing to do is to refuse the aid unless you simply can't get along without it.
That may be the honorable answer, but it isn't strikingly practical. Refusing state largesse doesn't save anybody any money. It only transfers it.
The only way true saving could be accomplished would be for every district in the state to collectively agree not to accept any money whatsoever. That will not happen.
So our advice is to learn everything you can about your district's proposal. Satisfy yourself that either it's necessary or it isn't and either you can afford your share or you can't.
But don't delude yourself into thinking you're saving the state any money either way.
Opinion
February 3, 2010
EDITORIAL: State money will be spent
- Editorial
-
-
Editorial: No raise for state legislators
This is not the year for state lawmakers to look for a raise.
- Editorial: A pair of aces among the Cards
- Editorial: Nurses, aides: a breed apart
-
Editorial: No raise for state legislators
- Cheers and Jeers
-
-
Cheers and Jeers: Feb. 13, 2012
CHEERS to Peru High School teacher Kathleen Roach and Cardinal Points.
-
Cheers and Jeers: Feb. 13, 2012
- Letters to the Editor
- Speakout
- In My Opinion
-
-
In My Opinion: E'town water, sewer essential
Elizabethtown has a history of economic ups and downs, Town Supervisor Margaret Bartley writes.
-
In My Opinion: E'town water, sewer essential
