Published: April 27, 2009 06:28 pm      

LETTERS: April 28, 2009

Reader comments on misdirected resources

Mr. Roger Baylor’s Opinions piece on “misdirected resources” by the New Albany-Floyd County Schools Corp. has prompted me to write. I do agree that there are misdirected resources, but not in the same way.

I attended the Resources for Results meeting at Highland Hills Middle School. It was the only one I did attend, but it was the only one in my part of the school district. I was disappointed that more parents from this part of the school district did not attend. I did submit two questions to be answered.

I also was completely ignorant of the “hill versus valley” issue until the last Resource meeting, where I actually encountered a parent questioning the need for a “country club school” like Highland Hills Middle School. Before Highland Hills was built, all those students were at Floyd Central. And there has been a population increase since Floyd Central High School was built in 1966. How did they get all those middle school students into the high school?

I can only hope that the current remodeling of Floyd Central High School, its first since it was built, will be as spectacular as the one just finished at New Albany High School. And I think the remodeling at Scribner was excellent as well. I haven’t been to Hazelwood since 1999, but I hope their time for an update is soon, if it hasn’t been yet.

All parents have concerns about their local schools. I worry that either Georgetown or Galena elementaries will be slated for closure due to their age after attending the Resource meeting. Rumors are swirling that the pool at Floyd Central High School will not be there when the remodeling is done.

I agree there are misdirected resources. According to Snapshot magazine published by The Tribune, New Albany-Floyd County School Corp. spends more money per child, pays their teachers less, has two less schools to heat, cool and light up already, has larger class sizes and pays their administration more than their comparable neighbor, Greater Clark. What?

Contact The Tribune and see if there are any issues left. Buy one. And I’ll see you at the next school board meeting.

— Elizabeth Madden, Georgetown

‘Cash for Clunkers’ could expand landfills

The “Cash for Clunkers” bill, or HR 1550, which is touted as having long-term environmental benefits, could actually do much more harm than good to the environment if the bill is passed. Proponents of the bill say that it will benefit the environment because it will take older cars off the road, replacing them with new, more fuel-efficient vehicles. However, there is an inherent problem associated with this theory. What will become of all these old cars?

The answer you don’t hear from the backers of Cash for Clunkers is that these scrapped vehicles will more than likely be sent to landfills, creating more pollution, not less.

Congress and states have considered Cash for Clunkers proposals in the past, and in many cases, have decided against them because they have come to realize that they are not a cost effective use of government money. In fact, the Cash for Clunkers amendment to the United States Senate stimulus package was withdrawn prior to its passage.

Providing incentives for motorists to have their current vehicles maintained for fuel efficiency would be a better use of federal money that would also benefit the environment. Cash for Clunkers might look good on paper, but in reality it has many unintended, irreversible consequences and should be rejected by Congress.

Interested parties can send an e-mail in opposition to the Cash for Clunkers program to the speaker of the house, the senate majority leader and their congressional representatives by visiting www.fightcashforclunkers.org and clicking on “Take Action.”

— Aaron Lowe, Vice President, Government Affairs, Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association, Bethesda, Md.