From the PPG:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08348/934982-53.stm
The district's chief financial office asks how he can justify spending money on a building that kids are not attending.
But wouldn't most people maintain insurance on for example a house that they owned, even if they were no longer occupying the house and were not sure what they would do with the house? Occupied or not, the house would be an asset worth protecting.
Community relations provide an additional justification. How can the district ask for the community's support on a whole range of initiatives, but ignore the community's interest in this property and historic landmark?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment