March 26, 2001
Let's not exaggerate the facts
I can live with the notion that some people are going to be against athletic fields at Cedarcrest High School, but in their zest to justify their positions, let's not exaggerate the facts. The scope of these facilities is going to include the following:
1. An all-weather football/soccer field.
2. An all-weather track surface around the field.
3. Aluminum bleachers to seat a minimum of both home and visitors.
4. Restroom and concession building.
5. Lighting for night play.
6. Additional (gravel) parking with lighting.
7. Scoreboard and equipment needed to host track meets, etc.
Is this a "state-of-the-art" stadium? I think not. One exaggeration.
I have been attending school board meetings for the past two years, and I have never heard the board as a whole, or an individual board member ever discuss the fact that other school districts have "stadiums" that were obtained without the need to go to taxpayers for the money.
There was a discussion about one district, somewhere north of here, that people did get together and install a grass field, but that constitutes a "stadium."
Another exaggeration. I do feel, however, that once the initial scope of these facilities has been funded, other parts, such as baseball facilities, can be accomplished by grants, gifts, local participation, etc.
The last point I would like to address is this notion that CHS is in KingCo League to some how make money, or that other schools consider us to be an easy win, and because of this the morale at CHS is bad.
Is this point brought up because of the great concern for the student athletes and their coaches, or is this just another exaggeration of the facts to justify a position against athletic facilities for CHS?
Greg Jackson, Duvall