Daigle on high school

Roger Daigle penned a letter to the editor in today's paper in which he argues against the renovation of Dracut High School. Focusing on the tax burden and the debt this will incur, Daigle's letter is well written and, for some, may be pretty convincing.

Friends of a New Dracut High School posted on Facebook that Daigle "represents a portion of voters that don't want this project to pass." They said this letter has given them "motivation" to work hard over the weekend.

Here is Daigle's letter:

First of all, I wish to congratulate the "Friends of a new Dracut High School" and the members of the School Committee for opening up the process to the people of Dracut. It's the right thing to do.

I'm not against anything that will provide a "better" educational opportunity for Dracut's children. I, as a taxpayer, disagree with how that goal is achieved. I also disagree with how my tax dollars are being used or misused.

No building is ever old if properly maintained. As one who has been footing my share of the bill for years, who has had four children go through the system, to be told that a structure like the auditorium must be torn down because it is "largely inaccessible to people with disabilities" is totally unacceptable! This, when the two side entrances nearest the stage could easily be ramped at very little cost to accommodate the disabled.

Both the auditorium and the gymnasium have been in use to everyone's satisfaction for 54 years, even with present constraints, which makes me wonder, why now?

Dracut, like the federal government, cannot keep borrowing itself into prosperity, especially now, during our worst recession in 40 years. Ten years ago, Dracut had as its long-term debt the sum of $38,931,226. As of June 30, 2010, Dracut taxpayers now owe $78,415,974. My real-estate taxes during these same 10 years went up 38.3 percent (when my retirement income stayed nearly stagnant). Over the last 20 years, it's up 91.5 percent.

We have 3,747 senior citizens who have had their Social Security COLAs cut off through 2012. Many of them, along with many unemployed, are struggling to make ends meet. You'll have to admit that it's very disconcerting to these same people to see a proposal where 60 percent of the total cost of the project could have been deferred until times got better with little educational benefits lost.

Your selling points have had no impact at all. In fact, I find them reinforcing my contentions. We'll care when you all do.

ROGER L. DAIGLE

Dracut