News-Record.com

test

Doug,

I've read your column, and I have to say you are right. It seems that the school board can't get along with any of its sister city or county government leaders, much less trust each other. It seems that the schools are all about what is theirs is theirs. It may be true that the stadium is an asset of the schools, but the truth is that the asset doesn't belong to the schools, it belongs to the citizens of this county. All of these governmental leaders should be considering what is best for the people, not their own narrow interests. But, as we have found, the most important thing to these people is MONEY. they are all addicted to it. They can't get enough.

As far as the stadium itself, the truth is that it is an aging facility that hasn't been maintained by the school district, as evidence by the fact that it is in need of $2 million of improvements. In fact, rather than an asset, it has become a liability to the schools. They need to spend money to improve and maintain it, and they surely have to pay for insurance on it. And, the only value it has to the schools is to host football games for two city high schools. A big price to pay for a facility to be used maybe a dozen times or two per year.

My thought is that it would be in the best interest of county taxpayers for the schools to cede rights to the stadium to the city of High Point with an express, written agreement that they upgrade and maintain it as promised. Further, they give the two high schools priority rights to the use of the stadium. All other times, the city can use it as they choose, as this would actually improve the utilization of the facility. The fact that this stadium is not adjacent to a public school suggests that it should be a city or county property, not a school property. If it was adjacent to a public school, such as the case at Southwest, it makes sense for the schools to retain ownership and be responsible for maintenance. Let's face it, stadiums are not profit centers, they are cost centers, and as such, do not further public education in this county.

I agree, Doug and Stormy.

The problem is that we keep electing short-sighted people to all of these bodies; folks who can't see beyond their own narrow interests.

For example, Simeon Stadium does not "belong" to the school board. It belongs to the taxpayers! If transferring ownership to the city is in the best interests of the community, then that's what the school board should do. Nothing good ever happens from this type of in-fighting.

Thanks. I agree we need to do away with what Greensboro City Councilman Mike Barber calls territorialism. Let's manage all our public assets in ways that give best value to the public rather than argue over who owns what.

Commissioners Chairman Paul Gibson has acknowledged that, during public hearings on the county's strategic planning process, he heard people speak out about the services they expect from "government" - not necessarily city government, county government, schools or state government. Services have to be provided seamlessly, efficiently, effectively. We can't afford anything else.

If the city can put $5 million in Simeon Stadium, and makes the binding promises suggested by Stormy, the school board should help make that happen.

I don't see why the city can be allowed to run this facility. But if the city and GCS can't come together on something as simple as this, then neither party should be allowed to run the facility. In my opinion, give Simeon to the county if neither party can come to an agreement on this.

It is a reasonable assumption to make that one reason that GCS doesn't want to cede control of the stadium to the city is that they wouldn't have the $2 million in the school bond for improvements. Some might say that this would be a positive as it would reduce the need in the bond. But, consider the possibility that the school board thinks that they will get the bond passed, and then they will have another $2 million to use as they please, ditching the promised stadium improvements. Oh, you say that they wouldn't do that?

Well, we know that they haven't spent any money on the stadium in the past to maintain it, or the stadium wouldn't be in the bad condition it now is. And, we have seen in the past that this board often finds other needs for money than that for which it was intended. How do we know if they keep the stadium and pass the bond that they will really do anything to improve the stadium? It seems to be that the city has much greater motivation to do the improvements on the stadium, so that it can be more productively used.

If the school board insists in keeping ownership and control of the stadium, then why doesn't the school board use the $1+ million that it will receive from High Point to apply against stadium improvements? This could serve to mend the fences between the two entities and address the stadium improvement needs. Remember, the red light money was found money for the schools anyway. Short of this, what worthy cause will be the recipient of this money? As usual, it'll likely disappear into the black hole of GCS, never to be heard from again.

Stormy,

The first time Grier proposed the "twilight school", the board rejected it. There was NO money budgeted for it.

Grier comes back with the proposal and now the board approves it.

Where will the money come from?

There's always "found" money lying around for Grier's pet projects, yet taxpayer approved projects don't make it to realization.

Creative Accounting 101 - I'm sure Grier aced that class.

I have to agree with Stormy that $2 million in the school bonds for Simeon Stadium easily could be swallowed up for more urgent needs, like classrooms. And most county voters wouldn't care, anyway. They have no interest in Simeon Stadium. If High Point took responsibility for it, I believe it would be a priority.

Have you guys ever been to Simeon Stadium? There is also a lot of land there too. I go there regularly. Why would the school board give it away? I would not give land away if I owned it. WHo would?

The public owns it.