I have been reading the letters to the editor about the United bond issue on the ballot. From what I have read it is clear that the supporters only want you to look at the positive side of the issue (a new building). Those against the levy have pointed out their concerns for the cost and timing of the bond issue.
The way I see it, a new building is only new for a short time and then you are taking care of an aging building once again. What does that mean for the voters, probably another levy to fix the new building before we finish paying for it or to help operate the new building (like Leetonia is thinking about doing).
How about new construction, does it mean high quality and long lasting? No, not really, just look at the new schools around us. Most, if not all of the new schools have had issues that require changes or repairs at local taxpayers' expense. Also the new building construction is under rules set by the Ohio Schools Facility Commission's control until it meets their requirements. So the building could take years before it belongs to us.
Has the United building seen a lot of students over the years? Of course it has, but that hardly means the building is worn out. I for one got my education from a person and we seem to have good people, since we have one of the highest academic ratings in the county. In the end a new building will not teach a single student.