I thank Wednesday Journal for Bob Skolnik’s excellent coverage of OPRF High School’s Project 2. His reporting is refreshingly balanced. He does more than report what people say. He checks things out. This kind of reporting is much needed, and I hope he continues to cover the high school.
I also want to thank WJ for last week’s op-ed [OPRF and a referendum, Our Views, Viewpoints, Jan. 25] supporting a referendum on at least part of Project 2’s $105 million cost and a genuine evaluation of the project through an equity lens.
The op-ed says a positive referendum vote on Project 2 is possible. That may be. But a positive vote is probable if the high school re-imagines Project 2 with a pool of standard high school competition size.
Many Project 2 supporters would have you think its opponents don’t want the high school to have a new pool. This is simply not the case. We recognize that a new pool is needed. What we oppose is the size of the ginormous proposed pool.
As the op-ed acknowledges, we Project 2 opponents have our points to make. These will be elaborated in future letters. For now, it’s enough to say we oppose the ginormous proposed pool because we believe it will be:
• Unnecessarily large, and therefore
• Unnecessarily expensive
• Inequitable
• Undemocratically financed, unless the full amount comes from referendum bonds or from the still-enormous and infamous D200 cash reserve.
Judith Alexander
Oak Park
