Athletics Bond 2025

What I said to the board before they voted: I have previously spoken before this board about the idea of making a significant investment in athletic facilities. For a school district that is—or was—broke just a year ago, cutting costs in areas such as librarians and other essential services, I argued that a broad group of community members should be consulted for their opinions. However, this board chose to invite only members of the athletics community. Mr. Ernest proudly stated in a past meeting that most of the individuals they invited gave high ratings to the options presented. However, this group included a significant number of people from SBMSA, who will directly benefit from this investment. Additionally, the approval of this group included two illegal votes from Trustees Bennett and Mahan, who had previously filed conflict of interest forms and should have refrained from voting on any items related to SBMSA. I am convinced that if the group had been composed of a broader representation of the community, the results would have been very different. Mr. Ernest also mentioned in the same board meeting that the community would not support purchasing additional land for the natatorium, and he is correct. However, for some reason, none of the proposed options considered utilizing locations currently leased to SBMSA for just one dollar, despite the land being valued at over $100 million. As a taxpayer, you are about to ask me to accept a significant tax increase that does not truly benefit my children's education. I would fully support a tax increase for carefully planned programs that enhance the quality of education. At this time, I would rather see this board camping in front of the Capitol or our local representatives' offices advocating for better funding than discussing stadiums.