Costs for ‘old’ Booth vs. ‘new’ Booth keep rising


I just read your article featuring Brad Williams and the growing concern/controversy regarding a “new” Booth or upgrading/repairing existing Booth.

From all I have read on this subject over the last few months, the cost to refurbish Booth was $28 million. The cost for a “new” Booth was $40 million. In your article, Brad/you are now talking about a $40 million refurbishment and a $46 million replacement.

It seems to me that the numbers keep creeping up like interest from a loan shark. How does $28 million get to $40 million for refurbishing the existing school when that was the precise figure to build the “new” Booth on Carriage Lane?

To me this rings a familiar tune, “Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure.” I have grandkids in these schools. My kids went to Booth, Huddleston, and McIntosh. They got an excellent education. But I think the FCBOE has gotten greedy with our country’s new-found wealth after two very lean Obama terms. And they want their piece of the pie.

FCBOE cannot be allowed to railroad this “new” Booth through. With these huge discrepancies between the original purpose for these funds, and the current spending ideas – which the voters did not approve – FCBOE will never again see one thin dime in ESPLOST money.

Richard Cox

Tyrone, Ga.


  1. I see all of this coming down to a mean-spirited contest of wills between the various government parties.
    Worst case:
    BOE builds the new Booth school; PTC declines to upgrade the streets; traffic becomes unmanageable.
    It all ends up in Court where, irrespective of the outcome, we taxpayers are saddled with the bill.


    • Yea it is sad, but 2 things to consider:
      1. Last time we let something get to court (redistricting, I think) the semi-liberal judge forced something on us we did not want. Dave, since you are from Tyrone you may remember another federal lawsuit that forced some unwanted zoning upon you all. The message is – don’t let it get to state or federal court, they will force us to build or improve the roads – and pay for it. Remember they have the “Its for the children” argument going for them.
      2. My former good buddy on city council could be thinking of bringing up a real estate proposal (in executive session, of course) where PTC deeds the city streets involved to the school system, then they can spend all they want improving roads on their own land. Might be a sale, might be a gift, but it sure sounds sneaky to me. And they might be doing it soon. If word gets out and it becomes an election issue for the city council seats – Oh boy!

      As I said before, when you don’t plan ahead you are usually left with only bad choices and that’s we have now. Of course renovating existing Booth with a glorious new building on the football field is starting to make more and more sense.

      • The BOE cannot do streets by state law.

        There is already caselaw on these issues. BOE cannot the streets and the city cannot be forced to do them.

        In the caselaw the BOE went ahead and did the construction. But the court gave no relief so they were stuck with a basically useless school.

    • Verbs can be tricky. You must be using one of those voice to text things and using it poorly. 5 mistakes in 3 sentences is a pretty high failure rate. Let’s ignore capitalization fails and focus on the verbs.

      BOE cannot “pay” – you surely mean pave. Peachtree city (should be a capital C) “since no” – should be says no.

      You did get through sentence #3 error free, although the syntax is questionable. Nevertheless, I agree that Council is likely to waver, especially if facing an expensive lawsuit.