It is not possible to

address the points made by each letter writer. However, a

few recurrent themes merit some public discussion.

If the message sent was

that growth must be slowed, it is fair to ask the

messengers why that message is sent to those who do not

have the authority to change growth in our county.

Even without any rezoning,

growth will continue as land is developed in accordance

with its current zoning. However, to the extent it is

possible to slow growth, the anti-development message

must be sent to those who approve zoning requests, not to

the Fayette County Board of Education, which is simply

charged with educating children in the county.

Another theme of the letter

writers was to argue the efficiencies of bonds backed by

property taxes instead of sales tax. Although no one

likes any tax, property taxes can impose a substantial

burden on long-term residents in a county with high

growth rates, because property values inflate faster than

incomes. Therefore, property taxes as a share of income

tend to be higher for long-term residents than for

newcomers.

One final theme of a few

letters was to chastise the superintendent and the board

for "threats" of trailers, increased class

size, split sessions, year-round school, or

redistricting.

Given the defeat of SPLOST

and the projected growth, the school system will have to

accommodate as many as a thousand more students each year

without building additional schools in the near future.

I can only think of a few

ways to accomplish this: 1) Add temporary space

(trailers); 2) Spread the use of existing space over more

time (split sessions or year-round school); 3) Ensure

that students are distributed optimally over all existing

schools (redistricting); or 4) Add more students to each

classroom.

It seems to me that the

message sent by the SPLOST vote is that the board should

implement some or all of these solutions in order to

avoid taxing the citizens of Fayette County. Therefore, I

can't understand why such proposals should be considered

threats. If these changes occur, they will indicate that

the BOE heard the message of the citizens, who rejected

additional spending on facilities at this time.

We can and should continue

a civil public debate about the fairness and efficiencies

of each type of tax, the desire to impose impact fees

(which would require a change in state law), or the level

of services appropriate for public education. However, in

the short run, the defeat of SPLOST means that changes

such as those outlined above will be necessary.

Hopefully, those

complaining loudest about such changes won't be the same

individuals responsible for the defeat of SPLOST.

Pat Ketsche

Peachtree City

<!-------------