Editor, the Advocate:
I respectfully disagree with the Advocate Editorial Board’s conclusion (Sunday, Sept. 19) that, without the Stroman mold remediation report, the community “can’t even begin to get started” determining whether to rebuild or “patch up” that campus.
Working from a then already two-year-old study that concluded the district was spending too much on “patching up” worn out facilities, VISD asked the community in 2017 to rebuild four campuses, Stroman being at the top of the list. In May of this year, the district again informed the community that continued use of Stroman was untenable and that it needed to be replaced. As was their prerogative, the voters demurred on both occasions.
Most recently, before air quality testing condemned its use for classes this fall, the district – with extensive citizen input – again confronted the stark reality that Stroman has reached the end of its useful life and identified new options for its replacement. It was only then, on the eve of the vote to call the current election, that the mold issue arose.
We all want to know what the remediation report reveals, but to expect it will shed any useful light on the question of whether the poorly-designed, obsolete, and worn-out Stroman facility needs to be replaced is folly. The facts are (1) it makes no financial sense to continue to spend the outrageous sums required to make Stroman do what it’s no longer physically capable of doing, and (2) the district has been telling us this for years. The remediation report will only tell us how much more “patching up” will be required, and that will not change the underlying fact that the cost of this asset’s replacement is less than the cost of its continued use.
Lee Keeling, Victoria