The city involvement with the old Palo Christi school is not a good idea for the following reasons:
Has the City demonstrated the need for a new complex?
Has a thorough evaluation of the costs been made? When code upgrades are considered, Ii’s most likely that a new complex built from the ground up would be less expensive.
Has consideration been made for what would happen to the old buildings the City now occupies? A comment was made they could be sold for pawn shops and tattoo parlors? Who is going to pay top dollar for these old buildings?
Has anyone considered the cost of maintaining on old building (graffiti, broken windows,fire insurance) for the years it might take to make the project a reality?
How’s the City going to pay for two new interchanges AND a new City Complex?
Those who are pushing this idea are letting sentiment overrule common sense.
More like this story
- Letter | Gary Waters: Palo Christi is good for the city
- Historic committee, KUSD hosting Palo Christi open house
- City government needs space; is it affordable?
- Palo Christi Elementary School opened for the public to view its possibilities as a central city complex
- Palo Christi could be used for city offices or a boys and girls club