Suspicious about school bonds

In its April 27 editorial endors

ng the Oak Park school bond measures B6 and C6, The Acorn said many of the school buildings here "are more than 20 years old and clearly show their age." A flier from

he bond issue's backers declares

hat B6 and C6 "will repair and renovate Oak Park's aging school facili

ies" by installing new roofs, fixing cracked foundations and replacing worn-out plumbing.

All of which raises a question:

f these schools really are in such disrepair, why are they in such bad shape so soon? Properly maintained, a building 20, 30 or 40 years of age should not be falling apart. But Oak Park voters are being told that their schools, ranging in age from 13 to 39, need serious, expensive work.

The school district's list of top priority projects, which presumably would have first claim on the $106.5 million raised by B6 and C6, includes roof replacement for Red Oak Elementary (built in 1993), Medea Creek Middle School (built n 1992) and Oak Hills Elementary

built in 1988).

Rather than voting for the bonds, Oak Park residents should be demanding to know why roofs

ess than 20 years old already need

o be replaced at a total cost of $2.6 million. Was the original work that shoddy? Has the district skimped on maintenance?

It may be true that the rundown state of the schools is being wildly exaggerated to make a case for the bonds. But if that's true, we should be skeptical of any claim the district makes about its supposedly urgent needs.

Another reason to be skeptical toward the district is that it hasn't come to terms with demographics. Oak Park is aging, its homes are priced beyond the range of most young, large families and its school population is destined to fall as a result.

In a few years, try as it might to fight the trend, the district will have fewer students and less need for all its buildings, or even all its campuses.

I urge Oak Park residents to vote no on B6 and C6 on June 6. Tom Gray Oak Park