Letter to the Editor: School district should be ashamed
Friday, July 16, 2010
To the Editor:
The Shoreline School District should be ashamed of themselves for wasting public tax dollars in pursuit of eliminating the Historic Museum. Do they not understand the importance of said facility to the community, the children of today and tomorrow?
Could they not compromise and adjust their plans to accommodate this postage stamp size piece of land allowing the historic building to remain in its original location as the home of the museum?
What happened to the plan to move the building if necessary? All the promises gone awry? Was it only "lip service"? Think of all the money spent thus far only to begin again at square one. How, in good conscience can a handful of people gain such control on a subject of such importance?
I suppose I am of an "old fashioned mentality" when I feel the need to educate our children who are the key to the future, by example. What are they being taught when they see their elders breaking their word and bond at every turn? Children live by examples. If this behavior is any indication as to what the future holds, then God help us all!
Donna and Jim Read
Seattle
Posts
5 comments:
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Reed,
Many of your questions can be answered by reading the articles submitted by Evan Smith and Diane Hettrick.
You can find them here:
http://www.shorelineareanews.com/2010/07/museums-side-of-story.html
http://www.shorelineareanews.com/2010/07/evan-smith-school-district-now-plans-to.html
Thank you Donna and Jim Read!
You have made so many important points about the value of preserving history at this remarkable facility in a Historically Landmarked building.
It is also of crucial importance to our economic development in Shoreline and a "touchstone" element for our developing Town Center project.
Our City leaders need to lead on this issue and send a message to the School District that removing our Museum is not acceptable. The Ronald School must remain a part of the Town Center.
The School District should just take the money (Museum has offered to buy the existing property), redesign their plans and leave our history in tact.
I'm not sure why Mr, and Mrs. Read are upset with the school district. It was the museum that acted poorly, making a plan and then not following through.
When they ask "What happened to the plan to move the building if necessary?" the school district was ready to go along with that plan. It's the museum that did not aquire the land as they promised to do. Direct your ire towards the group that did not fulfill their part of the bargain: The Museum.
Unfortunately, Anonymous, it's the seller of the hoped for property that was in more control of the outcome of the 'Agreement in Principal', not so much the Museum. The Museum did all they had the power to do in fulfilling the agreement. The Museum was not told about the previous verbal contract between the owner and another interested buyer.
I agree with you that this agreement that I believe was whipped up by the SSD in order to get the Bond passed rather than to save the Museum, was not the best agreement that could have been made where the Museum was concerned. The Museum may have been, too nice about not holding up the Bond.
What due diligence did the musem do before signing the Agreement in Principle?
Post a Comment