In 1995, the Upper Arlington school board asked for, and passed, a levy request to handle maintenance and renovation in the district school buildings. Yet today, with five years of debt remaining on that bond levy, the board wants to tear down four of these buildings and rebuild.

I am puzzled how this residual debt-load on top of the new debt proposal is reconciled.

I wouldn't mortgage my home for 38 years. Why does Issue 43 mortgage the taxpayers for 38 years? Is this levy request a 1995 deja vu?

It appears that compensation packages for administrators/teaching staff (predominant cost of public education) in the district reflects an approximately 6 percent annual increase. How do you square that cost growth with not only annual inflation but also with the marginal 1 percent or less increases experienced by our retired seniors?

Scratching my head once again, I would like to know how the school administration will be better stewards of these new proposed buildings than has been demonstrated in the past with existing buildings.

Simply, the school board has asked for too much, with an average added tax burden of more than $1,200 per residence, and I am not buying the "Master Plan/8,000 Touch Points" as representative of what this community wants or needs. I already pay plenty to the government landlord.

George Momirov

Upper Arlington