I am a D 49 parent, and I was very disappointed at your coverage last month of the “pro” and “con” arguments for the Falcon Overcrowding Measure, 3A, the mill levy override ballot question. First, the “pro” statement was “compiled” without participation by the pro-mill levy group, Commitment for Kids, whereas the “con” statement was signed by the anti-mill levy group. For those reading these statements for the first time, a balanced approach would have been more of a public service.Second, the “con” piece contained blatantly false statements that don’t warrant presentation as factual material. The mill-levy will NOT result in a 25 percent tax increase. Where is the factual basis for this statement? If the pro-mill levy group had been contacted they could have at least provided a true counter-point: Falcon’s mill levy is at its lowest rate in at least 15 years. In fact, even with this increase, next year’s levy will be lower than it averaged throughout the 1990s.Also, in case your readers didn’t notice, the “con” statement focused primarily on last year’s numbers, using the same false and misleading assertions used in their fliers last year. Thankfully, Ms. Littlejohn saw fit to include this year’s actual numbers; however, if given the opportunity, exactly how the schools will be funded could have been included to counter the totally false and preposterous arguments that there is some sort of “secret debt” to be incurred without voter approval or that it is somehow “risky” and subject to “land[ing] in court.”Again, if given the chance, it could have been pointed out that there is a limit on how long the ballot language can be, which prohibits the listing of all priorities, student capacities, completion dates, etc. However, answers to these questions can be asked at any time by contacting the D 49 administration, and their website, www.d49.org, contains many facts about the measure.The Overcrowding Relief Measure has never been touted as the end-all be-all solution to our growing community’s need for schools. It WILL, however, greatly relieve CURRENT overcrowding, something that a bond could not have possibly addressed adequately and something that voting “no” certainly will not address. Yes, there will be other needs in the future. Other solutions are already being implemented to address those needs, such as the administration’s recent groundbreaking agreement with the developers to contribute $20 million in impact fees towards school construction.There are other false statements in the “con” statement, but your paper should have at least given the “pro” mill-levy group equal time. I encourage your readers to visit http://www.commitment4kids.com/question.asp for more answers.Thank you.Kelly Jo Salling-DaviesPeytonEditor’s note: Alicia Littlejohn last month attempted to contact the person in charge of the PRO-mill levy campaign but he did not return her call. After we published, she found out that he had a death in the family. She also called Paul Bryant, president of the school board, but he was in Europe on vacation and did not return the call for obvious reasons. There was no message on answering machines indicating anyone was out of town. Alicia also called board member Dave Martin. He did not return her call. We published with the information available to us on the pro side of the mill levy: a conversation with D 49 Superintendent Steven Hull.
