I was puzzled by a statement in the recent article, "Parking fee at Fondy High hiked to $25."
I think the Board's action to raise the monthly parking fee from $3 to $25 was more reasonable than the original proposal to raise it to $50, but am puzzled by the quote from Mr. Lentz of the Public Works department and suspect that he was misquoted and should be entitled to have a correction published: --- �If they are looking for a means to maintain the lot, put a user fee on all the students, not just the ones that are fortunate enough to have a car to drive to school,� Lentz said. --- The very nature of a "user fee" is that it is paid by, um, USERS of the service. If Mommy and Daddy want to give their spoiled kid a car (or use of a car) to drive it to school rather than taking the school bus, driving his/her bicycle, or walking (if an appropriate distance), shouldn't that student or family be the one to pay the $25/month rather than dividing the costs among everyone--including those responsible enough not to contribute to the burden on the parking lot? Driving a car to school should be the rare exception granted only in special situations that require it, not the norm, but it doesn't sound like the school district has the courage to make that kind of rule. But if you are going to allow widespread driving of cars (or vans or worse) to school, you shouldn't pass the costs of the parking lot from the spoiled brats on to those who aren't "fortunate enough to have a car" and for whom paying a user fee for a service they don't actually use might be a real burden, especially considering the trend of schools charging families for things that never cost extra before. I'll admit that I did not grow up in the Midwest and South, where there is a perverse culture that allows kids to begin driving at age 15 and getting licences at 15 or 16. Instead, driver education in my state was offered in Grade 12, not Grade 10 as it seems to be here in Wisconsin, and the reason is obvious-- you could get a restricted licence (and this was long before the days of the idea being given the fancy name, "graduated licencing") at age 17 and a full licence at age 18 (The major restriction on those who got the early licence at 17 was that, with a couple of exceptions, you could not drive after 9pm.) The incentive to take Driver Education (other than the obvious concern for learning driver safety) was that completing the course meant you could get the coveted "blue card" that would allow you to upgrade to a full licence in the months before turning 18. I know that the concern about the parking fee is, in part, that if the school lot is too expensive, that students will park on the street. (But I don't see a similar problem in the student who was quoted as saying that he'd look into getting a parking permit at the technical college and walking from there to the high school.) But wouldn't it be so much better if the parents would actually be parents, set rules, and just tell their teenagers that they have to use the school bus or bicycle? _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
